from M. Smith, wife of Constable Smith (inmate of Valkenburg Asylum).

moved that the House do now resolve itself into committee, that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.

Agreed to.

moved that this committee recommends: (1) The award to J. M. Tsamse, formerly interpreter, Ngqeleni, of a pension of £35 13s. 7d. per annum, to take effect from the 1st January, 1910; (2) that the petition of W. G. Townsend be referred to the Government for consideration.

Agreed to.

reported the resolutions to the House.

moved as an unopposed motion that the resolutions be now considered.

seconded.

said he noticed that in paragraph 12 the committee stated in regard to certain petitions that they had not been supplied by the various Government Departments with the necessary reports on the subject matter of these petitions, and in consequence were unable to report thereon. He should like to know whether it would be possible to bring these petitions before the House next session.

replied that the proper course would be for the petitioners to petition again, or do what had been done previously in many cases, ie., a member could move that a petition be laid on the table and referred to the Select Committee.

The motion was agreed to.

The resolutions were adopted.

moved that this House approves of the regulations made by the Governor-General under paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) of section 45 of the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912. He said there were certain regulations referring to the Water Courts made under section 45 of the Irrigation Act, 1912, which required to be laid on the table and approved by the House before they became of force. It would be seen that for the greater part the regulations which had been followed were already in force in the Cape Colony, and where they varied in regard to the new clauses of the Act they were of a temporary nature, and could be amended on further experience.

seconded the motion.

Agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Unauthorised Expenditure (1910-’11) Bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved that the House do now go into committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

reported the Bill without amendment.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, moved that the House go into committee on the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation (1911-12) Bill.

thought the title of the Bill should be altered. It was brought in as an Additional Appropriation Bill for the year that was past. The Public Accounts Committee had considered the matter and had recommended that such Bills should be brought in as unauthorised expenditure. He moved that the title of the Bill be altered so as to make it clear that it was a Bill for the purpose of meeting certain unauthorised expenditure.

said he did not know that that could be done; it would be a new Bill altogether. That was not the proper stage to raise the question.

Which is the proper stage?

said it should be amended in committee and then get the leave of the committee to report to the House. The House would then deal with the report of the committee. In further reply to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, the Speaker said he did not think the House could adopt that course, because it would be a new Bill altogether.

said the hon. member would see that this Bill was an Additional Appropriation Bill. The course adopted was simply owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary business. (Opposition laughter.) The Bill was introduced in the old financial year.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Unauthorised expenditure Bills generally came down from the Public Accounts Committee after having been carefully considered. That had not been done. It was introduced in ample time, but it was hustled through the Public Accounts Committee and it was sent down in order that it might be passed in time to go through. But it was not passed. It might be important to get it through because it was one of the Bills that legalised one of the Treasurer’s raids upon the railway fund. A great error had been made, and therefore it was necessary to bring the accounts into harmony. He hoped the House would not condone such a course again; they would get into all kinds of irregularities with their finances. There was no earthly reason why the Bill should not have been passed before March 31, as required.

congratulated the Minister on the way the two Bills had been piloted through the second stage. When the Bills came to the Select Committee they were told it was most urgent they should be passed through. There was no question of exigencies of public business; the reason the Bill was not passed earlier was because the Minister did not wish the House to discuss the irregularities that had occurred.

said he would not like the hon. member to congratulate the Minister of Railways for being so successful in piloting the Bill through. He wanted to congratulate the right hon. Minister for Victoria West—

I am not a Minister.

You were very nearly one the other day. The hon. member had at last realised the necessity for censuring the Government for their unconstitutional procedure. The right hon. gentleman had never assisted in any way in any of the criticisms.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the clauses of the Bill stand over until after the schedule had been disposed of.

Agreed to.

On clause 2,

moved to omit the proviso in clause 2, which gave the Minister power to utilise savings under any one head of expenditure for other purposes.

said he made no attack on the Treasurer; he simply pointed out that it was necessary to get the Bill through because of the raid made by the Treasurer upon the railway fund.

The amendment was negatived.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly read a third time.

moved that the clauses of the Bill stand over until after the schedules have been disposed of.

Agreed to.

said he was in a difficulty, as he found the same amounts voted in two different Bills.

explained that this Bill voted the money already spent.

On the first schedule.

moved as an amendment to the new first schedule proposed by the Select Committee, in the third column, to omit “£904,308” and to substitute “£976,308,” and to omit the total figure “£1,258,919” and to substitute “£1,330,919.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The amended Select Committee amendment was agreed to.

On the second schedule,

moved as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, to omit “£927,040” and to substitute “£999,404,” and to omit the total figure of “£1,258,919” and to substitute “£1,330,919.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The amended Select Committee’s amendment was agreed to.

On clause 1,

moved as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, in line 10, to omit “two” before “hundred,” and to substitute “three”; and in the same line, after “hundred and” to omit “fifty-eight,” and to substitute “thirty”.

The amendment was agreed to.

The amended Select Committee’s amendment was agreed to.

On clause 2,

suggested that the proviso be deleted. He hoped there would be no necessity for a Bill of this kind to come up again. In his opinion it was quite wrong in principle, and he hoped the great pundits of the House would agree that it was wrong.

said he quite believed the last speaker, because he thought this should be an Unauthorised Expenditure Bill, but there were special circumstances which led to these irregularities.

It is most interesting to see that the whole business of the Government has to be carried on by members on this side of the House. (Laughter.)

said the details of this Bill were submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. Naturally the members of the House would desire an explanation of them.

On the title,

moved as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee to “£1,258,919” and to substitute “£1,330,919.”

Agreed to.

The amended Select Committee’s amendment was agreed to:

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

seconded Agreed to,

said he wanted to take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether he intended to bring before the House the reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. These reports dealt with matters of vital importance to the Union. The report had been before them for some days, but it had been dropping down the paper, and there was a strong chance that they would not be considered during the present session. If they were not considered, it would inflict a great wrong upon this Union, because they were of the highest importance with regard to finance.

said that if there were an opportunity he would do his best to give the House a chance of discussing these reports during the present session.

On Sunday afternoon?

said he quite agreed with his right hon. friend as regarded the importance of these reports, but if the House could not take them this session he would bear the arguments in mind, and they would certainly be discussed next session.

said they had spent many weary days in that Select Committee on Public Accounts, and some of the members of that committee worked harder than on any other committee. The report of that committee touched upon matters which infinitely affected the credit of the country, and he rather objected to the airy way in which the Minister referred to the matter. It was not right to treat these reports in an airy manner. It was a question of business, and it would be as well if the Minister had the House behind him before launching out into matters of this kind, and it was highly unsatisfactory that he should tell the House in an airy sort of way that if he could find time there would be an opportunity of discussing these reports.

Why not discuss the reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts before the next vote is taken?

