brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the South African Society of Accountants (Private) Bill, as follows—

such omission and substitution being necessary as certain clauses of the Bill, though covered by the published notices of the objects of the Bill, are not covered by the preamble.

M. Bisset,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms,

House of Assembly,

28th February, 1924.

Report considered, and leave granted to the Select Committee to amend the preamble in accordance with the report.

I propose that the Bill be read a second time on Monday, 3rd March.

Ek dink die Minister sal besef, dat die tyd tot Maandag te kort is, want volgens wat die Eerste Minister ons verlede jaar gesê het, is hierdie Wetsontwerp omtrent die financiële verhouding tussen die Provinsies en die Unie, nl., een van die belangrikste sake wat voor ons kan kom. Ek vertrou dat die Minister van Finansies sal insien, dat ons redelike tyd moet kry om die Wet te bestudeer, want dit is van die hoogste belang.

As die edele lid die Wetsontwerp lees, sal hy merk dat die omvang van die Wet maar klein is en dan sal hy geen beswaar hê om die twede lesing Maandag te laat plaasvind nie.

Maar die Wet se beginsels kan belangrik wees.

Does not the Minister think it is rather early?

I do not press it, but the Government would like to get on with this measure as it should be passed at as early a stage as possible. But as I have just explained to the hon. member the scope of the Bill is limited now and hon. members will not have any difficulty in mastering its contents.

I would ask the Minister to at least put it off until Wednesday.

I will make it Wednesday then. I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

Voordat ons die twede lesing van die Wetsontwerp neem, wou ek graag n paar woorde oor enkele punte sé. Ek dink die Huis ken my sienswyse op die stuk van besuiniging; hulle weet dat ek altyd besuiniging voorstaat, dit altans tot hier toe steeds gedaan het; maar ek vrees dat die Minister besuiniging in dié geval oordryf en dit doet ten koste van die publiek en van die spoorwegpersoneel. Ek sê ten koste van die publiek, want as die koste te hoog is, dan word ’n stasie gesluit.

Waar is die klousule omtrent die sluiting van stasies hier in die Ontwerp? Die debat hieroor is seer beperk.

Ek sê ten koste van die publiek, maar Mr. Speaker beperk my nou so, dat ek dit nie kan uitlê nie, maar ek bedoel deur hoë tariewe op vee en die sluite van stasies.

Dit is ongelukkig, maar dit kom nie voor nie en die edele lid is dus uit die orde.

Dan sal ek my beurt afwag.

Motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee.

Clauses, Schedules and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 3rd March.

moved—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 221.

moved—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 222 put and agreed to.

On Clause 223.

moved—

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On 1st Schedule,

moved—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

On 2nd Schedule,

moved—To omit “1923” wherever it occurs and to substitute “1924”.

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

3rd Schedule put and agreed to.

On 4th Schedule,

moved—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

5th Schedule and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with amendments; amendments to be considered on 6th March.

It appears to me that there has been a mistake in the drafting of this Bill. After we adjourned last night, my hon. friend and myself considered this matter and I think it must have struck every hon. member on reading this clause there was something about it which did not fit. Trade unions and employers’ organizations are defined. When you read the definition of trade unions it struck me that the other is rather an unnecessary phrase. I understand the real difficulty occurred in the original printing of this Bill—a typographical error took place. Then the Minister, during the recess and being ignorant of this fact and seeing that the clause did not read right, added the two lines. I do not know if I should be in order in submitting an amendment at the moment, but if not I would ask the Minister to allow the clause to stand over. The amendment I propose would make the clause read as follows—

When you read the definition of trade union and the definition of employers’ organizations in the definition clause it seems to me that you are leaning rather too much in the direction suggested by some members of the House. I want to point out that the Minister is travelling in, the wrong direction compared with that in which he was going when he came from the Select Committee. There was a desire to define the competency of people making applications; he was in favour of encouraging organizations as much as possible, and not to make it easy for persons who were not organized bodies to apply. The granting of a conciliation board was left to the fullest discretion of the Minister. There seems to be a tendency on the part of the Minister not to encourage organizations by giving advantages to those not in the organizations. I want to put it to the Minister that I think that this Bill; is to meet cases—not to say whether people are right or wrong—but to form a conciliation board at the earliest possible moment to enquire into the matter in dispute. Let us have organizations as far as we can, and these organizations can apply for conciliation boards, leaving it in no one’s power to put a little pebble in the path and thus prevent the Minister from giving a conciliation board. If you have people putting these objections—in 999 cases out of 1,000—it is not the workers’ organizations, you would have to put a heavy sense of responsibility on the Minister. When a board is asked for, and when one side or the other attempts to stop it, and assuredly, let me say, it will be the employers’ side, they may write to the Minister and tell him if they did not want a conciliation board that they would dispute his competency to appoint one in the courts. The Minister, of course, would submit this to his law advisors, and the law advisors are not going to let the Minister into a law-suit, and he will be bound to protect himself from the possibility of being in the wrong. I hope that the Minister will consider my proposition, which leaves it a good deal more possible for organized men to have better privileges than those unorganized. To allow unorganized men to have the same privileges as organized men will tend much in the direction indicated by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), and this is opposed to the intentions of the Select Committee. I therefore move—

seconded.

I am not very clear about the effect of the amendment, which has just been proposed, but I know this, that any departures from the recommendations of Select Committees on these matters, as a rule, tend to lead us into pitfalls. The Select Committee last year had a good deal of discussion on this point, and, in addition to the principle which the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has referred to, there is also another principle of the Bill which is likely to be affected by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber). The first principle, underlying the Bill, which this will affect, to my mind, and is likely to undermine, is that which has been referred to by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). The tendency of all the evidence given, and I think that the main object of the Committee and of the Minister himself when he moved in this particular clause in Select Committee was that, as far as possible, any discussion that should take place, or any negotiations affecting a particular trade or industry, should take place with associations or organizations. As one item of evidence dealing with that probably reflects all the evidence on the same point, I might quote from the evidence of Mr. Jackson, of the Bank Officials’ Union. Mr. Jackson, as members who were on that Select Committee will remember, was a particularly interesting and intelligent witness. He even goes So far as to say—

That reflects the general trend of the evidence; that as far as possible these discussions must take place between associations.

“We feel, and so do all the representatives of these associations present, that the employers should be forced to associate themselves and to register in the same way as a trade union under this Bill.”

They were so emphatic about this question of association and of discussing these matters with associations that they were prepared to recommend that even coercion should be employed to compel employers to associate if necessary. Apart from the fact that discussion between associations are likely to have a more general effect on the industry, it was felt by the Committee that where associations were concerned you are likely to have much better discipline in seeing that decisions arrived at by those boards are carried out by the members of the associations. It seems to me that to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) will to some extent undermine this general principle which the Committee was of opinion should be embodied in the Bill. Then there was a further principle. That was only one trade union affecting an industry or representing a group, only one trade union should be recognized in one area or district. Evidence to that effect was given by another witness, a former member of this House, Mr. Brown, of the Boilermakers’ Association. He gave evidence which was corroborated by others. He said—

That is another thing which the Committee was very strong upon that, in order to prevent indiscipline, there should only be one union for a trade or craft in a recognized area, and it seems to me that under the clause as it came from the Select Committee it will be seen that negotiations should take place between unions or organizations, and that there should be only one organization or union recognized for a particular trade or craft. If you have the clause as it stands, then if the Minister finds that no organization of this kind exists, no representative organization exists, then he can go beyond that and try to find some other body or some other representative body of employees to deal with. But so far as the Bill itself is concerned, I submit it is undesirable that if there be an organization it should not first be consulted, and the principle that guided the committee was that if there be an organization in any area sufficiently representative it should not be overlooked, otherwise you have not conciliation, but exasperation. I would ask the Minister strongly to reconsider his decision, and weigh the position very carefully before he accepts this amendment, which I think is coming into conflict with the general feeling of the committee which sat on this measure.

I would like to say, on the amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) that the effect is to leave out the two words “one employer,” so that no individual employer can apply for a conciliation board. Secondly, he leaves out the phrase “organization of employees.” Now the discussion last night, I think, arose on a misapprehension of the meaning of these words “organization of employees.” Hon. members read that as an alternative name for a trade union, and that by the two terms “trade union” and “organization of employees” the same thing is meant, and, therefore, when they said “and if there is no such organization” they meant that “organization” means “trade union.” It does not mean anything of the kind. The word “trade union” is defined in the Act as “an organization of employees” for a specific purpose. The words “organization of employees” was put in by me specifically for the purpose of meeting a case where a number of employees associate for the purpose of settling a particular point.

Read the definition of trade union.

Yes, I know. That was the object. If there is any misunderstanding about that I have no objection to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber).

Stamford Hill.

As far as it goes. On the point of leaving out “organization of employees,” because you can say if they are so loosely organized for a specific purpose they will fall under the class of a number of employees officially represented. You can include such an organization under the phrase “number of employees sufficiently represented of the employees of that industry.” So you can include it under that, therefore so far as the inclusion of that word is concerned I am prepared to accept the amendment, but as regards the words which the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) repeats “when there is no such representative body, when there is no such organization.” Where was I prepared to take that out? I want to say definitely it is not for the purpose of attacking a trade union at all. The position is this—

On a point of order, may I just correct the hon. the Minister? I did not say “any such organization”; my words are “trade union or employers’ organization, or if there be no such trade union or employers’ organization,” which is a phrase defined in the Bill.

That part of it I am prepared to accept, but these words “when there is no such trade union or employers’ organization” are really only repeated. I don’t want those words in for the reason if you say if there is a trade union or an employers’ organization in existence, and they refuse to apply for a conciliation board, but there is a large number of employees outside or employers outside who have got grievances, and they want a conciliation board they cannot apply even for a conciliation board if these words are left out; until they can move a trade union or employers’ organization to apply for a board they are helpless. That is the reason, but I want to go a step further. Hon. members must realize that Clause 2 does not say “if such an application comes to the Minister and the board is organized that board will represent only the applicants.” On the contrary; the trade union and others can also be associated on that board. Sub-section 1 is only to bring the matter up to initiate the matter, to send the application to the Minister, but the application under sub-section (2) which says when in the opinion of the Minister there is no organization or trade union sufficiently represented of the employees or of the employers respectively he may, if he deems fit, cause the members of the conciliation board to be nominated directly by the employees or employers themselves, or partly by the organization, or by the individual employees. When such a method of nomination is not adopted the Minister may himself directly appoint the members of the conciliation board. So ample provision is made to associate your trade union if the applicants are not members of a trade union, but if you insist on the retention of these words in sub-section one, then you put all those people who do not belong to an organization in this false position that they can never get an application for a board to deal with their matter before the Minister, unless they can move the organization to which they do not belong. Now, you have got, say in the printing trade, a large number of employees belonging to the Typographical Society. I am just instancing that there is a certain section out—take any trade you like. Those men that are out, if you leave these words in, and they have got a grievance, then they have first of all to go to the Typographical Society and say “Will you apply for a conciliation board for us?” and if they say, “No, we have got no grievance; if you want your case taken up you must join a trade union.” That would be an indirect way of forcing men into a union.

But they would never do that; the unions always take up their cases.

Which is not the intention. Therefore, I say, leave the question of putting the machinery in motion by bringing an application before the Minister as free as possible, so that organizations can ask for those that are outside, and either of the two have asked then, under sub-section (2), the Minister can combine the two sections and form one conciliation board for the whole of these employees. It seems to me that that is perfectly plain, and it is for this reason, that I do not want to leave these men that are not organized so far in the cold that they cannot even apply for a conciliation board, that I have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber). I hope I have made the matter clear.

What the Minister says now clearly shows that he is still confused in regard to the particular wording of this clause. I admit I shared his confusion until some early hour this morning, when, revolving in my mind the presence of these words “organization of employees” in this particular clause, which are foreign to the Bill as a whole, and in fact appear nowhere else on the Bill. It seemed to me that faulty drafting accounted for our difficulties. Now, the principle followed in drafting this Bill is, I think, a fair one, namely, that there no provision shall exist which does not apply as equally to employers as it does to employees. It applies to both sides equally. In no place in this Bill will you find any particular provision applying to the employees which is not applied to the employers, and vice versa, except in the clause we are now discussing. I am quite sure therefore that my hon. friend the member for Stamford Hill is right when he says that the insertion of these words “organization of employees,” words foreign to the rest of the Bill, has led to the confusion, and afterwards to the adding of the two lines at the bottom of the page during the recess by the Minister. Now I will show the Minister where he is wrong when he says that other people cannot apply for a board. The departure in this clause from the principle in the Bill of treating both sides alike is because in all cases they cannot be treated alike. There is a lot of difference between one employer employing a thousand people and a single employee applying for a conciliation board. The latter position would be utterly ridiculous, but the other position would not be ridiculous, namely, for a thousand men to apply for a conciliation board as against a single employer. Therefore the Minister will remember we inserted the words “or any employer” in the third line. Now to make that condition equal, you would have to put in “or any employee” later on, which would, of course, make the clause ridiculous. It would mean that any employee could apply for a conciliation board—that would be ridiculous, whereas it would not be ridiculous for any employer to be able to apply for a conciliation board. Now there is nothing in this clause which prevents any body of persons who are not members of a trade union applying for a conciliation board, because the case is met by the definitions of employers’ organization and trade union in the Bill. Hon. members will see that “organization” may mean either a temporary or a permanent body. There must be somebody to apply for a board. The Minister would not entertain the application of a single employee for a conciliation board—there must be more than one concerned. To enable them to apply for a board, they must appoint a person to apply and the mere fact that they have found that organization brings them within the definition of trade union in the Act, which will entitle them to apply.

Must a temporary body apply for registration?

This clause does not apply to registration at all. The only recognition which registered trade unions receive is when an industrial council is formed. That can only be registered if it is composed of two or more bodies registered under the Act. But as regards a trade union applying for a board, it does not matter whether they are registered or not; so long as there is an organization, they can apply.

Must these temporary bodies register?