The amendments were agreed to.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

said that the Bill was still in the hands of the printers, and would not reach the House until noon.

moved that the Order stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

asked if the Government were really serious about carrying through this Bill.

said that Government was anxious to have the measure passed.

resumed the debate, and said in a sense he agreed with the position which had been taken up by the hon. member for Ladybrand, for he did not agree with bringing in people who would complicate the problems which they had to deal with in blems with which they had to deal with in this country. Continuing, he said that the Imperial Government had shattered his ideals of the British Emipre by agreeing to Article VIII. of the Vereeniging Peace Agreement, but he did not believe in subterfuge and chicanery instead of open prohibition. But the Imperial Government wanted it this way, and as, to his astonishment, the leaders of the Indian community had approved of it, he would yield to the desire of the Indians in regard to this subject. But if they wanted him to agree to a Bill with such a provision as that in clause 4 (a), then he must say that he could not do so. He objected to the Bill owing to the tremendous powers that were placed in the hands of the Government—the Minister and the Immigration Officer. Although the Minister had said that it was levelled against a particular section of the community, he would point out that owing to the large powers given, it could be levelled against anybody coming to the country. Under certain circumstances, the power might be used to keep out the people of a certain nationality, though they were not Asiatics.

With regard to the Asiatics now in the country, he entirely disagreed with the position taken up by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt). They allowed these people to come into the country, and they were bound to treat them with fairness and justice. He objected to this Bill because it did not treat Asiatics who were now in the country with that justice and fairness that they were entitled to receive. The people of this country were responsible for the presence of Asiatics here. For instance, he took the case of the Malays; they were introduced by the Dutch. They were a very valuable portion of the community. Then there was the case of indentured coolies, who had been introduced into Natal for the sake of the sugar and tea planters. They were introduced without proper safeguards as to their repatriation. The people of this country must accept what they had done in the past, If there was any value in having a united nation then they should accept the mistakes made by the different Provinces in the past. That was not the idea of the Minister, or of the hon. member for Ladybrand, who wanted to confine Asiatics to the places where they now were, and to put difficulties in their way. They allowed them to come into the country, and he thought they should allow them freedom of travel and equal rights all over the country. Natal had tried to remedy the evil by doing a further injustice to the Asiatics by imposing a heavy tax upon all who did not go back to India. That was an injustice. They had been allowed to come into this country on certain terms, and they were bound, as they were British subjects, to see that the rights which they at present possessed were not taken away. This Bill, to his mind, seemed to take away these rights.

What about the traders?

said that he went up to the Transvaal a little before the Witwatersrand was discovered, and he found in Pretoria as many Asiatics then as there were to-day, and the reason for that was that the farmers in the Transvaal wanted these Asiatics, because they could buy goods much cheaper from them than they could from the European merchants. The farmers of the Transvaal were willing that these Asiatic traders should be there. They allowed them to come in, and they had allowed them to establish themselves, and this Parliament had to take that into account. The people of this country were responsible for allowing the Asiatics to come and settle here. The Free State exercised its undoubted right to keep them out, and he thought they had done right, but the whole of South Africa did not think so. He had much sympathy with the position the Free State took up, but he would say to hon. members from that Province, “You are part and parcel of the Union, and is, it right that you should insist upon keeping up your laws in this respect whilst the other Provinces have had to give up a good deal in order to bring about Union?” For instance, on the native question, he himself had had to give up a good deal of his deep-seated convictions in order to help Union, and he would appeal to hon. members in the Free State to recognise that they must be willing to give up something for the sake of Union.

called Mr. Speaker’s attention to the fact that there was not a quorum present.

The division bell was rung, and the requisite number of members was obtained.

then proceeded with his speech. He said that the Free State should be willing to give up the law in regard to Asiatics. As regards this Bill, he wished to say that the provisions could be applied not only to Asiatics, but to other people. He was pleased to see that the Minister had made provision for the entry of persons suffering from tuberculosis under certain safeguards. He was glad that that had been done, because he thought it was only right. The history of this country told them that a good many people had come here who, if they had not come, would not have lived very long, and who had been restored to health, and had filled high positions in the country. For instance, they had the case of a Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. It would be wrong, he thought, to shut the door upon these people for the future, as was proposed in the Bill of last year. There was also the matter of insufficient means. He could not agree with the Bill there. He did not believe that the poor man should be excluded simply because he was poor. He claimed that, on the strength of a speech he made during a previous debate in the old Cape House, the Minister of Railways should vote against the second reading of this Bill. Mr. Schreiner added that he found it impossible in all the circumstances to vote for the second reading of this Bill.

said that every country required an immigration Act to keep undesirables out. This country was no exception, but the present Bill went too far and placed too much power in the hands of officials. The Minister had no time to go into every case, and with his experience of the past, he must say that a good many hardships had been imposed during the absence of the Minister in Pretoria. Whether this Bill went through or not, the Minister should keep his eye on his department, because at present many respectable people fully entitled to land here were handicapped in every possible manner. Then the Immigration Officer had been fined for contempt of Court, and yet he retained his position. As regarded the educational test, he considered the clause on that matter should be altered. At present the head of the department could choose dictation in any language. That was absurd. The Bill should state what languages the Immigration Officer is entitled to demand a knowledge of. It was quite sufficient if an immigrant could write his name and address, especially if he were a respectable man.

said, considering the happenings of the past, the Minister was fully justified to try and get this Bill on the Statute-book, even at this late stage of the session. He, personally, had often admired the Minister in the past when he saw the difficulties he had to overcome in dealing with undesirable immigrants. He thought that the Minister had most ably disproved the charges of Mr. Alexander, who seemed to be very much opposed to this Bill. It would be the fault of those eloquent members if this Bill were not passed this session. During one of his speeches the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had made a certain remark in which he (Mr. Geldenhuys) had been taken to task as if he had tried to heap contumely upon the Jewish population. He never had intended doing anything of the kind, and, personally, he had a large number of Jewish friends. But there were good Jews as well as bad, and he considered it essential that they should have a Bill of this kind to keep the undesirables out, but he never objected to the Jews qua Jews. He objected to the undesirables of every nation and race, and this he was prepared to say in his own constituency, although Mt. Alexander tried to make him black in the eyes of his constituents. Neither Mr. Alexander nor Mr. Nathan need concern themselves over his constituents. He would be responsible to these constituents for tall he said. (Hear, hear.) He concluded by urging that this Bill should have a speedy passage, and he was surprised that after all he had gone through, the Minister did not have more grey hairs—but apparently he could thrive on trouble. (Laughter.)

said that last session he stated what he now wished to repeat, that if the House allowed Asiatics to enter and settle in the Orange Free State it would be in direct opposition to the will of the people. It seemed that after the statement made last year, the Minister of the Interior tried to meet hon. members from the Free State by inserting into the Bill the milk-and-water sub-section (2) of section 28. He was glad that the Minister stated he was prepared to accept amendments on account of that sub-section not being watertight. He agreed that the sub-section was not sufficient to meet the wishes of the hon. members from the Orange Free State inasmuch as sub-section (2) of section 28 only referred to Asiatics entering the Union, or entering a Province from another Province, by the dictation test. But under section 5 they would find that Asiatics could in any number be imported into the Union by treaty, and when once those persons came into the Union they would not fall under sub-section (2), as it read in that law. There was another section of the law, section 25, to which he also objected, because it gave his hon. friend too much power to take away with the one hand that which he had given with the other. That was a matter that should be altered. But he wished it to be distinctly understood that he was going to vote for the second reading of that law on the understanding that he wished that section 25 so amended as to safeguard the Free State and to prevent the Minister taking away with one hand what he had given with the other, and make sub-section (2) of section 28 watertight.

supported the Bill, and pointed to the large numbers of petitions presented against the immigration of Asiatics. If Asiatics were allowed in the Free State, the Minister would act totally against the wishes of the people. As Landdrost of Middelburg, the Speaker had received instructions to keep out Asiatics. He was also against wholesale importation from the slums of London. If they got the “navvy” into South Africa, it would only swell the numbers of unemployed; another objection to the immigration of Asiatics was that it would be a suicidal policy to allow a further increase of the preponderance of coloured people over white people. At present the coloured population outnumbered the white by about ten to one, and what would happen if this were increased?

urged that provision should be made in the Bill for the examination of immigrants to take place before they started off for this country, so that on arrival there would be no anxiety. It would be an easy matter to have a medical man and an immigration officer on the other side, and the cost would be lessened on this side. The examination should not be compulsory, but voluntary, on the other side. In regard to the medical, examination of immigrants, South Africa had been looked upon as a depositing ground for the consumptives of the world, and that idea had not yet died out. That accounted largely for tuberculosis being as prevalent as it was. He advocated the medical examination of all persons coming into the country, and he saw no reason why that could not be done on the other side, and there would be no extra cost. They merely required their medical man and immigration officer to ask the same questions in London as at this end. It would save a great deal of anxiety to friends, and do away with an injustice to shipping companies.

If a shipping company brought out an immigrant who was not acceptable to the Immigration Officer, he was sent back, and if the man could not defray the cost of his maintenance during the period of his detention here the shipping company had to pay the bill. In order to safeguard themselves, the shipping companies called upon the immigrants to furnish security, so that if they were refused admission to South Africa they would be returned at their own expense.

said although he did not wish to hamper the Minister, he would oppose every attempt at allowing the immigration of Asiatics not only into the Free State, but into the whole of South Africa. They wanted good immigrants, but they did not want any more Asiatics.

said that with the closing hours of the session they were told that it was necessary to push the Bill through. He regretted very much that steps were not taken to do that four months ago, when the Bill was higher up on the Order paper. Instead of that, it was allowed to sleep for four months, and now in the closing hours of the session they were informed that it was necessary to push an important Bill through without proper consideration, and if any hon. member spoke on the Bill it was resented. (Opposition cheers.) Before they went into committee on the Bill the title should be altered. The Prime Minister had been extremely eloquent about his desire to have immigration, and the first step taken was an Immigrants Restriction Bill—it was not an Immigration Bill. (Opposition cheers.) That went forth to the world, and it certainly did look funny that they should have a Bill with such a title. It was a mere matter of title. The Minister might put what Provisions he liked in the Bill, but do not let it go out after the high-sounding phrases and very liberal principles of the Prime Minister that the only way they dealt with immigration was the passing of an Immigrants Restriction Bill. That certainly seemed a very funny way of dealing with the matter. (Hear, hear.)

said there were many of them who held strong views in connection with that Bill, who hoped it would have been proceeded with at an earlier date. There had been a great deal of dissatisfaction in connection with the treatment of immigrants at the ports. The officers who administered the Act had done their best, but, after all, they had to carry out the regulations, and in doing so they had often to inflict hardships on immigrants that appeared to the man in the street to be unnecessary. If there were an Appeal Board it would strengthen the hands of the immigration officers. (Hear, hear.) There was undoubtedly cause for complaint, and very serious complaint, and he hoped the Minister would accept the suggestions of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), in connection with the Appeal Board. There was the case of the unfortunate immigrants who were detained here while their cases were being inquired into, and the expense to which these people were put was very large indeed. There was unnecessary extravagance somewhere, and the matter required to be looked into. There were certain sections in the Bill he could not vote for. He was sorry that the Bill had to be dealt with at that late period of the session, when no one was taking an interest in a matter which was of considerable importance to the country.

urged that the Bill should be discharged from the Order paper, especially as a large number of members who were also opposed to it had already left. He held that at present they did not get the required class of people here to go on to the land, people able to produce something or other. He hoped companies bringing out people here would be careful not to take undesirables, who on being refused permission to land should be taken back at the expense of the companies concerned. They wanted farmers to come here, but they did not come. He thought there was no great hurry for this Bill; there were other Bills which were more important, and he hoped the second reading would be postponed for six months. It would save a lot of expense if they could examine the immigrants in London, and then, if the steamship companies brought undesirables here the companies could be called on to take them back again.

said that he wanted to know whether this was a serious proposal or not to take this measure now at this late stage of the session. The Bill had been upon the paper something like four months, but it had dropped down to such an extent that they thought it was doomed for this session, and here they found it at the winding up of the business of the session on the paper, and they were asked to consider it. It seemed to him from the tone of the debate that there was no disposition seriously to consider this Bill. They had been advocating the necessity for encouraging immigrants to South Africa, but here they had a Bill for restricting immigration. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he came from a city in Scotland where an immigration agent arrived a few years ago. He was a comparatively unknown man, and he was for some time unable to find emigrants, but after labouring for five or six years, he had now a large establishment and twelve clerks, and he was constantly sending out a stream of emigrants to the Dominion of Canada; but that agent did everything for these emigrants. All the preliminaries and particulars were arranged on that side, and when the emigrants landed in Canada they knew where they were to go. Here they were promised what was called an Appeal Board. Some jokes had been made against the present Government that they had been making laws by Select Committees, but they might call them, with equal justice, a Government by Boards. Who was to look after these Boards? Was it the Immigration Officer or did the Board look after him? This Bill was going to keep out the desirable class of immigrant, the man with the proverbial half-crown in his pocket. Here they would not allow this class of man to come in unless he was indentured. The most desirable immigrant of all was the man who had nothing at all save his own bone and sinew. He would give another illustration. In Scotland a great miners had emigrated, and their places were being filled by Poles, who earned far better wages in Scotland than they could do in Poland. They were a very industrious class of people, but if these Poles came to this country they would not be allowed to land. Here they did not invite people like Poles, who would be admirable immigrants, they actually devised a Bill which was going to prevent them from coming in. Concluding, the hon. member said that the Bill ought to have been sent to a Select Committee in the first instance, so that the allegations made in the House might be inquired into, and measures taken for their prevention in the future.

said it was a pity that the Minister should try to force this Bill upon a mentally and physically exhausted House. He would sound a note of warning about this method of saying one thing when they meant another. Many of the mercantile community objected to the competition that was being carried on by the small Hindoo trader, and everybody was of opinion that it was high time to prevent this, but the question was how were they to bell the cat. Therefore it was necessary to look round and pretend something that they did not mean. He was one that recommended the granting of licences, to be placed in the hands of some public authority, and they were placed in the hands of the Municipalities, but what happened? It was found that the Municipalities in granting licences had extended their sphere, with the result that perfectly good and sound white people were often refused licences to trade.