No, certainly not. Unions have to apply within three months. That would not apply to a temporary body formed for a specific dispute. Now the position is this. What this clause, as amended in the recess by the Minister, actually did do was to give a distinct preference to a permanent organization over a temporary organization in the matter of application for a board. Whether the organization was one of employers or employees, if it was permanent it was given a distinct preference. That was in the amendment made by the Minister during the recess, and was not proposed by the Select Committee. But the Minister omitted the words “or employers’ organization”. Consequently it had a one-sided effect, and, in that regard, I agree with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), that it would naturally raise the ire of any employer to see a trade union—that is, the permanent employees’ organization—getting a distinct advantage in this Bill over the permanent employers’ organization. The employers’ organisation is not even mentioned. The amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) would have the effect of putting both the employers’ organization and the employees’ organization, if they were permanent bodies upon an equal footing, and they would receive preference in the matter of their application for a board over outsiders. If there was no such organization, then any temporary organization on either side would be able to apply for a conciliation board. If a board was granted, and neither of these bodies were sufficiently representative of the whole of the persons affected, then sub section (2) provides that the board may be composed of so many representatives of the permanent organization and so many from the temporary organization which claims representation on the board. This restores the balance of the Bill. There is no other way. It gives no advantage except to a permanent organization over a temporary organization.

I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) is a decided improvement in the drafting of the Bill, but it leaves the matter as it was. It does not meet my position at all, unless, of course, the hon. member agrees to delete the words “where there are no such trade unions”. I am pleased to find that the atmosphere to-day is distinctly better than it was last night. I was accused of all sorts of motives in introducing my amendment, but my attitude throughout this Bill has been perfectly frank and sincere. I opposed the Bill on the second reading because of the compulsory clauses. I was defeated and the second reading was passed. I am strongly opposed to compulsion, because I believe that, if we want to have proper conciliation, it must be purely voluntary; and if compulsion is used in any form, it destroys the spirit which is necessary to make conciliation successful. I am in favour of having machinery for conciliation; we should create that machinery, but then leave the parties to use that machinery or not as they think fit. If we force them to use it, then we shall only fail in the objects which we have in view.

Hear, hear.

In Committee I confined my objection particularly to Clause 14, because I thought that, under Clause 14, read in conjunction with Clause 4, the House was setting up a monopoly of trade unionism, and was preventing any body of men, organized or otherwise, from having their organization registered if there was another organization representing men in a similar calling, which the Registrar, a mere clerk, should consider sufficiently representative of these men. When I was arguing that, the Minister pointed out to me that I was rather late in moving an amendment under Clause 14, Unless I amended Clause 4. I considered that question, and I saw that he was right, and therefore I set my amendment down for Clause 4, and I propose to move the same amendment which I moved in Committee on Clause 4. That is the whole origin of my amendment. I saw nobody, I consulted nobody; it was entirely my own idea in order to meet the objections raised by the Minister, yet I am accused, in having done this, or having been in communication with the Chamber of Mines, and having done this at the behest of the Chamber of Mines. Why the Chamber of Mines is brought in simply to raise feelings, I do not know. I do not know, and I do not care, what the feeling of the ’Chamber of Mines is on this Bill. I know nothing about it. I moved this because I am convinced that, if this clause is passed as it is now, you deprive a large body of men, no matter how large, from being represented upon or applying for a conciliation board if they are not members of a trade union or organization. That, I think, is wrong, and that is why I moved this amendment. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) does not meet my objection: it puts the clause ‘back exactly where it was, only, I admit, it is an improvement in drafting, and for that reason it is welcome. If the hon. member will omit the words, “if there be no such trade union or employers’ organization”, then I am prepared to accept this. Of course, he will not do that. And why not? The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is perfectly frank. He wants to obtain a preference for the trade union.

Why not?

Quite so, and that is where we are against each other, and perfectly frankly so. He is honest in his opinion, and I am in mine, and so long as that conflict of opinion exists, you cannot expect me to accept that amendment, because it is put there for the very purpose of obtaining a preference for the trade unions.

Does the hon. member know the definition of a trade union?

Yes, I do. If the hon. member is honest in thinking that that is the definition which he wishes to apply here, then why is there any objection to remove these words from the amendment. The hon. member confesses that they mean nothing, then why not take them out. That is all I ask for. The mere insertion of these words throws a doubt on the construction of this concession, and that is why I object. If you remove these words then the section is perfectly clear. If you keep these words, which confessedly now have no meaning, then the court must give some meaning to them, and it will be a meaning in conflict with what I desire. That is my whole objection. What is the result? The result is this, you give a preference to a trade union—I am asking you not to give a preference to a trade union which men who do not belong to, do not have. [Dissent]. Let me put my case without interruption. It is not an easy matter to argue. You will not confuse me, for I am going to have my say. You have twice had the opportunity of speaking. The effect of this is that you compel a man indirectly, not by straight and positive legislation, but by implication, you place a section upon the statute book which compels him to join a trade union whether he wants to or not. That is my objection. I am not arguing that any single individual employee should have the right to ask for a conciliation board. That is not my intention at all. My intention is that if a large body of men who, in the opinion of the Minister, sufficiently representing the men in their trade in that area, wish to apply for a conciliation board they should be able to apply whether they belong to a trade union or not.

It says so now.

It does not. We are arguing on the construction of this clause, and if you keep in these words, which I have moved to be eliminated, you prevent any body of men engaged in a special trade, no matter how large they may be, from making application for a conciliation board if they do not belong to a trade union. If you wish to give men an opportunity of asking for a conciliation board, then accept my amendments.

The hon. the Minister stated, speaking against this amendment—

I take the amendment with the exception of those words.

The hon. the Minister stated that we may be placed in this position; that we may have a number of employees outside a trade union with some grievance, and the trade union refuses to take action, where are we? Does the Minister know of any such occurrence in the history of this country? I want to ask the Minister whether he is going by past experience when he says this? Can the Minister quote one case where a trade union has refused to move when any section of the workers which that trade union represents, whether those employees were in that trade union or not, that the trade union does not always speak for them? If a man has a grievance, whether he is organized or not, and he wants it taken up, the trade union take it up. Can the Minister state whether the difficulty which he has specified has ever arisen in South Africa? Will the Minister be perfectly frank and tell us whether it is not a fact that the object at the back of his mind, in his opposition to us, is that we have two bodies on the Witwatersrand claiming to speak for the employees? Is not that the position? If the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) should stand up in this House and speak about the employers’ side of the question—I do not wish to be personal—but if the hon. member will stand up and speak about the employers’ side of this matter, and tell us whether the employers are going to suffer any detriment I should listen to him with the greatest of respect. The hon. member is capable of speaking for the employers’ organizations, but I ask him what authority and experience he has had inside an employees’ organization that qualifies him to stand up and express an opinion in so far as the working of an employees’ organization is concerned? I do not want to be personal, but let us realize that we on this side of the House have had years and years of experience of the employees’ side of the question. The hon. member does not realize what the result will be of the particular thing be is fighting for. It is no use for us in this House to attempt to set up a Conciliation Bill unless that Bill can speak for the great mass of the people who are engaged in the industries of this country. One cannot emphasize it too often that if you are going to have all kinds of organizations you are going to have absolute chaos. You cannot have a settlement of any trouble or grievance at all if you have half a dozen different bodies coming forward, and each expressing a different point of view. It is to the interest of the employers and the employees alike that we should have one organization speaking for the employees as well as for the employers. The Minister says he wishes to consider the opinion of the large number who are outside trade unions, but I consider that the real object of the amendment is to give recognition to different trade unions speaking for one industry. The House should think seriously over this, because if carried it will kill the whole effect of this Bill. If hon. members on the other side, if the employers in this country, really want effective conciliation, then they should do all in their power to see that one body of employees speaks for the employees in any trouble that may take place. A case in point was shown some time ago, when the Chamber of Mines had shop steward committees set up all over the Witwatersrand. Then you had one shop steward’s committee speaking for one section and a similar committee speaking for another, with the result that you were always having petty strifes. You had half a dozen different bodies attempting to speak for one class of men. If the employers are desirous of studying their own interests they will assist the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) by seeing that there is one organization which represents the employee.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) asked the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) what qualifications he has to speak in any way as representing the opinion of working men. May I say this to the hon. member that Troyeville is just as much a working man’s constituency as Brakpan, and if the working men of Troyeville have done the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) the honour of returning him to this House he is as qualified to represent them as the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). From the speeches made last night, and particularly to the speech by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), it would appear that if any one supports this amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) he becomes at once a hireling of the Chamber of Mines, he brands himself as a determined foe of trade unionism, he is a reactionary, and is a dishonest-person who is striving to kill the Bill, not openly, but by stultifying amendments. The votes of many thousands of good trade unionists have sent me and my colleague to this House. They have done so for a good many years. I have been in this House for over eight years and will probably come back to this House through the votes of hundreds of good trade unionists who do not consider that I am an arrant foe of trade unionism, or the hireling of the Chamber of Mines, as I have been stamped in this House. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) says that this is an attempt to foster two competing trade unions in the same area. May I point out that this clause as it stands, even if the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) is not accepted, will not stop that. The Bill says only one trade union may be registered in one area, but as the hon. member for. Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) pointed out a moment ago any trade union registered, or otherwise, under this ridiculous clause may apply for a conciliation board. If that is the evil which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) fears he is not going to remove it by simply voting against the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) or by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). I agree with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) that the amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell), though an improvement in drafting, takes the matter no further. You have got to deal with the position where a trade union in existence is not functioning normally. You have that position to-day on the Rand where the Mine Workers’ Union represents but a very small proportion of the employees. [An Hon. Member: “Question.”] The Minister may appoint a conciliation board on the application of that union, but there are many thousands of men in the trade outside that union who, unless this amendment goes through, would be helpless. The position of the unions is amply safeguarded. The Minister may appoint a conciliation board upon the application not of any employee, not even of a large number of employees, but only on the application of a large number of employees whom he considers sufficiently representative of their calling. Now, the Minister is not a fool. He is not going to consider any number of employees outside a trade union as sufficiently representative of that trade or industry in that locality unless the trade union which exists is not functioning, and does not adequately represent that trade. If it functions and a number of employers outside it say we want a conciliation board he will say: “Go back to your trade union, as you cannot be considered as sufficiently representative”. But if there is a trade union not functioning he must take it de facto that it is not sufficiently representative of that trade.

I beg to move an amendment to that amendment—

That, I think, will approximate the two positions taken up by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber).

seconded.

We are going round and round and round. I cannot accept the amendment, the reason being that the views of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) and mine differ in a great degree. His view is, and I hope he will not object to my mentioning it, that he would not be profoundly grieved if trade unions did not make any progress. Let me say that I acknowledge that I should be very sorry if the progress of organizations is not much greater in the future. It will help by making the position of a man belonging to a trade union such that he can avail himself of the influence of the law provided for him. There are men who do not belong to trade unions; there are exceptional cases of men of sterling worth and independence who honestly do not believe it is the right thing to belong to trade unions, but they are very few in number, and they will not be sufficient to make an application to the Minister. As to some criticism levelled at the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), I may tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has a good deal more knowledge and practical experience of trade unions than members sitting over there, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). In the past, in this country, there was powerful antagonism against trade unions, commanding an enormous amount of influence and supply of able brains. They worked exceedingly well to keep their end up, here and elsewhere. In Great Britain the trade union movement has not made much of a mess of it up to now. I want to put this consideration before the House. Here we have legislation which is trying to make provision for conciliation and the adjustment of differences between bodies of employers and bodies of workers. The member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) objects to trade unions having all the advantages—he asks why should men outside be deprived of any of the advantages under this Bill. Of what is he deprived if the Bill goes through? He is deprived of nothing. Whatever he has obtained in the past has been obtained through the activities of trade unions, and those outside the unions have in every case benefited by advantages they took no part in securing. The provisions made by the Select Committee, and which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) wishes to throw out, provide that in the case of a dispute, let the employers’ or the employees’ organization make the application. If there is no such organization in the area, let it be made by those outside the organization. I earnestly hope that the Minister will refer to the better and wider ideas which he last year advocated before he paid a visit to some place, where I am afraid he was surrounded by influences inimical to his better self.

Members who sat on the Select Committee last year must be surprised at the attitude taken up here by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The intention of the Select Committee was to give preference to trade unions and employers’ organizations under this measure. No one was more in favour of supporting the principle than the Minister himself. This Bill was introduced for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, and to make provision for the establishment of industrial councils. In the event of a conciliation board being necessary, there should be no objection to trade unions and employers’ organizations operating in the area having preference in the making of application for such conciliation board. What we should like to see is an industrial council established in every industry. I hope the Minister will continue his struggle against the members of his own party who are endeavouring to take the “con” out of conciliation and make the Bill unacceptable to trade unions. No wonder the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) is surprised at the attitude of the Minister, who last session, both in the House and the Select Committee, favoured the idea that all employers should belong to Employers’ Associations, and that every employee should join his particular trade union in order that industrial councils could be established. There is nothing unusual in the discovery made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) that we are endeavouring to get preference for trade unions and employers’ organizations. That was agreed upon in Select Committee when considering the question. For heaven’s sake do not let the House tamper in this way with a measure which will go a long way to help bring about what we all desire—greater peace in industry.

Those of us who are married men and have children have often to castigate our offspring when they do wrong. I am indeed sorry that I was compelled to castigate the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—though not for a moment would I admit parentage. Joking aside, I am sorry if I hurt the hon. members’ feelings, but really I think that they are to be blamed. Their expressions of opinion in this House are so much on all fours with what we know is the opinion and the desire of that powerful body, the Chamber of Mines, (how is it possible to disentangle the hon. members themselves from association with the Chamber of Mines? How is it possible, I ask you? Hon. gentlemen have themselves to blame, and they must not be annoyed at me when I call a spade a spade: it is entirely their fault, and, though I am sorry to administer this castigation, yet I think it is entirely deserved. There is one point I desire to refer to which was brought before us by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). It is an extraordinary thing, and one wonders what is the source of his information on the matter. He says that, as an illustration of the disadvantage of applying only through a Union, the Mine Workers’ Union does not function. Now, that word in itself again, somehow or another, vibrates a chord in my memory, and it would seem that there has been collaboration elsewhere, not quite unconnected with the Chamber of Mines. That very word “function!” Ah! I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) feels that so deeply; does he not like the association? Was he not ashamed of the association? There is no reason why he should be, so far as I can see, but evidently he is at great pains to impress upon the House that he is totally disassociated from that body.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) must not continually repeat that argument, as that would give the impression that hon. members have not independent views, but that they are subservient to the Chamber of Mines and that would certainly not be fair to the hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and Troyeville (Mr. Webber).