With regard to the administration of that power, they thought that the Municipalities would have had more sense; they had trusted to the wisdom and the good sense of the Municipalities. It showed how very dangerous if was to place powers of this sort in the hands of one man. They might say to that man that the power was in the Act, but he must not use it that way. That might be all very well; but experience had shown that it was very dangerous to place all this power into the hands of one man. He did not think that it was a wise way of going to work, and he thought the Minister might do better than attempt to rush the measure through a House that was tired, mentally and physically.

went on to refer to the clauses which concerned the shipping, saying that the power given the harbour master in ordering ships about the harbour was too great. Then there was the fine in the case of a person leaving a ship. It seemed to him that the Government had not thought of the other side of the question, and he thought that the Minister would be well advised to allow the Bill to stand over and deal with the matter when members were in a better position to fully consider the various clauses.

said that this Bill seemed to him to be a piece of Oriental despotism, of which the Minister was a capable exponent. (Laughter.) It seemed to put powers into the hands of officials that they should not possess. He did not believe in officials, and he did not believe in giving them this power. Dealing with the language clause, he said they were not all acquainted with the bulk of the languages of the world, and the officer might submit a dictation test in a language which a man might not know was in existence. Dealing with clause 5, subsection (h), the hon. member asked how the Governor-General was going to judge what was a minimum wage or a living wage. The Governor General had other things to do besides keeping an eye on the wages bills of the country. Then in clause 23, when a man was accused the burden of proof lay on the immigrant, and he thought that that clause was against the principles of freedom and justice. In clause 26 the Governor-General might make regulations, and he drew attention to the regulation which stated that a man must have £20 in his possession. There was a danger, he thought, of excluding most desirable people who were wanted in this country. He would oppose the second reading of this measure.

said he thought that the Minister would be well advised to withdraw the Bill that he had brought before the House. He agreed with the member for Cape Town, Harbour, that this was a most important measure, and a measure that required most delicate handling, and that it would not be wise to force it through a tired House. He was glad that the right hon. member for Victoria West was in agreement with him on this occasion. (Laughter.) He declined to accept the second reading of the Bill. This was a Bill that provided for certain things, and didn’t say so, and he thought that that was perfectly ridiculous legislation. The Minister had said that he wanted to keep out Asiatics. Then why could he not be honest in the legislation which he brought before that House? Why did not he say in the Bill that they did not want Asiatics in the country? There was an easier way to keep out Asiatics.

By pick handles.

No; not by pick handles. I will tell the right hon. gentleman a way in which these Asiatics can be kept out of the country. Knowing the strong sense of justice the right hon. gentleman has, and knowing his desire to uplift the people of this country, I would suggest a way, namely, by instituting a standard minimum rate of living. He had for months past listened to speeches against the Asiatic, but where did they come from? They came from hon. members of the House who represented commercial interests. (Cries of “No, no.”) Well, he would say they came chiefly from those who represented the commercial interests.

And tea planters and the sugar growers in Natal.

said that the tea planters and sugar growers wanted all the Indians they could possibly get, and he did not know how the Minister reconciled his attitude on this Bill with the desires of some of the Natal members on this particular question. No member in the House, excepting those on the crossbenches, had raised his voice in protest against the employment of cheap Indian labour. It was left to members on the cross-benches to protest on behalf of those men who were gradually supplanted by cheap Indian labour. White men, skilled and unskilled, were being supplanted by the Indian. There was a time when a certain portion of the community, which dominated the party on that side of the House (the Opposition side), desired every white man in the Transvaal to be supplanted, not by an Indian, but by a Chinaman. He stated that all along the Reef at the present time white employees, skilled and unskilled, were being discharged, and cheap labour engaged. The Asiatics could do a fairly high level of skilled work, but the principal recommendation in the eyes of the employers was that they were very cheap. He knew an engineer on a mine on the extreme east of the Rand, who was opposed to Indian labour, but to-day the men under him were Asiatics, not because he wanted them, but because his boss told him that he must have them. This was a great danger to the people of this country. They were going to degrade the whole population, and what came of the argument of his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) as to the uplifting of the coloured people? The people who preached about the uplifting of the coloured people were hypocritical. All they wanted to do was to build up a large cheap working class.

He thought the Minister should withdraw the Bill at this stage. Amendments had been foreshadowed by hon. members on both sides having far-reaching consequences, and likely to lead to a great deal of discussion, and he would remind the Minister that the Labour party had also a number of amendments. They were going to introduce an entirely new chapter in the Bill, dealing with contract labour, and he expected to receive the support of his friend on the right (Mr. Fawcus). He and his colleagues did not want contract labour, and intended to fight against it, because it was not in the interests of the country. If an instance was required, he would cite the case of the Cape Town printers’ strike. On that occasion they had hordes of men, who were going to be kicked out after they were done with. The employers were endeavouring to do that at the present moment. Hordes of these men were brought into this country. With what object Were they brought into the country to improve the condition of the country? Were they brought into the country to increase production? No, they were brought into the country simply to assist their employers or the people who brought them here to break the backs and the hearts of those men who were trying to stand up for themselves, and as his hon. friend (Mr. Sampson) reminded him, the employers were assisted by the Government through the Immigration Department and the Police Let him give an instance of how this worked out. I hey had a large number of men out of work, and they had a large number of men brought out here not highly skilled, not competent and not of a high moral character. Of course that was not considered; that was not required. All they wanted was men; they wanted a number of men, and they got them. Now, a lot of the men who were out on strike were themselves under contract to the different printing firms, and under their contracts they had to pay back their passage money and other advances made to them for the setting up of homes. An action was brought against one of these men by the “Cape Times” or the Cape Argus”—it did not matter which—and judgment was given against him, despite the fact that he was quite prepared to nay ultimately. Under the terms of their contract they had to pay so much a month, but the Court did not allow the contract to stand. The Court said that the man had to pay down on the nail, and that showed how the law was worked. Within an hour of the judgment being given they got an order interdicting the man’s furniture.