He says they are not functioning. But what does he mean by not functioning? Does he mean that they are not carrying on the ordinary work of a trade union or that they are not encompassing the best interests of the members of that trade union? I want to say this, that they may only represent a small proportion—I do not admit that—but who is it that is taking any action at all on behalf of the underground workers in the mines to-day, who is it they all look to, both organized and unorganized alike? They always wonder, if they have not taken action before, why it is that the Mine Workers’ Union have not taken steps to right this wrong. Who is it that takes action? The Mine Workers’ Union, but I think this is the position not of the Mine Workers’ Union, but of other unions, because they are functioning, as the hon. member will have it. All the time those trade unions, and especially the Mine Workers’ Union, is constantly enquiring into the conditions of the men, the wages, and other things appertaining to their ordinary daily working life and constantly endeavouring to have them righted. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that they do not represent a larger proportion, though they represent a larger proportion than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) would have us believe. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) is anxious to secure the unattached, the unorganized man, the right to appeal for a conciliation board. But is the hon. gentleman fair? I hope he will forgive me if I suggest that there is any unfairness in his examination of the position, but either he is deter-mined to break down any opposition at all to those who oppose them on the one hand, or else he does not understand it on the other. He himself says, or the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says for him, that he was returned by a majority of workers’ votes, and that he has a right to claim that he represents the workers in this House. That is perfectly true. As a matter of fact, I interjected that he does not represent their point of view; that also is perfectly true; but the point is this that if the hon. member honestly wants absolute impartial enquiry into any trouble that may have arisen amongst employees and an employer, he is going just the wrong way about it to bring that state of affairs to pass, because we know perfectly well, and if hon. members had the experience we have had, unfortunately they have not, they would know perfectly well that it is more than any one man, especially a disorganized man, that is, a man who does not belong to a union, considers his job is worth to ask for a conciliation board to enquire into his grievances, especially to-day. Will the hon. member deny that there is victimization going on at the present time. And I will make this charge that the attitudes of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) are really brought about by the fact that men are being victimised to-day. They realize, and none better, having at heart the desire to break this Conciliation Bill and its object, they know perfectly well that unorganized men dare not make any reference to anyone outside their own employer. They dare not do it to-day. As I said last night, from the trade union point of view, I personally, do not welcome this Bill. Conciliation is of no use in the direction of real organization of the workers concerned; no use at all, because the more you protect the workers, the more you oppress the workers—and out of this late trouble good is coming; out of this victimisation good will come in the direction of organization—the more you kick them, the more you oppress them, the more determined you make them to organize themselves into a strong entity likely to put up a strong fight against their employers. That is the fact throughout history, and, secondly, I look upon this Conciliation Bill as going to have a weakening effect on trade unionism, and though I must bring to bear the view of the representative of the whole of the people, and not of trade unions only, and I wish my hon. friend over there were as disinterested as I am in the matter on behalf of the people of the unions. I must give my support to the Bill, and giving my support to the Bill, I must endeavour to make it a real workable measure and a real conciliation Act, and that is why I am opposed to the hon. member over there. In conclusion, may I appeal to hon. members, especially those who are so strongly supporting this amendment by speech and vote, to support the Minister of Mines of June last and not the Minister of Mines of today. In the interest of the party of which, no doubt, they are proud—Lord knows why—but they are. In the interest of that party, do let them put their foot down upon the vacillating policy which is being pursued by the present Minister of Mines—one thing one day and another thing to-morrow—and it will be just as well to postpone the further consideration of this Bill further until the Minister of Mines has changed into another frame of mind and come back to the attitude of June last. What guarantee have we got that before it reaches the Senate the hon. member will not have realized his mistake, and go to the other place and ask them to alter it back again to what we want, and to the view he originally held; go through the whole machinery; holding up this House and asking us to concur in the amendments of the Senate? It would be better for us to wait until the Minister changes his mind for the second or third time, as the case might be; but I do ask hon. members to put their foot down on the vacillating policy of the hon. member, and agree that the original policy he adopted was the best one.

I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) after it had become perfectly clear to the House what the amendment really amounted to, and I feel convinced that if the object of the Bill is to be attained, and if we are really striving for that measure of conciliation which the Bill means, it is no use getting touchy. After all, it is only the Chamber of Mines and the workers; they are the only two classes, and it is no use getting touchy when the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) gets up and moves this amendment. I would like to ask the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) what was his attitude yesterday in this House over the Wine-Growers’ Bill? He was very anxious that every loose wine-grower who wanted to sell brandy should be chased down and shot with a gun or brought to his knees, and he was not going to have them, not belong to some trade union or organization. Now unfortunately a trade union, when it is not strong enough to be recognized, must be hunted down. Now we know the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) is not consistent.

Quite consistent!

He is consistent in his inconsistency. But I think that the hon. the Minister after having heard the arguments, will recognize he has at all events been let down lightly—I think that the Minister should consider the advisability of accepting these last few words, because I think the hon. the member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has put the matter very clearly. After all, my friends in that corner of the House; not touchy about representing the workers, they say they represent this class of trade union, and they do not get annoyed when we tell them so. They say these people would be satisfied with this measure, and I think the House would be well advised on that account to accept their view if this is to be a conciliation between the worker and the work-giver, and as far as the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House are concerned nobody will take any exception to their putting forward what their views are. They must be acceptable to this House as far as the employer is concerned, and the other section of the House should be allowed to express their views as representing the employees.

Question that the words “or when there is no such trade union or employers’ organization”, proposed by Dr. de Jager to be omitted from the amendment by Mr. Creswell, stand part of the amendment, put, and the House divided:

Ayes—36.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Christie, J.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Enslin, J. M.

Forsyth, R.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Hunt, E. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Obermeyer, J. G.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Waterston, R. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: de Waal, J. H. H.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—53.

Ballantine, R.

Rates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Fourie, J. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oliver, H. A.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. Creswell, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment, proposed by Mr. Creswell in line 59, put and agreed to.

On page 6, in the first line, the first word “in” should be “of”. That is purely a clerical mistake. It should read “in that area of that undertaking.” I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

The other amendment of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) is that dependent on the amendment now adopted?

The amendment is practically my amendment. It is consequential on the one now carried.

I think the hon. member for Maritzburg North (Mr. Strachan) has an amendment on the paper, which he should move now.

I want to move a small amendment, viz.—

I move that these words be deleted. It is much to be regretted that in the Committee of the whole House We did not see fit to move out the proviso altogether, but seeing that this was, not done, I think it would be for the better working of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, that the House should now agree to the deletion of these six words. All the arguments used in support of the removal of the proviso could be repeated, with double the force, in support of the removal of these six words. The Minister himself has seen fit to somewhat modify the proviso, by the insertion of another six words, which, of course, would also be deleted should the House agree to the amendment. It is hardly necessary at this stage to point out how easily disputes may arise out of the fixing of piece rates. Only yesterday the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) drew attention to the dissatisfaction which has arisen over piece rates at the Salt River railway workshops, and although the railway men are excluded from the operations of this Bill, the assessment of contract prices on the mines and the piece rates in other industries have perhaps been the cause of more trouble and dispute than anything else. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

seconded.

This matter was fully discussed in the Committee of the whole House, and I do not think there is any necessity to go over the same arguments again. This deals with piece-work, and as piece-work is essentially an individual affair, if you are going to have a conciliation board on contracts of that kind you will have conciliation boards sitting all the time. We say in such cases where a principle is involved, for instance, say there was a form of contract and that form was altered in a material way and affected a large number of employees then a conciliation board might be applied for. There a question of principle would be involved. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

The arguments which have been used in this case are even Weaker than those which were used in the case of the last amendment. The Minister is totally wrong when he says that the question of piece-work is an individual matter. It may be so on á mine, but does he not know that in regard to the tailoring trade, for instance, they have what is called a “tailor’s log,” in which prices are laid down for each garment. This log applies to the whole of the trade. If the log or rate is fixed lower for one than for the others, or if one workman accepts a lower fate, the other people would soon have to follow, so that it always affects more than one individual. Surely, the Minister has heard of piece-work in bricklaying and the rates paid to one individual affect thousands of other bricklayers. He must also know that in regard to the printing trade that what was fixed as the piece-rate for one man was fixed for the whole, so that it is by no means an individual matter. By putting in these words he is excluding all piece-workers from the operation of this Act, and I protest most strongly against that being done. If he was going to abolish all piece-work simultaneously with the insertion of these words, then we would agree to it. Then he turns back to his old point of when a matter of principle is involved. What does he mean by that? If a principle is Involved (and it certainly is) in regard to the fixing of piece-rates, why put this in at all? In every case where wages are affected, and they are affected here, a question of principle is involved, and the more so when a large-number of people are directly or indirectly affected. The words which he has added to this particular clause would appear to be going to be used in the future, so that in some cases he can rule that a matter of principle is not involved when piece-rates are fixed, while in others he can rule to the contrary.

The Minister says this question was largely debated in the House, and he has made it clear to the House that he makes it a question of principle. But a large number of disputes have taken place on the assessment of this measuring up. The contract prices in a mine are not only the piece-work prices which regulate that mine, and I cannot understand why the Minister did not think it worth while to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). Many troubles on the Witwatersrand have arisen through the clause which the Minister wishes to eliminate from this Bill, but if he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), the Bill would work very much smoother. This measuring up in the mines and the assessment of those rates is a question of principle, and I hope he will accept the hon. member’s amendment, because it adds a great deal to the Bill for those men who will be involved.

Is the Minister inexorable?

I cannot speak twice.

Really, he must reflect that he has been advised very wrongly during this last six months. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and others on that side of the House want if they can, by little chips in different kinds of ways, to put a block in the way of proper trade union activity.

It is not true.

I know it is true. I have sat in this House for fourteen years, and I have noticed that there has been an improvement. Fourteen years ago trade unions were snarled at in this country, but since then there has been an improvement, and several hon. members assert that they have an admiration for trade unionism; but the shreds of the old opinions cling to them still, and if there is any chance of making them ineffective they do so. It is notorious; it is embodied in the history of industrial strife for the last forty or fifty years, not only in this country, but in others, the number of occasions on which very big strikes have taken place over something simply concerning one individual, in which the whole public press has assured the public that no principle has been involved. The Minister is making a great mistake, this House is making a great mistake, and it is going back on the progress which has been made, and that party over there is stamping themselves as being really opposed to progress in regard to organization among those to whom organization is really a matter of life and death.

I am afraid we are sometimes forgetting that this is a Conciliation Bill we are dealing with. When the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) spoke in support of his objection to this amendment on a previous occasion, the only thing he could bring forward was that we would have interference with the rights of employers in promoting or discharging an employee. In connection with this most important matter of assessment of contract rates, we find nothing at all was said by him. The Minister now says the only reason for his opposition is that it is an individual matter where one man is concerned on piecework. I know from experience, and I am quite sure the Minister knows also, that this is one of the most burning questions in the mines to-day—this question of the assessment of these contract prices. I know quite well that unless something is done to allow this matter to come before a conciliation board we will have more trouble. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why the Minister, who wishes for conciliation—I know he does—takes up this attitude. He was the first Minister to introduce round-table conferences; he was the man we looked to bring about these conferences, but now he takes up an attitude which is difficult to understand.

I should like to know from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) why, in view of the amendment proposed by me and accepted in committee, he brings in his present amendment? I can speak from experience as to what has happened underground on the mines. I say that if a question is an individual dispute, it is net right that they should have this power of applying for a conciliation board. Where, in the opinion of the responsible Minister, a question of principle is not involved, and I will vote against the amendment of the hon. member.

I am very anxious to hear the Minister giving an explanation to the House of his attitude with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). I will move that the whole proviso be left out so as to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of giving us his views.

You cannot do that. It is not on the paper. You must give notice.

It is an amendment on an amendment which has just been moved, to omit all words after “or” in line 11.

As the hon. member is aware, notice of an amendment must be given, unless it is a consequential amendment.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has moved an amendment that certain words should be left out.

I am afraid that the hon. member’s amendment cannot be looked upon as a consequential amendment.

With all submission to you, Sir, on a previous clause there was an amendment to omit certain words. I proposed it, and Mr. Speaker allowed it, although it was to omit a much larger number of words. This is an amendment to an amendment which is before the House.

It seems to me in one case it was a question of amending a proviso, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) proposes to do away with the proviso altogether, and I cannot look upon that as a consequential amendment.

May I move the omission of the word “contract” from the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) in line 11?

That the hon. member can do.

Then I will move it in that form—

I want to give the Minister an opportunity of explaining why he will not accept the reasonable amendment moved by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). The Minister’s desire is well known, he desires conciliation and the principle of conciliation should apply in the assessment of contract prices. The contract prices for particular classes of work are fixed by agreement between the trades unions and the employers, and this question of the assessment of contract prices has been a prolific cause of strife. The Minister will admit that it was a prolific cause of strikes in the past, and now he is going to omit it from the area of conciliation. I hope in the circumstances he will reconsider the matter. Undoubtedly the working men of the country will approve of it. I hope the Minister will approve of the amendment, as it seems reasonable, or at least that he will explain why he will not accept it.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) appears to be labouring under some misapprehension. What is meant by the amendment, which the Minister accepted in Committee, was the assessment of prices under a contract to be paid to the individual. I would like to explain by an illustration, e.g., where a man has been breaking rock down below and his work is to be measured by the surveyor, and there is any dispute as to how much that person earned—

That is not the point at all.

What we want to avoid is that because one individual has a dispute with a surveyor as to the amount of work done he can demand a conciliation board as of right.

It has nothing to do with it at all.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) has been obliging enough to move an amendment in order to give me an opportunity of talking, possibly also, he will be obliging enough to leave the House at the same time as he did when I spoke for the first time. This matter was fully discussed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) when the same amendment came before the Committee of the Whole House.

It was never moved.

The hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) when he states that this would apply to individuals. What is intended is that it should not apply to individuals but to a large number of men.

What the Minister’s argument comes to is this: if you do down a dozen men it is a question of principle, but if you only do down one man it is not. The Minister with his advisers—

Speak on the merits of the case.

With the advice of these advisers he has gone astray. I am speaking on the merits of the case. You are putting into the Bill something which will give the wealthy organizations opportunities of stopping conciliation boards. They can threaten that they will take the matter to court which will deter the Minister from instituting a conciliation board.

May I ask the right hon. the Minister is it not a fact that when a miner is working on a stope, and he is getting a certain amount of money when breaking rock, at the end of the month the manager informs him there is to be a cut in the price? May I ask the right hon. the Minister if the workers look upon this as the thin end of the wedge tending to the reduction of contract prices, in that particular event could they have a conciliation board? According to my reading they cannot have a conciliation board. In spite of the arguments for the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon), on the argument between the workman and the surveyor as to the amount of rock which has been broken, there is a big difference between the two cases. They are entirely different things. This method of reducing wages when a man is making a good cheque and the manager comes along and tells him that the price will be reduced, is increasing, and has been the reason for untold disputes on the Witwatersrand. Quite recently the contract men have approached the Government for a conciliation board under the old law. There have been disputes after disputes on this vexed question of contract prices. This is one of the biggest things in the Bill. Do you want to avoid strikes and big upheavals?

Certainly.

Then you must have some machinery to act on. If you intend this why not have a law on which you can act. There is not a man in this House connected with the industry for the last twenty years who will deny that nine out of every ten disputes on the Witwatersrand have been in connection with contract prices. We are trying to meet hon. members; we are trying to make conciliation a success; we do not want strikes, we are not looking for trouble, but we feel this that if the employing classes of South Africa are going to grind the workers down into the mire we would rather see them fight and go under than take it lying down. That is our position. If you are going to debar sections of the workers from coming under this machinery how do you expect the working classes to put their weight behind and make the Bill a success? Here we have a cutting from a paper up-country which appeared two weeks ago—

That would not be included.

No!

The Minister was asked some time ago by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) if he could deny that most of the disputes have arisen in connection with assessment of contract prices and he could not deny it. Why exclude these men working underground on contract? Why is it being done? It is not a bit of use the Government telling the people of this country they are trying to end industrial trouble, and the whole reason they are having industrial disputes in this country is because of some wild headed agitators. It is no use telling that tale. We are sincerely asking for conciliation, and we want to meet the Government, we want to try and make this Bill a success, but we do ask the Government and the Minister not to be like the Rock of Gibraltar—immovable—but to try and meet this part of the House, and include some of the measures we think absolutely necessary in this Act, if they are going to make it a success. I know some of the papers up-country are publishing impressions that we in this: corner of the House have been threatening to use—

I must remind the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that he must confine his remarks to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Cattle)(Mr. Alexander).

Yes, I am. The object of the amendment for the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) is to bring these men under the scope of this Bill, and I am just pointing out that it is no use the Government trying to put the blame on the shoulders of the agitators or on our shoulders when you have trouble in this country if the Government themselves will not take the necessary steps to provide methods of conciliation to those workers. That is the point, and as I say we are being blamed even now by S.A.P. papers up-country, who accuse us of hurling threats at the Government of big disputes in the future unless certain things are carried out which we want carried out. It is not a threat, but a plain fact, at least in our experience in the past. We know from experience the things that cause disputes, and the Minister cannot deny that the question of contracts is one of the biggest questions on the Reef, and you are going to cause endless trouble unless you bring this matter under the Act and work these things out and come; to some decision in regard to these disputes. We challenge the right hon. the Minister to deny so far as this particular class is concerned that if he eliminates contract prices on the Rand the Bill is going to be a failure on the Witwatersrand.

I propose to withdraw my amendment.

I object.

Question that the words “or the assessment, of” proposed to be omitted by Mr. Strachan, stand part of the clause, put, and the House divided:

Ayes—52.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell, L.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, J. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reitz, D.

Rockey, W.

Saunders, E. G. A.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F.

Van Heerden, B I. J.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.;Robinson, C. P.

Noes—33.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Boydell, T.

Christie, J.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Enslin, J. M.

Forsyth, R.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Hunt, E. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Strachan negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Amendment in lines 10 and 11 put and agreed to.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is not the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Strachan)?

That is so; but the question of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) comes into consideration later on.

The amendment of my hon. friend is to omit the words “assessment of contract prices” to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) moved an amendment to omit “contract.” I submit that that amendment of my hon. friend should be put first.

In the ordinary course that would be so, but if the House decides that the word “contract” is to stand, then it would afterwards have to vote in a different sense. That question will be put immediately afterwards. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) will see that after this amendment has been decided on, assuming that the words remain, then the question will be as to whether or not the word “contract” is to stand.

I want to move an amendment—

I shall go back to the original point, and want to say that, in my opinion, the whole proviso is unnecessary. Many hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of workers in this country are going to be left out of this Bill by the insertion of that proviso. Personally, I think the Minister will find himself, in his capacity as having to judge whether a matter of principle is involved in a dispute or not, to be in a most difficult and onerous position. Possibly we shall find in days to come that some very peculiar rulings indeed on this point will be given. As a result the Bill will be ridiculed all round. The onus for this will not rest with the members on this side of the House, but upon the Minister and upon the hon. members who gave the proviso their support. But, so that this House shall not look entirely foolish, and so that hon. members may not be ridiculed by the people of this country when they find this proviso is an obstacle to stopping some tremendous upheaval, I move the present amendment, so that a conciliation board may still be appointed for these matters. When these questions of disputes upon contract prices and other points arise—if disputes do arise on that account—the Minister should not be able to bang the door in the face of people who apply for a conciliation board. He should avail himself of the machinery provided suggested in the amendment. I propose that under these circumstances he shall appoint an advisory committee, one of the members of which shall be a representative of the employers, one a representative of the employers, with an independent chairman. That committee shall make an enquiry into the matter, and if two out of the three members find that there are good grounds for the appointment of a conciliation board, they will report to the Minister. Surely there is nothing wrong in that: the Minister is not giving away any principles. Labour inspectors and other officers will be running around making enquiries and trying to delay the dispute, but will get no further because the dispute is outside the matters for which a board can be appointed, but an advisory committee, of the nature which I have indicated, will be able to give valuable advice to the Minister and allow him to appoint a board if necessary. Under this amendment the Minister will be able to take all the necessary steps to avoid any threatened upheaval. He will be able to get a representative of the employers and employees to sit down with him or his officers to consider all the facts, and if they consider, or any two of them consider, that it is a matter for which a conciliation board should be appointed, then they can set the machinery in motion. It will remove an onus from the shoulders of the Minister which will prove very onerous in the future. It will prevent, too, this House looking ridiculous in the eyes of the public outside, who are looking to us to set up machinery to prevent strikes. Under the proviso we are deliberately excluding large numbers of people from the Bill. I hope the Minister will recognize that position and accept my amendment.

I second the amendment. I hope the Minister will accept it, although I rather doubt it. I see the hon. the Minister is consulting the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) on the question. The Minister apparently finds that even here, when he has to give his decision, consultation is very valuable.

Hear, hear.

We can see that the right hon. the Minister is consulting the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber). I do not blame the Minister.

The hon. member is quite wrong.

There is nothing to be ashamed of.

The hon. member can have his say.

Of course we cannot assist matters by losing our tempers. We are on a Conciliation Bill. The Minister will surely not deny that he has been consulting the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber).

I am listening to the hon. member. The hon. member can have his say.

Well, the right hon. the Minister has done it so openly and I certainly do not blame him. Under the amendment the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is proposing a way out by which the Minister will not have to decide one of the most serious and most dangerous things. We know that the Minister is a busy man. He may be on an election tour at the time.

Hear, hear.

Then all of a sudden some serious matter arises in Johannesburg and the Minister has to decide whether a matter of principle is involved. Surely it will be much better for him to appoint such a board with a representative of the employers and a representative of the employees on it, and an independent chairman. They can advise him and they can say “in our opinion there should be a conciliation board.” I do hope the Minister will accept it, because it seems to me that it is going to provide a calm and safe tribunal to advise the Minister in circumstances where reasonable advice is absolutely essential. We know in the past that owing to the Minister being busy on other matters, serious trouble has arisen, and before it could be dealt with it had assumed very serious proportions. The Minister could appoint somebody on the spot to deal with the trouble instead of it having to wait for his return. I hope the Minister will accept it, as it is a very reasonable amendment. It will be a very difficult thing for the Minister to decide on every trivial matter whether a matter of principle is involved, whereas a board could deal with it in a very short time and advise upon it, and he could use his discretion in acting upon that advice. Therefore I second the amendment.

I think the reason for this proviso is to take out the purview of this Bill small individual matters where it is not worth while there going to the tribunal of a conciliation board, and to avoid a shower of applications being made upon the Minister. If you are going to complicate the matter by application from hundreds and thousands of persons being thrown upon the Minister then it makes a laughing-stock of the whole Bill. I certainly cannot accept it.

Ek het die Minister van Mynwese en Industries daarop gewys, dat dit die gevaar is waarin hy hom gaat stel. Ek sie nie in waarom die bepaling, die proviso, daar moet wees nie; maar ongelukkig is dit nou eenmaal daar. Ek dink dat die Minister nie kan ontken nie, dat wat die lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) sê is wat sal gebeur. Nou sê die Minister: Ek moet reeds tot skyf dien vir alle aanvalle, waarom sal ek nou ’n raad aanstel, die alle klagte ook sal kry? Natuurlik het die Minister ingesit wat ek aan die hand gegee het en nie hierdie bepaling laat in sit nie, dan was hy nie in die moeilikheid nie.

Do let the Minister try and dismiss from his mind that we want to have conciliation boards applied for every day. I wish to goodness the Minister had spent that last six months in solitary retirement, because he has gone right back. The whole of this proviso is based on an entire misapprehension of some remarks made in the report of the Brace Commission. That Commission in its report called attention to the fact that under the standing arrangements between the trade unions organization and the Chamber of Mines, machinery was provided whereby boards of reference were called for, and that there were far too many of these boards being called for. This is not the same thing at all. This is not under a standing arrangement between employers and employees. This deals with disputes where no industrial councils exist. The effect of the Minister’s present amendment is this: let us say a dispute arises over the assessment of the price paid per fathom to a contractor underground. That is an individual case. In such a case the submission to the thin edge of the wedge may be an indication of a policy which can be applied to one individual and then another, and at the first indication the mass of the workers will take it up and bitterly resent it. Trade Unions are particularly jealous of any change in an individual case which they feel if applied more extensively will be very gravely detrimental to the interests of their men. Then the Minister has to sit down and ascertain whether a matter of principle is concerned. It is not a question of moral principle, or ethical principle, it is a question that a body of men may feel so strongly on a matter that there will be a dispute which will increase in bitterness and anger until you have a cessation of work. That is the question, not one of principle, but whether it is desirable to have a conciliation board established before tempers are aroused. It may be good business for employers to spend a good deal of money on litigation rather than have a conciliation board thrashing the matter out. Under my hon. friend’s amendment this little committee of three, one representative of one party, the other a representative of the other party, and the Government’s representative, instead of determining whether it is a matter of principle—and it is awfully difficult to say in many cases whether a matter of principle is involved or not—they simply report to the Minister whether a conciliation board should he established. And they will determine on the machinery before temper is aroused. We have made our position very clear, and I hope the day will come when we can reverse the decision which you will come to here to-day.

I am not afraid that the hon. the Minister will have too many applications, but I fear, that with this difficulty of getting conciliation boards, he will get none at all. He will get the men’s tempers aroused, and before the machinery of conciliation comes into force, he will have the men in an obstinate state, and the employers in the same state, and he will have the same conditions as in 1922—when the conciliation board came to the Rand, and neither side would give in. My opinion is, that it is helpful to get into consultation at the earliest possible moment. The Minister need not fear he will have too many applications, as I am sure the men will not be too fond of applying for conciliation boards and thus making themselves ridiculous. If the Minister had agreed to the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) there would have been no necessity for this amendment.

The right hon. the Prime Minister is a very busy man; he has a thousand and one calls made upon him, and consequently he cannot be so frequently in the House as hon. members would wish. As he is in the House now, I desire to appeal to him to influence the Minister of Mines and Industries to accept the addition proposed by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). The reasons for this appeal to him are, that when the Wine and Spirits Control Bill was under discussion, the right hon. the Prime Minister said he was prepared to go to any length, in the case of dispute as to price, so that there should be reference to another authority, in order that any disagreements should be avoided. I submit that here we provide a clause for the calling in of another authority, and if the Prime Minister is prepared to go to any length to avoid disputes in the one instance, then I hope he will be consistent and influence the Minister of Mines and Industries in the direction desired.

Question, that the words proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, put, and the House divided:

Ayes—48.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell, L.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Fitchat, H.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nixon, C. E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Rockey, W.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—28.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Enslin, J. M.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Hunt, E. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Sampson dropped.

I think that this amendment is consequential on the one we took on sub-section (1) of this clause. Under this section the employees can now, although they have no organization, apply for a conciliation board, and this gives conciliation boards the right if they are appointed.

The second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Webber put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I wish to move—

Sub-section (1) is to begin like that; that was in accordance with the suggestion that was thrown out here, among them I think by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) that we should say “a majority” of the representatives of each party must agree to accept arbitration.

I second. In view of this amendment I withdraw the one put on the paper by me on this section. This meets my views and is in accordance, I think, with the opinion expressed on all sides of the House during the Committee stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

This may appear to be a similar point to what we were discussing just now in regard to the proviso, but in that clause we were discussing whether board might be appointed for this purpose contained in that proviso. Now the right hon. the Minister has gone a step further and has said that no alteration as far as the terms of employment are concerned shall be made. The terms include the questions of “suspension, derating or discharge, promotion, transfer” and all those matters. They are not terms of employment at all. Practically, what he means are questions of hours, wages, and holidays, and they are to be the only things now to fall under this Bill, for which the employer is expected to give a proper notice to the employee before making a change. I think that the right hon. the Minister has left grave doubt in the Bill in regard to what a man may strike or may not strike for; that at least we should leave this out of the Bill until this matter has been decided by the Minister as to whether it is a matter of principle involved. A man may not strike on account of the matters for which a conciliation board can be appointed: a conciliation board cannot be appointed for any of the matters contained in this clause unless a matter of principle is involved. Now the position is that the employer under this clause can come along and effect an alteration, distinctly effect an alteration, without submitting the matter to the Minister, then a principle is involved and the whole position is compromised. I contend that this has no right to be here, and what we have to do in all cases is to maintain the status quo of the individual until it has been decided as to whether it falls under this Act or not. By the insertion of this paragraph, which again does not emanate from the Select Committee but has been put into the Bill during the recess, and I may say that all the dispute this afternoon and last night is on account of matters which have been added to the Bill since the Select Committee dealt with it—I want to point that out clearly to the House, that the Select Committee are not responsible for this—we want to have this status quo maintained until the matter has been decided by the Minister as to whether a question of principle has been involved so that the change may not take place and compromise the situation.

seconded.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) says quite rightly that the Select Committee defined the terms of employment. Hon. members will see in Clause 3 that “it shall be unlawful for any undertaking, industry, trade or occupation”, etc. The words “terms of employment” are used. Nobody, unless a month’s notice is given—

That is in it too.