Business was suspended at 1 p.m.

spoke of a very hard case which had occurred in connection with imported contract labour in this country, the bailiffs having been put in possession of a man’s furniture at a time when his wife’s health was in a very delicate condition. He went on to criticise the references made by the hon. member for Queenstown to the importation of Poles into Scotland for employment in the mines, and the resentment shown by the Scottish miners to this action. Proceeding, he urged that Appeal Boards ought to be established, to which prohibited immigrants could resort, and he urged upon the Minister to withdraw the present Bill and introduce a short Bill to make provision of that kind. He objected to the tremendous powers which were placed in the hands of one official, and complained that that power had often been used to discriminate between nationalities and even religions. He hoped the Minister would see his way to withdraw this Bill, and he moved the adjournment of the debate till Monday.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the House go into committee on instruction to Committee of Whole House on Native Disputes Bill, to consider provision to impose certain fees of office.

said the Bill, like the one they had just been discussing, had been on the notice paper for some considerable time, and many hon. members had come to the conclusion that it would be dropped, and therefore they were hardly prepared to discuss it. The Bill was of more importance than the Minister attached to it. He (Sir Bisset) moved that the House go into committee on it that day six months. The House was not in the mood to consider the Bill as it ought to be considered. Since the Bill was last before the House many hon. members had had correspondence with people who were very much interested in the matter, and it was found that the proposals of the Government had given a great deal of umbrage. Many hon. members had been asked to do their utmost to prevent the Bill becoming law. A considerable recrudescence of barbarism had resulted among the natives because their wants were not receiving the attention they ought to receive.

The question now before the House is to go into committee to consider a provision to impose certain fees of office.

I am speaking to the motion that the House go into committee this day six months.

The hon. member will be in order on the next order, but upon this order only the question of fees is concerned.

I object to the fees. Can I do it?

The hon. member is in order.

said that as the Minister wished to take one step further in connection with the Bill, he felt it his duty to offer as strong objection as he could. The question of fees was germane to the Bill, and if the House did not agree to go into committee to consider the fees it would be tantamount to saying that the Bill should not be proceeded with further.

in seconding the amendment, said it would be a very great mistake at that late hour of the session to go into the question of imposing any extra form of taxation.

It is not a question of taxation, but fees of office. Surely the hon. member must be relevant in his remarks.

said he wished to object to any form of additional impost. He would like to see the whole of the native taxes consolidated.

in supporting the amendment, was understood to say that one of the great objections to the going on with the Bill in the present session was that clause 6 proposed to give power to the Governor-General in consultation with the Chief Justice to make notes as to what oases of native disputes should come under the provisions of the Bill, and as to the procedure to be adopted, including fees of court; and he and others held that these rules should form a schedule to the Bill, and be subject to the approval of Parliament

held that it was essential to pass the Bill this session. The hon. member for Tembuland felt warmly for the native; but by postponing this Bill he was doing a great injustice to the Transvaal native. The attitude taken up by Mr. Meyler did not show that he knew anything about natives. The Transvaal native wished to be dealt with fairly and by native courts, as he said he could not understand the white men’s courts. Apparently, Mr. Meyler asked, justice should only be done to natives of Natal. It was ridiculous to leave important matters over owing to lack of time. Surely by doing so they were not acting in the public interest. When would all the other important matters on the agenda be dealt with? Therefore, he urged that the Bill should be passed now.

moved that the debate be adjourned.

seconded.

put the question that the debate be now adjourned, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

said he found that he had voted with the minority in error, which was due to the fact that he had misunderstood what they were dividing on owing to the question being put in English only.

then put the question that the word “now” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

further moved: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up a report to-day.

seconded.

said now that the session was nearly over, he wished to raise a matter towards which members on his side of the House had throughout the session shown much tolerance. It was his duty, however, to draw Mr. Speaker’s attention to it now. The fact was that the use of the Dutch language in this House left very much to be desired. He contended that Mr. Speaker should put all matters and motions in both languages. (Ministerial cheers.)

ruled the hon. member out of order.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: This committee recommends that the Committee of the Whole House on the Native Disputes Bill have leave to consider a provision empowering the Governor-General to make regulations, imposing fees of office for services performed in and about the hearing and determination of any dispute and the issue of any order under this Act.

Agreed to.

The resolution was reported to the House.

moved that the resolution be now considered.

objected.

Consideration of the resolution was accordingly set down for Monday.

asked the Minister if he would not at that late stage allow the words to be deleted? On the 21st February he entirely agreed that compulsory bilingualism was opposed to the South Africa Act, and it was upon that statement of February 21 that they asked the Minister of Railways to agree to this proposal, and bring the clause into harmony with the statement which he made.

On clause 6.

moved the deletion of sub-section (2). This did not alone allow compulsory bilingualism, but it introduced a further check by the Administration that it should be satisfied that the qualifications of the persons concerned were sufficient. They on that side were prepared to accept the principle of a man voluntarily acquiring the language. They could not be parties to the provisions of the Bill, and he asked the hon. Minister to reconsider his decision at this the eleventh hour. He believed that it would be injurious to the railway service, and would be impossible to carry out.

seconded.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 8,

moved on page 14, line 33, to omit “or” and to substitute “and” ; in line 54 to omit “and” and to substitute “on”.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 10,

moved, in line 36, after “dispensed with,” to insert “owing to a reduction in or reorganisation of staff on the ground of superannuation, bodily injury, physical disability, or ill-health.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 14,

moved the omission of sub-section (5). He said that this was part of another amendment which followed, but it was necessary, first of all, before any subsequent amendment was carried, to move out this sub-section. This section provided machinery for appeals, and when the matter was before the committee, he pointed out the objections that appeared to him to obtain against this method of appeal. Hon. members would see, if they read the clause, that it gave a long series of appeals from one officer to another, and finally to the Board. It seemed to him that this was a most unsatisfactory system. The almost inevitable consequence was that each officer confirmed the decision of the officer below. If there were going to be an appeal at all, there ought to be one appeal only, and that to the highest authority, and it should be final. His amendment was to have this cumbersome method done away with. In the more serious cases of misconduct his proposal was that, where a man had had the inquiry which was referred to in the section, and was dissatisfied with the result, he should be enabled to appeal to an Appeal Board, constituted of three members, one of whom should be appointed by the Administration, one elected by the officers or employees (according as the appellant happened to be an officer or employee) of the particular system in which he was working, and the third to be the chairman, appointed by the Administration. This would constitute a Board of Appeal to which the more serious cases of misconduct should go. Minor cases of misconduct, not involving such a severe penalty, would go, by way of appeal, straight to the Railway Board.

seconded the amendment.

said he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. They on the cross-benches attached the utmost importance to the constitution of an Appeal Board, which should be an Appeal Board. They were anxious to make for contentment in the service. The arguments advanced by the hon. member for Fordsburg he heartily endorsed. He hoped the Minister would give the men something in which they could have confidence.