Yes, but when we discussed that in Select Committee it was asked, “what do you mean by ‘terms of employment’? Do you mean to say that if a man has been working in a particular place, and you send him to another store in the same service, is that a change of employment? If you change him from Cape Town to Paarl, or from one store to another, or if you alter in any way his individual undertaking, is that an alteration in the terms of employment?” Now, it was argued by, I think, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and other members of the Select Committee, that the expression “terms of employment” are so well known in business and trade union circles that it is unnecessary to define it at all. Well, what did I find? After the Bill was published, for instance, the bank clerks, it was found, would fall under the Bill, and it was pointed out that, if the bank clerks could not be dealt with without giving a month’s notice for these things which are mentioned here, it would lead to considerable inconvenience.

Was that pointed out by the banks or by the clerks?

It was pointed out by the banks. If they cannot discharge, transfer or derate an individual member of the bank without giving a month’s notice, it will simply mean that it will make it impossible to run the ordinary business of these institutions.

Oh, no!

I am satisfied that that is so. If you are going to tie up the management of your industries and trades in such a manner, as would be the effect if you gave such a wide interpretation of your terms of employment, it would mean that you would make the running of ordinary enterprise impossible. One must get away from the idea that it is the intention of this Bill to interfere continuously with the management of all enterprise, but if one cannot get away from that idea—well, then one might as well say farewell to all private enterprise. In the circumstances, I cannot accept this. I move—

We have it in Clause 4, and I think we should have it here too.

seconded.

It is best that the right hon. the Minister should move this after this question has been decided.

The Minister rather reminds me of a certain sketch which I once read many years ago, when a candidate went to contest a certain seat, and when he was met by the representatives of one party who told him “if you do so and so, it will mean goodbye to the glory of old England”; and then the other party met him and said “if you do not do that, it will mean good-bye to the glory of old England.” It was the same thing either way. Well, the Minister everywhere tells us “if you do this or don’t do that, you will make the working of this Bill impossible.” He has told us a terrible story of what will happen if a bank clerk should be promoted, transferred or disrated. Surely the instance which the Minister mentions is a ridiculous one? Does the Minister mean to tell the House that the banks are continually disrating, promoting or transferring men at a moment’s notice? And if they do do so, are these alterations always likely to be of such a nature every time that the individuals will resent them? Surely the Minister is defeating his own intentions in this Bill by the attitude he now adopts? Where did all this bad influence come from? It is sincerely to be hoped that the Minister will come back to that better frame of mind which he displayed last June, and I hope hon. members on the other side of the House will support the better the Minister who existed last June, and that they will bring the Minister away from the effect of these pernicious influences. I am sure that if hon. members will vote with us on this amendment that it will have a healthy effect on the Minister, and it will show that the decisions of the Select Committee are a far safer guide than the advice of the other body to which the Minister has listened. I appeal to the House not to be frightened by these phantoms which the Minister has raised of which he has been told by the banks and others.

I do not think that the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) really realizes what effect this Bill is going to have on business in general. Members have been looking at this Bill hitherto almost entirely from the mining point of view and from the point of view of big factories. But this Bill will apply to every business employing two or more employees. That means that practically every business will be affected, and if this measure is to apply to an ordinary office or store, and to every ordinary business house in the country, it will mean that it will be almost impossible to carry on. It will mean that one cannot tell any clerk to do anything else except what he has been accustomed to do, without giving him a month’s notice, because it is not under the ordinary terms under which he is taken on—

Yes, that can be done.

The Minister is perfectly right in the attitude he is adopting. Unless the terms of employment are defined in such fashion, as is now proposed by the Minister, it will be impossible for any ordinary business to carry on; it is only because the Bill contains this proviso that the business people are prepared to countenance it at all. I therefore hope that the Minister will adhere to his decision, and not accept the amendment.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.12 p.m.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Sampson put and negatived, and the amendment, proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

This is really consequential, as it was overlooked in the Committee stage.

seconded.

Agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

I thought that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) would have moved the deletion of this clause, and I would have had the pleasure of supporting it, because, I take it, we have to accept this compulsion, and he will now vote on the other side for compulsion. I think we might make clear to trade union men as to the matters they might strike on and what they may not strike on. It is by no means clear in Clause 4 (1) on what matters a man may strike. A number of matters are excluded unless a matter of principle is involved. A man will report a breach of the rules of his trade union to the employer or to his trade union, and the trade union, after interviewing the employer, will say we can get no remedy, therefore what is our position under this Act? In the Act we shall find that matters relating to suspension, discharge and other matters, are not matters which under the Act, and then the trade unions will take proper steps to deal with the employer immediately. Afterwards the Minister will come along and say: “This is a matter of principle.” One can see quite well what state of affairs is going to prevail, especially when times brighten up and employees think they are entitled to better conditions than to-day. The machinery of this Bill will be used against them. The clearest way is to use my words instead of those the hon. the Minister proposes to insert.

seconded.

I have no objection to the principle underlying the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), but I think this is an improvement on the amendment as put in the Select Committee, which was rather hurriedly done after a certain thing had been pointed out to us, but hon. members will see that I have put a more elaborate amendment on the paper. It is quite clear that Clause 4, section (1) which has the limitation in it, only deals with conciliation boards and not with the industrial councils. We must, therefore, in dealing with this matter here on Clause 12, differentiate between the two. I therefore propose the amendments standing in my name, which would be negativing the amendment of the Select Committee, viz.:

I therefore adopt the wording of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) to limit that only to the board, and leave the industrial council free and unhampered. I think that the amendment of which I have given notice gives full effect to what was intended.

seconded.

I withdraw my amendment.

Before that is done, I would like to say, in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), that I opposed this Bill on account of this, among other clauses, and I am still against this clause, because I know it will never be put into operation. We have had it on the statute book of the Transvaal for some time past; it has never worked or been put into operation, and in my opinion it is impossible to be put into operation. Supposing a body of workmen come out on strike in contravention of this clause, do you think any Government in power is going to imprison four or five thousand men for going on strike because this clause has not been complied with.

They have done it.

They have not done it, and will never do it. I am against the clause, and do not think it should be on the statute book; but if it is going to be, then I think the amendment proposed by the right hon. Minister is wider than that proposed by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson).

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment in lines 69 to 71 put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

I move this amendment with the object of limiting the powers of the registrar. If this amendment is not accepted it will be entirely in the discretion of the registrar to refuse to register any organization of employers or employees however powerful they may be if there is already on this register an organization which in his opinion sufficiently represents the members of that trade. That, as I said before, means simply that you are giving the registrar the power to make a monopoly in trade unions. I do not think that such a power is desirable, and I challenged it in Committee; but my amendment now does not go so far as the amendment I moved in Committee. The object I have in view is that the power of the registrar shall be curtailed and that when the men who apply to have their organization placed on the register are men who can fairly be said to represent the interests which the organization is intended to serve, then the registrar must be bound to register it. That is the effect of the amendment I move. This amendment is not as important as it was before we accepted the amendment to Clause 4, but I still think it should be accepted by the House, and as the House has accepted Clause 4 I think they should accept the amendment I now put forward. The whole object is to prevent a large body of men engaged in a certain trade, whether they are employers or employees, from being shut out from registration of their organization. I think it is desirable in the interests of the objects of this Bill that whenever you have a large section either of employees or employers in a trade who do not consider that the organization which at that time is upon the register, represents them sufficiently, you should not prevent them from forming a separate organization to watch their own interests.

To protect the rights of small nations.

They might be big nations. This clause as it stands gives a monopoly to the one which is first on the register whether it be big or small, and however big may be the interests which are represented by the organization applying to be placed on the register it may be shut out simply because it was not the first organization for which application is made.

The rules of the society must be passed by the registrar.

The rules must be passed of course. I do not object to that; I do not object to (a) and (b) but I object to (c). It gives the registrar the power of preventing these men from placing their organization or union on the register simply on the ground that someone else has been first and he thinks that is sufficient. This is an awful power to give a man who is a mere clerk. I therefore propose the amendment, and I also propose the final words of my amendment that there shall be an appeal in any case from the registrar’s opinion. Do not leave this important matter in the hands of a clerk but have the responsibility rest on the Minister.

seconded.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) spoke, but not on his amendment. He spoke really against sub-section (a). As far as the amendment is concerned, it is almost the same as the clause, except that it contains a few more words. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to accept that. As for the second amendment, an appeal to the Minister, I can assure you that it is unnecessary in the Bill. An appeal always lies to the Minister. He can always overrule an officer; no officer has absolute discretion—the Minister is the Ministerial head and he is responsible to this House, and if an officer does not obey, either the Minister or the officer must go, and as the Minister is not likely to go, you know what will happen. To make doubly sure I am, however, prepared to accept the amendment also.

There is a vast difference between the words in the Bill and the amendment, which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) proposes to insert. The Minister says he will accept the amendment, and I have no doubt whatever his suggestion will be accepted by the hon. members opposite. I may, however, point out what has been given in the clause to trade unions is now being taken away. It simply means, as far as registration is concerned, the monopoly of registration to the most representative body is taken away, as some other body can come along claiming that they represent different interests. It is perfectly clear now that anybody can apply. The hon. member said he did not believe in a monopoly of this kind being given to any union. I have no doubt that it would please him if any number of trade unions came along to be registered. He knows it would be making it more difficult for the Bill to successfully operate. In the Select Committee we had a large number of employers who came before us and said that they wanted a monopoly—that representative trade unions should have a monopoly. The master builders said the same thing, and the works manager of the Cape Times, in a recent speech, said that in this country he was glad there was one printers’ union only, as the many unions in England had led to confusion. Unless we could get all the sectional unions to form one strong and solid body, it was hopeless to expect conciliation boards to settle disputes. It would make it hard for employers also, because section after section would raise new points, and it would be impossible for the employers to negotiate with the different sections. You can never arrive at a national basis of organization by having a number of unions in the same trade or industries. I think the hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Giovanetti) has had experience in the building trade councils, where the employees were members of different organizations, and it was most difficult to deal with them. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents a body of men, who do not desire to be trade unionists, from forming an organization outside the existing union and obtaining registration if they can show that the existing organization is not representative. The registrar has the power of withdrawing the certificate from any union if it is not representative, and allowing another union, which is representative, to be substituted. I object to the deletion of the words in the Bill.

I will put—

Before you put that—

The hon. member has already spoken.

Cannot I reply by moving a motion?

This is not a motion; it is an amendment.

Question: that the words “interests concerned”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, put, and the House divided:

Ayes—44.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bates, F. T.

Beyers, F. W.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, D. M.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fitchat, H.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, J. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hunt, E. W.

Keyter, J. G.

King, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

McAlister, H. S.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Purcell, I.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Noes—39.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Blackwell, L.

Buchanan, W. P.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, F. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, T. J.

Nieholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Eeden, J. W.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter, J. A.

Watt. T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Webber dropped.

The other amendment at the end of the page, I presume, falls away now, or is it an independent amendment?

It is an independent amendment. I want an appeal to the Minister.

I suggest to the hon. member that he should adjourn the debate, so that he can consider his position.

The second amendment proposed by Mr. Webber put and agreed to.

I desire to move the following new Clause to follow Clause 19—

We discussed this matter at some length when the House was in Committee, and the amendment then moved was defeated by a very small vote in a very thin House. I was hoping to get a better expression from the House when you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair, but I am afraid that the House is still rather thin in this regard, and that we shall not have a full vote. I read in letters from the Witwatersrand that this is considered a very vital clause of the Bill. And no wonder. On the last occasion I read a number of documents issued on the Rand which made it a condition of employment in certain mines and under certain conditions that a man was required to give an undertaking that he would not be a member of a trades union. I also read a memorandum issued by the E.R. P.M. offering certain concessions or privileges, but containing a condition that those desirous of obtaining those privileges were to give an undertaking that they would not be members of a trade union. Now the Minister countered that on the last occasion by saying that he had made inquiries and that he understood that this practice was now being discontinued. Well, recently I received a letter from the Rand to the effect that men who were constantly going visiting the mines were informed that this practice is not only not being discontinued, but on the contrary that the same condition for obtaining privileges is laid down with regard to a number of other sections of men, and that they are now being requested, in return for certain privileges, not only to give an undertaking not to belong to any union, but also to leave the unions to which they have belonged for a number of years. That is wrong in principle, and we regard it as a direct attack on trade unionism. If we are anxious to see this Bill succeed, and if We want to have some remnants of trades unions left that can function under this Bill, then we had better insert the clause which I have proposed, because, otherwise, before long, if the employers on the Witwatersrand have their way, there will be no trades unions left. Then the Witwatersrand will be a good place to be out of, and I think the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) before many years would agree with me. If we have no trade unions, and no constitutional means for the men to express their grievances, then the same thing which occurred in Russia may occur on the Rand. If you suppress all these constitutional outlets then one can only expect things to happen which anyone would regret to see here in this country. The policy is now in vogue on the Witwatersrand, and it will undoubtedly be followed by other employers throughout the country. If they see that employers on the Witwatersrand are afraid of trade unions, they will follow their lead, and it will indeed be a very bad thing for this country if that sort of persecution is allowed to prevail. It has already been in practice for some time. There is a vast undercurrent of strong feeling on the Rand today, and it would not take much more than a match to set light to it. The men are simply waiting for a lead in regard to this and other matters, and trouble will ensue. We can set an end to that. We have an opportunity in this Bill to prevent anything of that kind happening; and I hope the House will take those steps. All employers are not afraid of trade unionism. I did intend to read to the House the provision which is made for my own trade union in regard to membership. Shortly it is this, the National Council insist on all the members employed in the printing firms in South Africa belonging to the South African Typographical Union, and in regard to foremen—and after all this amendment has only been moved with the end in view of protecting officials on the mines—they are left free and unfettered to join the union or not as they choose. That is the condition in the printing industry with 5,000 or more employees in this country—5,000 employees, mainly whites, and under the terms and conditions of employment they must belong to the union, and the foremen are free to join or not as they like. I do not know why there should be all this nervousness and distrust of trade unions. What was the commencement? The question of the officials and shift bosses joining the unions. Then the question was raised as to which union officials should join. What business was it of an employer to interfere? Afterwards finding that some petty officials still belonged to the Mine Workers’ Union, they started this policy of tyranny. And now the policy has extended to all the mines. One can almost foresee that if this amendment is defeated, before a couple of years are Over it will be the general practice for a man to be unable to get employment unless he gives up his membership of his trade union. We shall get no relief from that state of affairs until we get rid of this Government.