said he would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. He had understood the Minister to say that he had sympathy with the idea that the men should have some direct representation on the Appeal Board. At present they were providing for an appeal from one officer of a department to another, and then to the Railway Board. There was no gainsaying the fact that the men had not that confidence in the Railway Board as at present constituted that they should have in such a Board. On the Board were two ex-general managers of railways. He was disappointed that the Minister himself had not brought forward some amendment in this direction. If an Appeal Board were formed in which the men had confidence, he was satisfied that nine-tenths of the grievances of the men would never come before that House.

said he rather regretted the form in which this question had come up. New clauses had to be proposed, after the amendments which were on the paper had been discussed. Therefore, he could understand that his hon. friend (Mr. Duncan) was bound to move his amendment at the present time, but they were not really discussing the general question of the Appeal Board at the present time. They were discussing a very modest proposal by the hon. member for Fordsburg to deal with this question of grievances alone. He hoped that something of the kind would be done, but he thought that the House ought to bear in mind that the more general question of an Appeal Board would have to be settled. In the meantime, he trusted that the Minister would see his way to accept something of this kind.

moved the following amendments: In sub-section (5), on page 20, at the end of the first line, after “the” to insert “Assistant General Manager or other”; in the amendment agreed to by Committee of the Whole House to omit “and one employee of the grade to which the appellant belongs” and to insert “and one servant stationed at or near the headquarters of the Administration and elected in manner prescribed by and from the class of servants to which the appellant belongs.” Mr. Sauer said that when the motion was discussed some time back in Committee of the Whole House, he was pressed to agree to a proposal similar to that now before them. He then stated that he would give the matter his consideration; he meant to convey the impression that he was rather sympathetic, and that was his feeling. On the following day he communicated with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Dun-can), and asked him to let him have his views in writing, and he also told the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) that he (Mr. Sauer) would consider the hon. member’s proposals in regard to the Appeal Board. He submitted these views to the Railway Board, and after discussing the matter very fully, the Board did not see its way clear to accept an amendment on the proposal which had been put into the Bill at the Board’s instance, and which the Select Committee—himself included—had accepted as a satisfactory solution. Under these circumstances he did not see his way clear to accept any amendment. The Railway Board, after very mature consideration, thought there was no necessity for it; indeed the Board itself thought that the amendment would not improve matters, but rather otherwise. The Board thought that it would be as well to give the proposal in the Bill a chance, and if it did not work the machinery could be altered. That being the case, he regretted he could not accept the amendment.

seconded the amendment.

regretted the Minister’s inability to accept the proposal. The Minister of Railways and Harbours in the past had always been very reasonable, and he (Mr. Vosloo) could not see why he should not adopt this extremely moderate proposal of the hon. member for Fordsburg, It was not right to allow the Railway Board to govern the country.

said the Minister’s statement clearly showed what an anomaly it was that Parliament should be asked to pass the Bill. If the Railway Board were to have such a large say in the matter, it was useless to ask the House to pass legislation on the subject. If the last word were to rest with the Railway Board he did not know where Parliament was to come in. He must protest against the Railway Board having the last word. (Hear, hear.)

The amendments of the Minister of Railways and Harbours were carried.

put the question that sub-section (5) proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

moved, in lines 6 and 7, to negative the amendment made in Committee of the Whole House and to substitute “servants half of whom shall be nominated by the Administration and half elected from members by ballot of members in manner prescribed.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 31,

moved, in sub-section (2), to omit all the words from “becoming,” in line 19 to fixed date” in line 21, and to substitute “in permanent employment on the fixed date, a date not later than the fixed date.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 34,

moved to omit all the words in lines 62 to 66 and to substitute: “Provided that overtime payments to drivers, firemen, and guards who are employed on the trip system shall be included in the pensionable emoluments of such servants as were entitled to contribute on overtime earned on the trip system immediately prior to the 31st day of May, 1910. and have remained in continuous employment since that date.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On new clause 55,

moved in line 59, page 44, to omit “person” and to substitute “member of the fund.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 63,

moved to omit clause 63, and to substitute: (63) If any person who is a member of the new pension fund is transferred from the service to the public service of the Union or of a Provincial Government, or if a person who has pension rights corresponding to those of any member of the new pension fund is transferred from the said public service to the service, such person shall be so transferred with continuity of all pension rights and obligations. If the transfer is from the service, there shall be paid over from the new pension fund to the Minister of Finance a sum equal to twice the amount of the transferred person’s contributions in respect of the whole period of his pensionable employment, and compound interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. Like payments shall be made conversely by the Minister of Finance to the new pension fund if the transfer is to the service. Any person transferred from the service who was, on the 30th day of May, 1910, a member of an old pension fund, shall from the date of his transfer become a member of the public service section of such old pension fund. Any person so transferred to the service shall, as from the date of his transfer, become a member of the new pension fund.

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause 14,

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 13, viz.: “14. (1) There shall be an Appeal Board, consisting of two persons nominated by the Administration, two persons elected by the employees, and a chairman, who shall have been a magistrate appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council; (2) the members of the Appeal Board shall hold office for three years and shall be eligible for re-election on re-appointment; (3) no member of the Appeal Board shall be dismissed except by a vote of both Houses of Parliament; (4) in the event of the death or retirement of a member of the Appeal Board, whether nominated or elected, a successor shall be nominated or elected, as the case may be, and shall hold office for the remainder of the period for which his predecessor was appointed.” The hon. member said he moved this because a man should have an opportunity of having his grievances heard, but that was not found in the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. He desired to ask the Prime Minister whether this matter had been discussed by the Government as a whole. Other railway matters had not been, and this ought to have been, for the Railway Minister now appeared to ask the House to reject the proposal, although everyone was in favour of it, and it would allay feeling if the men knew that at least their case had been considered by the Cabinet, not simply brushed aside by officials. The Prime Minister had told the workingmen in England that he would do his utmost to make industrial life and its conditions satisfactory for them in South Africa. The men would feel that he was not carrying out his word if he allowed their desire to be ignored in a matter of this moment, when they were only asking what was reasonable, and leading men on all sides of the House favoured their request. He believed the Minister was in favour of this, and had expressed himself to that effect, as also had the leaders of the Opposition. They were told, however, that the Railway Board was against it, but a matter of such vital importance to the workmen should not be left to be settled by officials.

inquired if this would mean additional expenditure.

said he did not think it would.

May I suggest that this person serve without salary.

said that the clause did not provide that these officials should be paid, and the Minister had said that it did not necessarily mean additional expenditure.