When?

Very quickly. I am sure that if this kind of thing is allowed to continue; the Government cannot remain for long. Well, the opportunity is given here to show that we have some regard for the trades unions whom the Minister and his officials in practice are going to beg and pray to not to strike but to have the conciliation board. In practice the Minister or his officers will come to the trade unions and ask them to have a conciliation hoard appointed. The argument used this afternoon led one to believe that things worked the other way, but that is not the actual practice. The Department will be most concerned in trying to avoid a strike. Now the right hon. the Minister is going to take a step which will cause enmity among the trade unions and against the Government. They will be denied the protection which they deserve against the instances of tyranny which I have read to the House on this and a former occasion, and which any hon. member can read for himself.

I want to second this amendment and supplement what the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has said, by drawing attention to the fact that the words my hon. friend now wishes to add to Clause 19 was in the Bill when it came from the Select Committee. This is a point which should be noted. I take it that the reason why the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is so anxious, that this stipulation should be made is because of the terms laid down recently by the mining houses to this effect—

It also applies to collieries in South Africa. [An Hon. Member: “What are you reading from?”]. I am reading from a report of the Chamber of Mines. Here they lay down in a new form of agreement, that no employee shall belong to a trade union. It has been repeatedly stated on the other side of the House that members are in favour of trade unions. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said he was a friend of the working man. Well, if the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is a friend of the working man, surely he, for one, will not vote in opposition. Now, what possible objection can there be to laying it down that an employer shall not make this a condition of employment? If we are in favour of trade unions, why should we put a bar up against the progress of trade unions. In this morning’s local paper, last night’s proceedings on the Industrial Conciliation Bill, has a heading: “The Industrial Disturbances Bill.” If the Minister refuses to accept amendments from this side of the House and continues to adopt amendments from that side of the House, I am afraid that the title given to the Bill by our old friend, the Cape Times, will prove to be the correct one. I do hope the Minister will accept this addition. The Bill is framed for the purpose of encouraging employers to organize, to get employees also to organize, and for both organizations to come together and hammer out their difficulties until a mutual agreement is arrived at. If men are not to be allowed to join trade unions, how can we achieve that desirable state of affairs?

I must express my surprise at the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) in moving this at the report stage. When the House was in Committee I moved an amendment and asked the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) to accept it, and no doubt if he had accepted it at the time the clause as amended would have gone through. The amendment was to insert the words “other than a person appointed to a position of trust or authority under the employer.” But the hon. member would not accept it, and instead of incorporating it in his amendment he still goes for the whole loaf. If both himself and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) will consider it they will find that I am correct.

When the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) read the provision in the contract of employment as laid down by the Chamber of Mines he made my flesh creep. Certainly in the way in which he read it, it did appear as a most unconscionable piece of tyranny. But I do not think he put this matter quite clearly or fairly to the House, and at the risk of again being described as a hireling of the Chamber of Mines, I want to put the position as it appears to me. This Form B, containing the clause which he read, is expressed to apply only in the case of a man on a monthly engagement, as opposed to the ordinary miner on twenty-four hours’ notice. And it is expressly provided that this clause must be deleted from the terms of employment when the employee is not an official. What does it say? It says—

In other words, what is meant by this contract is that if you are an official you shall not belong to a union of workmen. There is no dastardly attempt to prevent workmen from joining a trade union. It only applies to officials. All that these people are doing is to say that they will not have their officials—such as mine captains, shift bosses and secretaries—joining an ordinary union of workmen. What my hon. friend is trying to do, in this very innocent-looking clause of his, is to provide that if an employer says to his foremen “You shall not join a trade union of workmen,” the employer shall be sent to gaol. I have never heard of anything more monstrous in my life! An employer who says to a foreman of his, “I don’t mind you belonging to your own foreman’s union, but I do object to you belonging to a union of workmen,” has to be sent to gaol for it. I wonder if we are living in the middle ages or the twentieth century? The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) takes up the attitude like the inquisitions of old, that if a man is not entirely orthodox in his trade unionism, burn him at the stake. But then, as I pointed out in the Committee stage, the clause is unworkable. If an employer honestly comes out into the open and says to a man, “You are a member of the trade union, and I therefore dismiss you,” he will go to gaol. If an employer finds out that a man is a member of a particular trade union, and, without giving himself away, simply dismisses him, he will escape scot free. The whole thing is fantastic and absolutely unworkable, and I hope the House will not accept it.

Two observations were passing through my mind while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) was speaking. I could not help thinking of those tremendous asservations of his, that he was a friend of the trade union. I could not help thinking that the big bulk of trade unions on that account would say “Save me from my friends.” Another thought was, whether he was not dwelling mentally on the prevailing thought of the sixties and seventies of last century. The document which we read about in the sixties, presented as a condition of employment, is a very similar document which I hold in my hand. It has been utterly useless. It is one of those attempts of very short-sighted employers to prevent organization. I am coming to the other matter in a moment. This is to the engine drivers on a certain mine. It really lays down that the form of application must be as follows and signed as follows—

The staff officials for purposes like this can be made to include all sorts of people. A man, for instance, looking after the pumps of the mines is sometimes there on daily payment and sometimes on weekly payment, and if he is a man you have a good deal of confidence in, you put him on a 30 days’ agreement, which does not make him a member of the staff. Take, again, in regard to the staff. Merely calling an engine driver a member of the staff does not make him any the less a working man, it is rather like the scene in the “Gondoliers,” you remember—“It is not the boatman, it is the lord high chancellor.” An engine driver remains an engine driver; you may say he goes on the staff if he applies for these privileges. It is the old design to try and induce men to leave their unions, to break up the very organization which the hon. the Minister and hon. members expressed their desire to see proceed, and in this Bill, by various little devices like this, to try and prevent a trade union being an efficient organization. Now, I do not know what other trade unions have. I do know this. The trade union to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) belongs, says in their rules that once a man accepts a position as foreman on the staff, he is not subject to the ordinary rules, but I venture to say, if you were to go down to the next Union-Castle mail boat, you will find that most of the engineers on the staff are members of the Amalgamated Engineers’ Union. And they retain that membership whatever position they arrive at.

Does not the hon. member think that goes too far?

No, I do not, but he does not see the effect of the amendment, because I am making an engine driver lord high engine driver, he is on the staff, making a man who is looking after the station down below a lord high station-tender and putting him on the staff. The thing is absurd. Here is a distinctly unfair movement on the part of the employers to try as hard as they possibly can to prevent men joining a trade union, and to continue belonging to a trade union, and I want to show the House the unfairness of it. If the hon. member will kindly reflect about the membership of a union, he will see that the engineers’ union is a life-long union for a man, in the same way as he himself would be very loath indeed to have it made a condition of any remunerative employment, that he would renounce any associations with the Bar Society.

I would resent it intensely.

Well, take the case of a man in the engineering trade, he is offered a position as foreman, we will say, on the mine, as engineer-foreman, and it is made a condition of employment that he must renounce his trade union.

Why make a crime of it?

Because I think it about time that we made a crime of it, and there are two ways, but I think this is by far the better way. I think it is best to give legislative effect to something I know is against the public interest. The other way is very much less easy, and that is, to wait until in some case the feeling is so strong that the fellow members of that man in the union take up his case and decide to get up and fight for it.

It is the only way.

It is not the only way. Take an individual case of promotion. I wonder whether the fact that he was refused permission because he was a member of a trade union would be considered by the Minister as a matter of principle? I hope that the House will accept this amendment. I hope the Minister will accept it. I hope we will say in this Parliament that we are not going to have employers, and great employers in this country, going back to ways of attempting to break up trade unions which were discarded 40 or 50 years ago in Great Britain, and have not cropped up more than now and again since. It is inflicting unnecessary hardships on individuals to let it go on, and if you place it in the law it will put a stop to this attempt to make membership of a trade union something of a criminal offence. The first thing which is a bar in the way of a man earning an honest living.

I understand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that this only applies to men on monthly basis of pay. I took it by what the hon. member said that he is basing his argument on the fact that if a man is working and becomes promoted to the position of an official he should not belong to. He should not belong to a—

I said the employer has not the right to stipulate that.

The employer has the right to stipulate conditions in the service of his employees because a man must be loyal to his employers, and he cannot be loyal to the men and employers at the same time; that is the argument as I understood it.

I did not say so.

That is the argument behind the hon. member’s case.

I did not say whether it was right or wrong.

Let us be fair about it, we have nothing to hide. Why obscure the issue? When you come to the question of one man who was on a monthly basis of pay, you are departing from that entirely, because the policy of the mines is to extend this principle of taking men electricians, fitters, engine drivers, etc., and so on, even the chap that stokes the boilers, like I did on the E.R.P.M., putting them on the monthly basis of pay. When I was stoking coal on the E.R.P.M. at 18s. 4d. a shift, and was then put on a monthly basis of £30 a month with no overtime, I suppose I became a member of the staff. The position is they are extending the principle, and putting all kinds of workers on the monthly basis, therefore they are members of the permanent staff. I put it to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), because he poses as a fair-minded man, and if one suggests he is out for the interest of the employers of the Chamber of Mines or any other interest, he is annoyed. I want to put it to him as representing the people—I can assure him it is happening all over the mine—they are extending this business of putting men on monthly basis and laying down conditions of employment that these men should not be members of a trades union—is this fair? By-and-bye, the Chamber of Mines may put all these men on that basis, and all these men rank as officials, and that is a danger we are out to defend. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) said it was a monstrous proposal, a kind of Spanish Inquisition if any employer states that an employee shall not be a member of a trades union he shall be guilty of an offence. We do not lay down the principle that a man who works must belong to a trade union, but we say that the employer must not be in the position to state that he will not employ a man if he belongs to a trade union. The worker should have an equal right to approach the employer, and lay down the condition that he must not become a member of any employers’ association, the Chamber of Mines are the Chamber of Commerce. The employee might reasonably ask that he should lay down the condition in regard to his employer, as the employer had to lay down in regard to his not belonging to a trade organization. I take it that the hon. gentlemen on the opposite would be up in arms against that. You cannot have it both ways. If you are against the employee being prevented from laying down conditions to the employers, you should go a little further as regards the workers and their employers.

I would.

Yes, I expect you would agree with it with both hands. The employers have got the land, the money and the whole means of living and consequently we would be entirely powerless. I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will he not support the weaker portion of the population; he poses as a friend of trade union, and to see that the workers can maintain a means of livelihood. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who speaks as a democrat. I cannot understand his views as a member of democracy. I cannot express the same surprise at the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), because he does not pose so much as an advanced democrat as the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I hope the House will eliminate from the minds of the people the strong opinion that this Government is in reality a bitter opponent of trade union. They are judged by their action, and if this Government could prove that it is not so, it will give other people a slap in the face. By recording your vote against this amendment, I say it will strengthen our case and you may talk as you like, but you are not a friend of trade union.

This is the same amendment which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) moved in Committee of the whole House, and it was very fully discussed on that occasion, so that I do not propose at this stage to go over all the arguments again. I stated then that as far as the principle underlying this is concerned, I am thoroughly at one with it, that is to say, that it should not be made a condition of employment that a tradesman should not belong to a trade union of his class. Where the difficulty comes in here is that the word “person” is used, and you come up against this thing, which was one of the things in dispute in 1922 on the Witwatersrand, and is also a matter of dispute in other parts of the country that an official who has risen from the ranks does not want to part with his rights as a trades unionist, and the employer says that if you allow that it does away with discipline because this man who has risen from the ranks must then control, he is an officer, he is part of the management. If he still belongs to the trades union and meets the ordinary workmen who work under him, and if he presents their case, he identifies himself in sympathy more with the workman than with the management.

And a good thing too.

I think you cannot carry on any industry without a certain amount of discipline, and if there is one thing lacking here, especially among the young, it is that you have got sufficient discipline. I am not prepared especially in a country like South Africa to undermine what little discipline there is. I can say that I had an official repudiation from the Chamber of Mines, when this charge was made, to the effect that it is not their policy to prevent their workmen from becoming members of a trade union. I must accept their official repudiation, and I go further and I say that if at any time any case of that kind is brought to my notice I shall use all my influence to prevent it. I did so as hon. members know in connection with the Crown Mines and other disputes. I go further, and say that I regret it exceedingly that people on the Rand, the big employers and the employees have not come to some arrangement in regard to this question of officials.

They never had a chance.

The Brace Commission went into the matter and reported, but for all that they are still in this position—that they have not come to an agreement as to whether a man who has risen from the ranks should resign. I made a suggestion to the parties on the Rand some time ago that these men should be put on a reserve list. Some trade unions provide for this and others do not, but some of the trade unions here are only branches of a world-wide organization, with their branches in London and all over the world, and they are not in a position, so to speak, to alter their articles of association because they are a world-wide association. So even there you have difficulties, but if there were an earnest attempt on both side to come to an arrangement as to what was to happen when a man is promoted from the ranks, I think a compromise might be arrived at. Anyhow, it has not yet been arrived at; but I do not think it would be wise for us in an indirect way to interfere in a matter of this kind and in a Bill of this kind. And, furthermore, this is another point, this thing can be so easily avoided. It is not a practical thing. You can stipulate it in some other way, you can achieve your object without saying “I make this a condition of your appointment.” Furthermore, if you have a clause like this, that the employer shall be penalized if you make it a condition that a man shall not belong to a trade union, then you must also complement that by a clause saying that a workman who refuses to work with a non-trade union man that he should be penalized as well.

That is no analogy.

What is free for the one should also be free for the other, but to say merely that the employer may not make it a condition is impossible. You should also make it a condition that the employee cannot say “I am not going to work with a non-trade union man.” To apply it only to the one and not to the other would not be fair. No, I am not for the insertion of the one or the other, and on the whole I think it is better for us to leave it as a matter of arrangement between the parties.

I would like to ask the Minister in charge of this Bill how it is that, in view of everything he now says, he last year defended this clause which my hon. friend the member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has now proposed. This clause which my hon. friend now wants to put in was section 22 of the Bill as is came from the Select Committee last year. What has happened in between? The Minister says, “We have to accept the statement of the Chamber of Mines that they are not doing anything to try and tyrannize their employees into breaking away from or not joining the trade unions.” He says that the Chamber of Mines has told him, and he had to accept it, that that is so; but I want to know if the Ministers will accept our evidence to the contrary. The Minister knows that the very steps which he says are not taken, are now being taken. I have a letter in my hand dated the 11th of this month by a workman addressed to the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I shall read portions of it, and then perhaps the Prime Minister might realize, or might understand better, how it is that we in this corner of the House are fighting so hard to get this provision in the Bill. The Prime Minister might then realize why it is that we want to get put back in the Bill the very clause which the Minister fought for in the Select Committee last year, and which was in the Bill as it came back from the House from the Committee. This letter says—

Now, in the face of evidence like that, in the face of a letter containing evidence like that, is the hon. the Minister going to allow the House to turn down a clause which is going to protect men against an imposition on the part of employers in South Africa? Take my own union, a union which has branches all over the world, a union with half a million members all over the world. If I work on a mine and I get promoted on account of my ability to be a foreman, am I to renounce and lose my trade union rights? Am I to give up the union which I have lived for, worked for, and sacrificed for because of the Chamber of Mines? There are many ways of attacking a union and attacking trade organizations. We had them attacked two years ago with the rifle and the bomb. But this is a more subtle way, a more diplomatic way to undermine trade unionism in South Africa and put a weapon in the hands of the Chamber of Mines and other employers of labour so that the discipline of trade unions shall be shattered and broken, and blacklegs made to scab on the men. As my hon. friend reminds me, this is also a matter of principle, this is more likely to cause disputes which will develop into greater upheavals than anything else. My hon. friend for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has referred to a notice which used to be in a Maritzburg workshop saying that if a man joined a trade union he would be instantly dismissed. Are we going back to those days? What has happened between this year and last year to make the Minister change his whole attitude on this? When the Prime Minister was in London he was settling disputes among the police, I believe, on one occasion. The bank clerks in South African who came out and the Prime Minister intervened and settled that. The fact remains that in Great Britain during the period of the war the Prime Minister was very actively engaged in meeting the various trade unions with a view to trying to conciliate them and bring about industrial peace. Yet, he will sit there side by side with his colleague, the Minister of Mines, and in the face of an injustice of this character being perpetrated, he does not bring pressure to bear upon the Minister of Mines to accept the amendment. I do not think much more can be said. There is the evidence; I have read the evidence. My friends have put the case very ably and very strongly. I appealed to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who always poses as a friend of trade unions, I also appeal to the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon), but all these appeals I am afraid will be in vain. If I can appeal to the Prime Minister and he approves, then I know the thing is done, but if he turns this legitimate, fair and honest request down, well, we are banking up fires of trouble instead of permitting the Bill to achieve that conciliation and industrial peace for which it is intended.

I sympathize with a great deal of what the Minister says and agree that the real way to settle these matters is to bring the two parties together, to create the necessary atmosphere, and arrive at an agreement. That is true, and if the proper atmosphere existed in this matter you would have the same arrangement as exists in the printing trade. That arrangement is certainly a credit to the men who brought it about. It is practically on the lines of a Whitley Council, and it is remarkable, having regard to the criticisms offered by the various newspapers of the various political parties, to think that the only place in the country where they have such an amicable arrangement is in the printing trade which prints the newspapers of all parties. They have a perfect Industrial Council, and the most perfect amity exists between the Master printers and the South African Typographical Union. They constantly meet, and there is the greatest possible freedom of discussion between them. All those knotty problem referred to about the mines have been settled by the printing trade. It shows that if there is a proper atmosphere and good-will, a settlement can always be effected. Let me read what the printers’ regulations say on this point. “No employer may engage an employee being a journeyman unless such an employee is a member of the Typographical Union.” The Masters have come to the conclusion that only trade unionists shall be employed. The only point that had been raised is the employment of foremen, and they state that employers shall place no obstacles in the way of their foremen joining the South African Typographical Union, nor shall the Union exert any pressure upon the foremen with that object. The object of the first part of this clause is to leave the foremen to choose for themselves with regard to membership. Could you have a fairer arrangement between employers and employees than that which has been arrived at by the gentlemen who are printing the newspapers of South Africa? It only shows what can be done if the proper atmosphere is there. The object of this Bill is to create the proper atmosphere. Approaching the amendment from that point Of view, which I do, as to whether you are going to create a happier atmosphere of trust and goodwill, let us consider the amendment of the hon. member in that spirit. We have heard, and it seems to be quite clear from the extracts which have been read, that distinct attempts have been made to prevent men from joining their trade unions since the trouble on the Rand, since when the trade union movement has weakened there. Unfortunately that seems to be the position in Johannesburg. The right hon. the Minister says that he has had an explanation, but why send out those circulars in this form at all? He has had an explanation, but is it proper at the present time to send out circulars of that kind on the Reef? Surely, to say the very least of it, it shows a very extraordinary want of care if, they do not intend what at first blush on reading the circular they would be deemed to intend. It shows great want of care for the feelings of trade union members, but there is owing to the issue of these circulars a strong suspicion right along the Reef that they are trying to break up these trade unions. The Minister may say “why should these suspicions be,” but they are there, and you want to create an atmosphere of trust. I sympathize with the Minister because it is difficult to enact a clause which cannot be evaded, but even if it were evaded it would be a great victory for industrial peace if the Parliament of this country said they considered it unfair that such a condition of employment should be made, and it would give the feeling that Parliament would see fair play between employer and employees, and you will get the happy state of affairs that exists in the printing trade.

I want to put the point to the hon. the Minister of Mines. That is, the effect it is going to have on those who are really trade unionists, and those who might consider the advisability of becoming trade unionists, of his attitude in this House and in Select Committee. The very fact that the hon. the Minister himself last year was prepared, not only to speak and act in this direction, but voted for the very thing my hon. friend desires to put in the Bill, and now he entirely alters his point of view and takes an antagonistic view to the point of view he held last year, is likely to engender in the minds of those who are most intimately concerned, a suspicion that the hon. the Minister has had some rather strong influence brought to bear on him, and I want to say that I believe there is nothing in any other part of the Bill that is likely to cause the feeling of bitterness and resentment that is going to be caused by the rejection on this occasion if the hon. the Minister does not alter his mind again of the amendment moved by my hon. friend. All he is asking for, let me remind the House, is that the House will return to the attitude and mind that it held last year. There is nothing new sought to be imported into the Bill. All that is required is, that the hon. the Minister shall not do to-day what I believe he really realizes himself is wrong. I am satisfied of that. The hon. the Minister, I am sure, is not happy in his present position. He has had sufficient experience of industrial troubles in this country, to realize that a thing like this is going to have a greater detrimental effect upon the good feeling he desires to create by this Bill than anything else. The suspicion that the hon. the Minister is not a free agent, is already in the minds of the men outside. I fear very much that the present action of the hon. the Minister and his attitude towards this question is likely to strengthen that suspicion very much indeed. Does the Minister desire this to be a Conciliation Bill or not? It is idle for us to spend days and waste money and time that could more profitably be occupied in other directions. For instance, in curtailing the power of the Chamber of Mines in its financial grasp on the country, wasting all our energies in an honest endeavour to bring about conciliation. What a waste of time and a travesty of the claim that the hon. the Minister is putting forward, that he is out to institute a conciliatory spirit in this country. What is the reason that the hon. the Minister advances? I wonder why he advances it now, because the same argument was employed last year; that if we have this in, we are likely to destroy discipline. We have heard a lot about this word discipline. What is it? Let us understand what he means by discipline. Does it mean the owning by the employer body and soul of the individual, that he will do anything and everything he is told to do, whether it is right or just or not? That is what it amounts to. That is what they mean by discipline. What they mean by discipline is this, that a man who is properly disciplined is a man who has no sense of justice himself, no sense of right or wrong, who has handed himself over completely to his employer. That, in short, instead of his worth and energy in production being purchased by wages, the man’s whole soul is in the hand of his employer. That is what you mean. What is an official?

One in authority or trust.

Exactly, “one in authority or trust.” That is in connection with the carrying out of his duties appertaining to the particular job he has been given.

Such as a member of Parliament.

Yes, that is a very apt illustration. We evidently want some discipline here. That is what an official is. My hon. friend has read out and amplified what he has read. What is transpiring to-day? Men in all walks of life engaged on the mines are to-day being approached to become monthly employees, and that in the eyes of the mine owners, and, I presume, in the eyes of the Minister, constitutes them as officials of the mines. In no sense do they conform to the illustration given to us by the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon). They have no control over other men or other men’s work, or any responsibility for other people’s work or mistakes. Their only responsibility, which is like that of any ordinary employee, is for the mistakes they themselves may make, or the work they themselves are performing; but under the new arrangements embarked upon by the Chamber of Mines, these men will become officials.

March, 1923, is the date of the circular. It is not in force yet.

That is a very foolish interjection. It does not really matter when it was in force. If this Bill is passed the hon. member can be pretty certain it will be put in force all along the line. What are the facts? The facts are of a painful and abnormal character, and pressure of a most contemptible and underhand kind is being brought to bear on men to prevent their being members of their trade union. Now, my hon. friend quoted the society to which he belongs. I also have the honour to belong to that society, and in no case do I know where pressure has been brought to bear upon those who are in a position of trust—pressure has been brought to bear not to belong to their trade union. As a matter of fact, you will find that 90 per cent. of the foremen engaged in the engineering trade are members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Men on the ships, men in the position of supreme trust are by their employers permitted to become members of trade unions, and this has never affected discipline. Let us understand the effect of this clause. You will find that men who were ordinary foremen in the workshops will be looked upon as officials and not allowed to join trade unions. From our experience of these men who are looked upon as officials on the mines, they are men who are not employed so much to work, but they are used in the mines in a disgraceful fashion, in a political sense—they are used as spies, and men who, as the result of the atmosphere, lose their souls. These men are employed at elections to watch what the other men are doing, and by their presence influence them to vote for their boss’s man. Personally, I do not mind. I am only arguing now in favour of the amendment from the point of view of a representative of the whole mass of the people, not as a representative of trade unions. By your action you are going to drive the movement underground, because I can hardly conceive of any man who was once a trade unionist and, as the result of his association, actually giving up his membership when required by his boss. The result will be that he will say he does not belong to a trade union, while he will belong to it and you will not accomplish what you desire. There is another point. Not only will you drive trade union underground, but you will drive the members more and more to political activity, and that is a result largely to be desired, and for that reason I wish you well. The Minister said that it also applied equally to the man who will not work with a non-unionist. Is that an analagous case? When an employer tells a man he must not be a member of a trades union, that man is only to bring moral suasion on the other man to join. In the one case the pressure is absolute, but in the other case it is not so absolute. In these circumstances it is not an analogous case at all. There is another point, an employee might say, he would not work for an employer if the employer did not belong to an association; but that is a ridiculous argument. I asked the hon. the Minister to realize, if he is really out for conciliation—as I believe he is—he is leaning too much to the influence brought to bear on him by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber), and, much against his better judgment, he is wrecking the whole object of the Bill by refusing to accept the amendment, viz., the policy of conciliation.

New Clause, proposed by Mr. Sampson, put and the House divided:

Ayes—33.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Forsyth, R.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hunt, E. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: De Waal, J. H. H.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—51.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell, L.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson. J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, F. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Eeden, J. W.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Proposed New Clause accordingly negatived.

Amendment in Clause 21 put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted; to be read a third time on 3rd March.

moved—

He said: This Bill starts with a little people dating back to 1829. In 1829 they were a small tribe in Bechuanaland, they then trekked into the Free State under their local chief. In 1832 the Wesleyan Mission Society bought the land in trust for them. They paid, as a matter of fact, what we regard now as a small sum of money: nine head of cattle and 17 sheep and goats. This was in 1832, and, as a matter of fact, the land was held in trust by the Mission Society for this little tribe. In 1862 the boundary between them and the Basutus was demarcated. Then the Voortrekker Maroco entered into friendly relations with their chief and he subsequently assisted the Voortrekkers in their war with the Basutos, and he has always been a friend and ally of the Republic of the Orange Free State. Some time afterwards there was a revolt amongst them and a split in the tribe.

Will the Minister lay the book on the Table?

What, this paper? Yes, in due course. Oh, yes! In 1884 the country was annexed, and as a matter of fact the tribe has been in that position ever since. The Free State Volksraad passed a law by which they said—

Now the Beaumont Commission has earmarked this area of Thaba ’Nchu for this tribe.

The whole district?

No, this area of 95 farms earmarked out for the Barolong.

Not the district of Thaba ’Nchu?

No, no.

That is what the right hon. the Minister said.

Not the district of Thaba’Nchu, only the Maroco Ward. Some of these farms have passed into the hands of the Europeans. Some of them, the majority of them, are very heavily bonded. The position now is under the Free State law that they can only sell to their parents or brothers and sisters. Now the proposal I am putting forward in this Bill is that a bona fide member of the tribe may be allowed to buy this land, and in that way consolidate this reserve in the Maroco Ward for the tribe of the Barolongs. Out of the 95 farms 54 are still held by natives.

They might buy what?

Farms which are still in the hands of the Europeans and form part of this Maroco reserve. Now if a native wants to sell one of these he can only sell to a brother or a sister or a child, he cannot sell to another who is not a direct family relation. I do not think that is desirable. You should allow the members of the tribe to acquire. Last year when this matter came up and there were some farms in the market, I discussed the matter with the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), and he had no serious objection to it. It is of course a matter of great importance, and has to be investigated. I have drafted the Bill now on the lines I discussed with the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), and I submit to the House for the second reading.