Yes, I think the discussion can go on. There is no special appropriation.

thanked the Minister for his answer, which had allowed him to proceed with his remarks. The amendment which was voted on some time ago by the hon. member for Georgetown was quite a different proposal to the one which he had brought before the House. A proposal of this kind was never before the Select Committee. He (the speaker) proposed that the final authority should be the Railway Board; the hon. member for Georgetown proposed that the Board should be the final authority. If this proposal had been placed before the committee he thought it would have been adopted, and he hoped that his amendment would not be thrown out by the House. This proposal had not come before the Select Committee of the House, and it had only been rejected by the Railway Board. He thought that the House would be undertaking a serious responsibility by going against what was the expressed opinion of the general manager. There was really no difference in principle between this proposal and the proposal which the General Manager put before the Select Committee. The men, he would point out, said in their eivdence that this was the most essential clause in the whole Bill; if this were adopted it would make some of the drastic provisions of the Bill less drastic. They had the proposal of the General Manager, the men earnestly pleading for this principle, and the final report of the Railway Board, and the Minister was not disturbed. He thought there was a strong enough case on the merits of the question. Apart from that he would quote some of the strong utterances that had been made on the subject including speeches which had been made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours. These speeches of the hon. Minister were strongly in favour of a Commission of this sort, because, as he had said, the Railway Board would not be capable of dealing with all these matters. It would be very hard for the Minister to get out of the minds of the men in the service the belief that he had strongly declared himself in favour of such a principle. He believed that if the Minister were able to vote in accordance with his own convictions he would be in favour of some proposal such as he now submitted to the House. Sir Bisset Berry, Sir George Farrar, and Sir Thomas Smartt had all declared in the House in favour of some such proposal. He would remind the House of the urgency of this matter. They had had a Grievances Commission, and anybody who took the trouble to read through the report of that Commission would find that the Commission had found that half the cases submitted had been substantiated, and would vote in favour of this amendment. He could quote cases. He would not mention names, for it had been his experience that men whose names were mentioned in the House were marked in the future. He did not say that the Minister was responsible, but the point was that that had been his experience. He would quote the case of a man who had been degraded for ten years. The Commission found that this had been done wrongfully. The man would be losing £75 a year off his wages for ten years—he was losing £800 or £900 wrongfully. Was it right that things of that sort should be allowed to go on? There was also another case which he noticed in the report of the Grievances Commission, where in consequence of something which happened in the war a man was degraded. He was for ten years fined £70 or £80 for no reason whatever, except the fact that he sympathised to some extent with hon. members on that side of the House during the war and because he spoke Dutch, and could not make his meaning clear to his immediate superior. He did not wish to introduce political considerations more than was necessary, but these things went on, and were going on at the present time. Was it right that they, on that side of the House, should allow things to go on in this way?

He ventured to put before the House, first of all, that there was a real reason for an Appeal Board on which the men were represented; secondly, that the leaders of both parties were agreed in regard to this matter; and, thirdly, that the proposals which he put before the House were most reasonable proposals, and were on the lines of those made by the General Manager. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Geldenhuys) had accused him of claiming that the Labour party and himself were the only friends of the railway men in that House. Nothing could be further from his wishes. For many years past he had done his best to make the party on that side of the House the real representatives of all sections of the population, and especially the men who were working on the railways. He hoped his hon. friend would acquit him of any anxiety to make himself a champion in this matter. If this vote were decided against what had been declared in favour of by the leaders on both sides, and what the men thought they were justly entitled to, it would mean a strong increase of strength to the hon. members on the crossbenches. He hoped that the party on that side of the House and the majority of the House as a whole were not going to be so blind to the future as to gradually estrange the men and make them feel that the Government was not a good employer, and was not prepared to give a hearing to their grievances, the existence of which could not be denied. He, therefore, trusted that the House would agree to some proposal of this kind. Something must be done, otherwise the Bill would be unjust.

who seconded the amendment, said that, in spite of the discouragement which the hon. member gave them, he intended to support this amendment. He thought the Minister would admit that the present Bill was a far more stringent measure than had existed in any of the colonies hitherto. During the operation of the Transvaal Act, they had found that the men were more determined than ever in their endeavours to obtain an Appeal Board. He thought the Minister was some what unreasonable in this matter in accepting the verdict of the Railway Board as final. What the men really required was that a Board should be constituted on which some impartial men should be appointed and before which they could lay their cases. He submitted that the Minister even at this eleventh hour might accept the perfectly workable amendment which had been introduced by the hon. member for Uitenhage.

said he had much pleasure in supporting the amendment. It was some eight or ten years ago since he first made the acquaintance of a considerable body of railwaymen, when he stood before them. He came to the conclusion then that something of this kind was the proper way to deal with the reasonable grievances of those men. It seemed early in his Parliamentary career that the grievances of those men were reasonable and that some method should be devised for meeting them The same thing happened three or four years ago. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had, at one of his public meetings, intimated to a large body of railwaymen that he sympathised with the method. He did not then absolutely state the whole provisions that he was prepared to have enacted, but he clearly indicated to the men who met him on that occasion that some kind of Board was necessary or advisable. That proposal was known to the men whom he (Sir W. B. Berry) had the honour of representing in that House, and they had never ceased to remember it. They had always had it in their minds that the Minister did suggest this very Board for the consideration of all their grievances.

I never suggested such a Board.

The Minister appears now to say that he never suggested such a Board. What he did certainly suggest—and perhaps the Minister may have lost sight of it—was that a permanent Board of some kind to deal with the grievances of the men would meet with his favour, and that he would be prepared to support it in Parliament.

With the men represented on it?

said he could not recollect at the moment the precise occasion and the precise locality, but this he knew, that the men in whose behalf he was speaking had it fully in their minds when he went to address them. Few things were of greater importance than devising a method by which trouble between employers and employees could be avoided. He hoped the Minister would do something to give effect to the proposal.

said he was very glad to hear from the hon. member for Uitenhage that the Minister was willing to accept the former’s amendment. Therefore he would gladly support the amendment. The railwaymen desired to have an independent Appeal Board which would carefully hear their grievances and remedy them. Something was needed to give satisfaction and confidence to the men. An Appeal Board would be a step in the right direction.

said he had received many communications from railwaymen with regard to their grievances. The establishment of an Appeal Board would tend to bring about a satisfied service.

said he thought it was a pity so much time had been taken up by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) in trying to show that he (Mr. Sauer) was inconsistent. The hon. member had been very eloquent about the hard conditions of the men. There was no country in the world where the conditions were more favourable. The Bill improved the men’s position to an extent that hon. members were hardly aware of. Everything was being done to get a contented service, but they would never have everybody contented. There was a number of men in every service who were never satisfied. It had been reported over and over again that the General Manager was in favour of these proposals. The General Manager, however, had told him, the Select Committee, and the Board that he was not in favour of them. It was a great pity that a statement of that kind was made.

It is printed.