As daar een werk is, waarmee ons versigtig moet wees, dan is dit met die ontneme, met die afbreke van die regte van naturelle en met die bepalings omtrent virkryging van sodanige grond deur hulle in die Vrystaat. Die Huis sal met my saamstem as ek verklaar, dat wat verlede jaar plaasgevind het van die grootste belang was vir Suid-Afrika. Dit blyk dat die weg, ingeslaan deur die ou Vrystaatse Regering die regte weg was vir die witman in Suid-Afrika. Toe is daar ’n Wet neergeleg deur die ou Vrystaatse Volksraad omtrent die verkryging en bewerking van grond deur naturelle, asook omtrent die verkry van regte deur Asiate. Ons sit vandag opgeskeep, aan die een kant met die naturel en aan die anderkant met die Asiaat, ten gevolge van die onderstandige wyse, waarop die Regerings van die Kaap. Natal en Transvaal te werk gegaan het en waardeur hulle die belange van die witman in gevaar gestel het, sodat hy die uiterste kragte moet inspan om in Suid-Afrika staande te bly. Die ou Vrystaatse Wet, wat in hierdie Wetsontwerp as hoofstuk 34 aangedui word, was, as ek my nie vergis nie, die Wet van ongeveer 1883 of 1884. Dit kan ook vroeër wees. Die Wet het neergelê met betrekking tot die Barolongs, dat hulle sekere regte sal hê en die regte was beperk tot die Barolongs alleen en hulle gebied, terwyl geen ander kaffer-stam toegeaat werd om grond te verkry nie, behalwe die kafferlokasie in Witzieshoek. Wat aan die Barolongs toegestaan werd is dat hulle die reg sou hê om grond te besit binne sekere gebied van die Vrystaat. Die ou Volksraad, laat ek dit hier sê, was hulle so goed gesind as ooit ’n Regering in Suid-Afrika was teen; enige naturelle stam, omdat die Vrystaat met dankbaarheid terug gesien het na die behandeling in 1836 toe hulle daar ingetrek het. Maar nieteenstaande dit het die Volksraad die Wet, onder hoofstuk 34 bedoel, wat die tyd betref na aan die Barolongs gestaan en dit heug vele van ons nog met welke toegeneentheid hulle opgetree het teenoor die Barolongs. Daar werd neergelê dat hy sal net daardie reg besit of dit oormaak aan ’n ander Barolong. Ek moet hier aanhaal, met die oog op die vraag in hoeverre die Wet, tans voor ons dit sal verander, maar daar is ’n aantal gronde, ek meen in die sewentigduisend morge, wat oorspronklik voor die anneksasie van die Barolonggebied, ek meen in 1884, daar was. Dit het aan die Barolongs behoort oorspronklik, maar die grond was geruil deur sekere persone in die Vrystaat vir 200,000 morge in Betsjoeanaland. ’n Groot deel van die Barolongs het tee dadelik versit na Betsjoeanaland en daardie grond is alles oorgeval in hande van die Vrystaatse volk en die Volksraad het ’n Wet gepasseer en daarin neergelê, dat wat die Barolongs besit, sal ons hulle nie ontneem nie; hy kan daaroor disponeer na eie goedvinding. Ek kan nie sê in hoever die Barolongs die grond kon vervreemd nie, maar glo dat pas later het die wetgewer opgetree en bepaal dat hy een famielie kon afstaan. Wat ek vind is dat ek voel nog teenoor die; Barolong wat die ou Vrystater gevoel het—die grootste toegeneentheid en ag dit billik dat aan hom enige reg moet toegeken word en ons moet versigtig wees. Hier het ons ’n Regering die begonne is in 1913 en toe weer in 1917 om ’n sekere naturelle-politiek neer te leg, wat betref die besit en eigene van grond in Suid-Afrika. En die doel was destyds in 1913 dat voorlopige stappe geneem sou word tot verdere vaststelling van die regte van die blanke in Suid-Afrika, in die Unie. Die Regering het die eerste stap geneem en die twede en toe dadelik halt gehou, met die gevolg, dat ons vandag die posiesie het, dat stappe geneem is wat betref die naturel en hom feitelik gebied is toegeken, waar die witman nie mag inkom nie, maar wat die witman betref kan die naturel feiteilk van alle kante inkom. Dis die eientlike posiesie. Ek weet dat in 1917 sekere bepalinge gemaak is, dat wat die Vrystaat betref nie veel te beteken hêt nie, maar wat betref die Transvaal is daar b.v. ook neergelê dat die naturel nie ooral kan kom bou en grond koop nie, maar die stappe is halwe stappe, wat nog ver van gelykstaande is aan wat aan die andere kant gegee is. En ek se, dat die posiesie vandag so is, dat die witman vergelyk met die naturel op verre na nie op gelyke voet gebring is nie. Maar nou sien ek—soos ek die Wet lees—wat die Regering nou wil gaan doen is, om die poorte wat tot dusver gesluit was vanaf 1836, om die nou te gaan oopset wat die Vrystaat betref, sonder om hom genoeg rekenskap te gee van wat dit gaan beteken. As die edelagbare die Minister wil verklaar dat al daardie regte of liewers al die bepalinge van die Wet net beperk bly tot die Barolong om sy grond nie te vervreem dan alleen binne die familie nie, dan sal ek die edelagbare die Minister die Versekering gee, dat hy my simpatie het. Ek voel byna seker, dat ek dit vroeër al gesê het, maar as hy wil gaan—en dit is wat hier staan, ek weet nie of ek goed lees wat die omvang van die Wet is nie, as die edelagbare die Minister wil gaan en die Barolong nou die reg gaan gee om enig deel van die grond wat oorspronkelik aan die Baralong behoor het, nou weer terug te kry uit die hand van die Europeaan, dan kan ek daar nie mee saam stem nie. En dit is die uitleg wat ek daaraan moet gee, na ek dit oor en oor gelees het. En nou wens ek die Huis net ’n bietjie daarop attent te mask wat dit gaan veroorsaak. Boerdery, soos ons weet hier in die Huis, word onmoontlik gemaak as plase omring is deur naturelle. Daarom het in 1917 die stappe geneem geword omtrent beperking van die regte van naturelle. Engelssprekende sowel as Hollandssprekende het my kom sien toe ek nog in die Regering was, om dit by my tuis te bring, hbe onmoontlik vir hulle die boerdery gemaak werd in die Transvaal deurdat hulle omring was deur naturelle. Dis onmoontlik b.v. om te voorkom, dat jou skape verdwyn of dat die koppe van die mielie—as jy ’n mielieboer is, op die struike bly, sit. Ek herinner nog goed hoe mielieboere van die gebied van Barberton na my gekom het. Hulle had grote plase, maar kon niks begin nie, omdat kaffers oornag gereeld alles afpluk. Ons weet wat die naturel is. Hy is net so nadelig as ’n bobejaan. Wanneer hy mielie-koppe siet, kan hy die nie laat staan nie. Nou moet ons goed bedink wat gaat plaats vind wanneer die Barolong in die besit kom van plase in die Barolong gebied, wat jarelang in die hande van die blanke gewees het. Daar is onteenseggelik baie goeie grond daar en jy vind daar van die beste boere. Maar wat gaat nou gebeur as die Barolong daar plase kan kry. Tot hulle eer sy dit gesê, dat verskeidene van hulle goed spaarsaam gelewe het en werkelik ryk is, van die rykste. Vir jou Barolong gaat dit nie moeilik wees nie om plase te koop. Daar is van die hoofde daar wat 4-5 boere kan uitkoop heel gemakkelik en betaal. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister dit weet, maar dis ’n feit en dit gaat dit onmoontlik maak vir boere wat vandag heeltemaal weg is van die naturelle-grens om die plase in hande te kry. Ek wens die edelagbare die Minister daarop te wys, dat die die groot gevaar is wat dreig in die Vrystaat vandag as die. Wet word aangeneem. Die reg word gegee aan die Barolong om daardie plase wat destyds verruil werd weer in die hand te kry, terwyl sedert die tyd daar gevestigde boerderye ontstaan is van grote waarde en ons kan tog nie toe laat dat—as boerdery nie heeltemaal onmoontlik word—dat die mense hul boerderye feitelik in waarde dubbel en dwars sal verminder. Ek het nou maar net veronderstel die plase verruil is voor die anneksasie. Ek is daar nie heeltemaal seker van, wat die posiesie is. My kennis van die transaksies dateer slegs van 1895 toe ek in die Vrystaat, in Bloemfontein—het kom woon.

Die anneksasie was in 1887.

Nou wil ek graag weet of die rail van die plase, plaas gevind het voor die anneksasie of na die anneksasie. As die laaste die geval is, dan kan ons duidelik sien wat moeilikheid daar gaan ontstaan. Nou wil ek sê, Mnr. Speaker, dat ek voel en al vir jare gevoel het, dat daar sekere regte is wat ons moet herstel teenoor die Barolong. Maar gaat nou die Barolong die reg kry om grond te verwerf wat al vir lange, lange jare onder die Vrystaat Wet slegts aan blanke kan behoor? En dan wil ek hier op wys, dat jy dit pie beperk tot die Barolong nie want die ongeluk is dat die Barolong nau verwant is aan die Basoetoo en die kwessie is hoeveel Basoetoes daar vandag daar is in die Barolong grondgebied wat gaan onder die naam van Barolongs. Dis eienaardig as ons die sensus ’n bietjip nagaan. Die Barolong bevolking word aangegee by die sensus—ek dink van 1911s—491,000. Maar daar is in die Vrystaat behalwe die, seker omtrent 200,000 Basoetoes. Die kaffers wat in die Vrystaat is, is vir die grooste meerderheid Basoetoes. Toe Basoetoeland hulle nie meer kon hou nie, is die in groot getalle onder die Barolongs gekom. Toe b.v. Sapiari Maroka vermoor is, was dit uitgevoer deur ’n Basoetoe. Nee, ons moet baie voorsigtig wees. Die edelagbare die Minister open hier nou ’n weg wat die gevolg sal kan hê, dat in die toekoms daar telkenmale wanneer grond verkoop word die man wat wil koop sal sê, dat hy Baralong is. Ons het geen registrasie van die Baralongs nie. Dis ’n belangrike punt in verband met die kwessie. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal die Wetsontwerp eers na n Gekose Komitee verwys. My vriend, die edele lid vir Ficksburg (de hr. Keyter) het my gesê, dat die edelagbare die Minister aan hom gesê het, dat die sy intensie is en ek dink dat dit baie wenselk is. Ek doen ’n beroep op die Huis dat ons nie die Vrystaat in ’n nuwe gevaar gaan bring.

Ek kom baie greet ooreen met die laaste spreker (Gen. Hertzog). Edele lede hier in die Huis weet my beskouing, dat ons die naturel eerlik en opreg moet behandel en dat as deur ons aan die naturel iets belowe word, dan moet ons die belofte getrou nakom. En as ons aan die naturel iets gee, dan moet ons onder geen omstandigheid hoegenaamd, nog met slim praatjies, nog met uitoorlê nog met geweld dit weer van hom wegneem nie. As ek dan so voel soos ek gesê het, dan is dit duidelik dat ek die edelagbare die Minister wil steun in die Wet en vir die twede lesing stem. Wanneer ek dit sê, dan moet goed verstaan wees, dat ek daardeur volstrek nie aanneem die Wet soos nou hier voor ons nie. Die deur word so wyd oop geset, dat ons in latere jare, soos die vorige spreker al gesê het, weer voor moeilikhede kom. Die Wet set die deur so wyd oop dat dit in later jare weer tot stryd gaat voer. Nou het die edelagbare die Minister geskiedenis aangehaal, en die leier van ons party het ook geskiedenis aangehaal, maar hulle het die voornaamste deel van die geskiedenis, waar—op die Wet gegrond is—al twee uitgelaat. Ek wil graag op daardie beloftes die geskiedenis lees. Ek sal die hier aanhaal ter informasie van lede wat die nie weet nie, maar wat die behoor te weet. Op die tiende van Julie 1884, werd die Baralong opperhoof Sapiari Maroco op verraderlike wyse op Thaba ’Nchu vermoord en op die 12de van Julie was wyle President Brand reeds met ’n Vrystaatse kommando om Thaba ’Nchu getrek om rus en vrede te herstel en Wet en orde gehandhaaf te sien. Daarop het die President die Barolongs se gebied geannekseer aan die Vrystaat, dog by die uitvaardige van die proklamasie ’n belofte gedaan en ’n waarborg gegee aan sekere persone. Toe is daar stilstand gekom. On 29 Julie 1884, na die opstand, het die President en die Uitvoerende Raad die waarborg en belofte bevestig met ’n nuwe proklamasie. En daardie belofte was, en wat ons tot die laaste toe moet nakom, dat die Barolongs wat daar was en wat nie deelgeneem had nie aan die verraderlike moord of medeplichtig was daarvan, dat hulle daardie grond in eigendom kon besit en dit werd later duidelik afgebaken. Op 11 September 1884 het President Brand verklaar—en ek sal ’n gedeelte van die verklaring voorlees—

By die afkondiging verkreeg hulle die belofte, dat die grondgebied gewaarborg en gehandhaaf sou word. Daar is die belofte en die wil ek graag nagekom sien. As die edelagbare die Minister Artiekel 12 van die Vrystaatse Grondwet lees, sal hy merk hoe daar verwys word na hierdie belofte en daarby moet ons bly. Artiekel 12 seg verder, dat die Barolongs kan die grond aan ouers, kinders, broers en susters bemaak of verkoop., maar aan niemand anders nie. Laaste jaar het dit geblyk in die loop van ’n gesprek, die ek met die Minister had. My woorde daarop was, dat ek een van diegene is, wat onse kontrak eerlik en opreg wil nakom en as daar enig grief is, wat die Barolongs het, dan wil ek die myne bijdraag om dit te verhelp indien dit op redelike wyse kan gedaan word. Ek het ook aangetoon waar ek verskil; die Wet gaat te ver en maak in die engelse teks vooral die deur so wyd oop, dat soas aangetoon deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), die naturel van die witman kan grond koop. Daar moet genoeg grond gelaat word en ek hoop die Wet meen dit nie so nie, maar hy lees so, dat hy toelaat, dat honderde en honderde, wat weggetrek het en veertig jaar afgesonderd was, sal kan terruggaan en grond koop. Die edelagbare die Minister sal instem, dat dit verkeerd is, want dit doet onreg aan die volk, wat daar was en is. Hulle sal uitgedruk word uit die land, waar hulle volgens ’n voorvaderlike reg woon. Ek wil die Raad nie langer ophou nie, maar daarop wys, soas deur die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) tereg aangehaal, dat die bedoeling van die Vrystaatse Volksraad nie was om die Baralongs die grond te ontneem nie, maar die grondeigenaars onder beskerming te neem: dit wou hulle langer doen en daarom het die Volksraad sover gegaan om vas te leg, dat gedurende vyftien jaar kon niemand sy grond verkoop nie. In 1886 het sommige leden van die Volksraad getrag die besluit herroepe te kry maar die Raad het geweier met 30 teen 19 stemme en die besluit bleef staan. Ek stel die verdaging van die debat voor.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m.; debate adjourned till 3rd March.