The hon. member said over and over again that he (Mr. Sauer) was in favour of the proposal. He (Mr. Sauer) had said, and would say it again, that he was in favour of a permanent Board to inquire into the complaints of the railway people. Of course, the Railway Board itself was a permanent Board. He did not want to get out of anything he had previously said. He did not say that the Railway Board was such a Board as he contemplated. He thought a permanent Board had been appointed to deal with this question. There was now a Board to which the men could now appeal.

He did not understand what the hon. member for Uitenhage meant by growing eloquent over extracts from speeches delivered in England by the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Sauer) did not understand what that had to do with the question.

The men understand.

We are not all making election speeches. (Laughter.)

Not now. (Renewed laughter.)

What the Prime Minister’s speeches in England have to do with it I don’t know. I never said I was in favour of the constitution of the Board as the hon. member proposed it. One must indeed be taking an extravagant view of the constitution of such a Board when he wants to give a Court of this kind the same security of tenure as the judges have.

Are judges appointed for three years?

No.

Then you are wrong.

said the men on the Appeal Board might be quite incompetent. It was an unheard of proposal, and he had never consented to it and he never would. He was very sorry that the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) had said: “Are you going to consent to the workingmen’s votes going to the other side and into the camp of the hon. members opposite?” If they were going to manage the railways on such purely political motives as those, Heaven knew where they would get. (Cheers.) When he heard it openly and unblushingly said that when they made a provision in an Act of Parliament they must be guided by the effect that would have on the votes of the men, it made him pause. He was very anxious to see satisfaction prevailing among railway workers, and he tried to do his best to attain that end. This Bill contained a far more liberal provision for the redress of grievances. The Select Committee and the men themselves thought that a Board so constituted for the hearing of grievances would be sufficient. He had no reason to believe that the Board would not work satisfactorily, but if it did not work satisfactorily they could amend it at some other time. He hoped they would always think of the interests of the men, but there were also the interests of the taxpayer of the country to be considered.

Have I the right to reply?

The hon. member has not the right to reply.

said this was the most extraordinary speech that he had heard the Minister utter, and the House would come to the conclusion that the Minister was a marvellous sophist. The hon. Minister had promised them a Board last year, but he objected to this amendment because the Railway Board was opposed to it, and because the General Manager was partially opposed to it. The hon. member (proceeding) pointed out that they had a similar Board constituted under the Trades Disputes Prevention Act in the Transvaal, which did not take away the right of the men to strike, but here it took away that right, and did not give them a properly constituted Board of Appeal. In spite of his denials that afternoon, he had thoroughly misunderstood his position last year. Last year he was prepared to consider the institution of a permanent Board of Appeal, but he must have forgotten the position he took up on that occasion. The hon. member (concluding) hoped the Minister would withdraw his opposition, and not let the men feel they were not going to get justice.

put the question that the new clause, as proposed by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), be agreed to, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

moved to omit sub-section (3) and to substitute: “(3) No servant who may have been acquitted on a criminal charge shall be thereby exempt from a charge of misconduct under this chapter in respect of or in connection with the same offence.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 32,

moved on page 30, line 35, after “and” to insert “save as is otherwise provided in sub-section (2) of section, 27.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 50,

moved in line 24, to omit “person” and to substitute “relative”.

seconded.

This amendment was negatived.

On clause 67,

moved on page 52, line 47, after the words “pension fund” to insert “and become a member of the public service section of the Cape widows’ pension fund” in lines 48 and 49 to omit “therefrom to any widows’ pension fund to which by law he has then to contribute,” and to substitute “from the new widows’ pension fund to such public service section of the Cape widows’ pension fund” ; and to omit all words after “be made” in line 53 to the end of the clause and to substitute: “in the case of a contributor to the Cape widows’ pension fund transferred from the public service to the service, and such person shall thereupon become a member of the new widows’ pension fund with continuous widows’ pension rights in respect of the whole period covered by his contributions.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 69,

moved, in line 18. to omit “the consolidated” and after “Revenue” to omit “Fund.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 79,

moved, in line 33, after the word “member” to insert “of the Fund.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

New clause 85.

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 83, viz.: 85. Notwithstanding anything contained in Act No. 31 of 1909 of the Cape of Good Hope, if any servant admitted to membership of an old pension fund by virtue of section 4 of the said Act retires on superannuation before he has completed the payment of arrear contributions due by him in respect of his continuous approved service prior to the first day of January. 1909, for which he has elected to contribute there shall be added to the period of service taken into account in calculating his annuity one half of such period of continuous approved service as is not at the time covered by his contributions, and there shall be paid to the new pension fund from revenue an amount equal to the contributions which would have been payable from revenue in respect of such service had the servant completed the payment of arrears in respect of which the addition is made.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The remaining committee amendments were agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion: That the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

put the question: That this Bill do now pass.

said he thought a few words were necessary before the Bill was read a third time.

It has been read a third time.

I was on my feet the moment —

I had already directed the Clerk to read the Bill a third time.

Am I debarred from speaking, sir?

The hon. member may address the House on the question that the Bill do now pass.

said that he thought the Minister had misunderstood him when he (the Minister) said that he (the speaker) had said that the men were being badly treated under this Bill. That was not the case, and that was not the opinion which he held on the matter. He should be sorry if it went forth that that was his opinion. He felt, however, that they had debarred the men the right of other industrial workmen to strike, and it would be well, even at this, the eleventh, hour for the Minister to consider whether it would not be advisable to try and meet the wishes of the men. Then he thought that the Minister had incautiously misled the House as to the statement of the General Manager of Railways on the subject of the Appeal Board, and he proceeded to quote from a written statement which the General Manager forwarded to the Select Committee which dealt with the Bill, and which was printed in the appendices to the Select Committee’s report. The General Manager not forward a proposal which he (Mr. Fremantle) would have been quite prepared to accept. He did think that to put in the clause about the strike, and not put in this which was proposed by the General Manager, was an unfair thing, and especially unfair on the unhappy people represented by hon. members on that side of the House who went into the railway service.

The Bill was then passed.

Minutes of Proceedings of the following Select Committees: Internal Arrangements, Parliamentary Library, Standing Rules and Orders, Waste Lands Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities, and Townships.

communicated a message from the Senate, as follows:

The Senate has concurred in all the amendments made by the House of Assembly, with the exception of the amendment (a new clause 16), to which the Senate agrees, but with certain amendment, viz.: the deletion in lines 65 and 66, page 12, of the words “necessarily incidental to the determination of the appeal,” and the substitution therefor of the following words: “Provided that the application aforesaid may be heard and determined by the Chief Justice or an ordinary Judge of Appeal of office division and that during the tenure of office of the present Chief Justice the application may be heard and determined elsewhere than at Bloemfontein: Provided further that this section shall not apply to any case the record where of has, at the commencement of this Act, been filed with the Registrar of the said division,” to which the Senate desires the concurrence of the Honourable the House of Assembly

moved, as an unopposed motion: That the amendment be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

put the amendment in clause 16, which was agreed to.