as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Schemes.

Report and evidence to be printed, and considered on 27th February.

Before proceeding to the Order Paper I wish to draw attention to Clause 10 of the Irrigation (Amendment) Bill which seeks to repeal certain provisions of the Water Court Judge Act, 1924. As this clause is not covered by the title or the order for leave to introduce, it must be expunged from the Bill. The measure will, therefore, be regarded as though the clause in question did not form part of it.

I move—

Two years ago when I brought a similar Bill before the House, I found that many members did not grasp the essential details. I am hopeful, however, that by this time they are better acquainted with what the Bill will do. The Federated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa have passed a resolution in support of a Daylight Saving Bill, and many other bodies are very anxious for such a proposal to be translated into law. It is a curious fact that in countries which have adopted daylight saying the very people, and particularly agriculturalists, who were most strenuous in their opposition to this scheme prior to its being carried into effect, are now the greatest upholders of the system, thus clearly showing that their opposition was based on a misunderstanding. The same state of affairs would prevail here if the Bill became law, and the simplicity of the thing would be such that the opponents of the proposal would be amazed at their having objected to the Bill. Briefly, the proposal is this. At the beginning of summer we shall advance the clock by one hour at one o’clock on a Sunday morning. This would give three hours daylight for recreation instead of two, as at present. At the end of the summer the clock would be put back by one hour. The effect of this would be to add one hour of daylight to our waking hours, and one hour of darkness to our sleeping hours. In other words the position would be equalized. Natal would gain more than any other province if the scheme were adopted. Next Christmas Day the sun will rise at Durban at 4.54 a.m., and set at 6.59 p.m., but under the Bill, according to summer time, sunrise would be at 5.54 a.m., and sunset at 7.59 p.m. That would be a very great advantage to people who have to work hard all day in shops, offices and factories. During the six months it was in operation the people would gain 182 hours, which, on the average of an 8-hour day, would represent 22 days’ gain. It would mean 22 days for recreation and for the benefit of their health. From the economic point of view it would have the effect of that number of hours less in which we should use electric light, representing a big sum of money.

You are wasting daylight.

Whenever the question of daylight saving is discussed inside or outside this House, it is always the Cape members who treat it with levity. I often wonder if they would prefer it the other way about, an extra hour of dark. Excluding the Cape Peninsula, I assure my hon. friend that it means a great deal to the people of the Free State, the Transvaal and Natal.

What does the housewife think about it?

That depends upon the housewife. I am hoping one day the housewife will be in a position to take advantage of this extra hour.

It is said the housewives do not want it.

I have never heard that said.

What about school children?

It will not make any difference to school children. They would go to school and return by the clock as they do now. You do not change the clock every day, but only once in six months. Standard time, which, has been accepted in South Africa, is not by any means the best time. Summer time is the best time.

What about the farmers?

It will not make any difference to the farmers.

It will put the time wrong for the marketing of his goods.

It will not; everything will function in exactly the same way. It would not cost a single penny to change the time tables on the railway. There would be a slight difference on the night we put the clock back. Unless the trains speeded, they would arrive one hour later, and on the night we restored the time they would arrive one hour earlier. It would not mean any further expense to the railway department or to anyone else. The people would benefit intellectually, morally and in health. I wish the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) would give this matter consideration because, coming from Natal, he should give his support to the Bill. Farmers work from sunrise to sunset. They would continue to do so. Usually farmers sending their goods to Pietermaritzburg or Johannesburg do so the night before so that it would not affect them. I think the great bulk of the milk that goes to Johannesburg is sent in by the farmers between 11 and 12 o’clock at night for use on the breakfast table the following morning. You have got your big creameries which are considerable distributors of milk, and they are to-day pasteurizing the milk before they put it into circulation. The question of an hour sooner for delivery of milk to-day does not matter to the same extent as it used to do. In regard to other products, the position will be exactly the same. Nothing would interfere with nature; it cannot, as we know. The farmers would carry on their work in the usual way, and they would find that there would be no interference in regard to the methods they have adopted in the past, with this difference, that in many cases they would find that when the evening came on they would probably have an extra hour to sit on the verandah on the farm. I do hold that when this position is thoroughly understood, hon. members will realise that it will be a benefit to every section of the community. There is no section of the community that will suffer as a result of this change, but I go further and say that every section will benefit as a result of it. In the industrial centres it will be a very great blessing to the workers.

Hear, hear.

As we know, the civil servants, the municipal servants, the Chamber of Mines and other offices have a daylight saving arrangement for their own establishments. In the summer time in Johannesburg the offices of the Chamber of Mines are opened at 8 a.m. and closed at 4 p.m., while in the winter their hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Many of the municipalities do the same. The employees come to the office an hour sooner and leave an hour earlier. In the civil service, during the summer months, a similar system is adopted. The great mass of the workers of this country are not able to get that, unless we have it by legislation, whereby we put everybody on the same basis and everybody gets the same benefit. I trust that the House will consider this question carefully and without prejudice, and if any point is brought forward that is not clear I will endeavour at the end of the debate to make the position as clear as I can. As far as the other three provinces are concerned, there will be a great benefit. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, it is interesting to note what the position will be and I would like to give some details for the information of the members for the Peninsula divisions. Take December 25th in Cape Town, the sun rises by standard time at 5.35 and sets at 7.57. If this measure is adopted, under summer time the sun would rise at 6.35 and set at 8.57.

It would rise at 4.35.

I can only say this, that those are the figures supplied to me from the Observatory and, if they are wrong, it is the astronomer at the Observatory who is responsible.

It is quite wrong.

Next Christmas day the sun according to standard time—

You mean as at present constituted?

Yes. I am speaking of standard time. If this scheme is accepted by the House and becomes law, then next Christmas day under summer time, the sun will rise at 6.35.

No, at 4.35.

No, we put the clock forward now. Therefore, it will be 6.35 and I am sure that if my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) grasps this idea, he will vote for this Bill. I hope he will realise that it is exactly opposite to what he thought. Next Christmas day the sun will rise under standard time, according to the astronomer at the Observatory, at 5.35, and it will set at 7.57. If the House adopts my measure and it becomes law, next Christmas day we shall have summer time instead of standard time. According to summer time the sun will rise at 6.35, the clock having been put on an hour. The sun will set at 8.57 summer time, instead of 7.57 standard time.

We shall have our evening meal in the broiling sun.

Wherever I have gone I have realised the difficulty of getting people just to understand this, because they continually have the old time at the back of their heads. I want them to look at it as if the change had been made without their knowledge.

Let us have the last Sunday in September, not the longest day of the year.

I will give you that illustration. It is not, of course, quite so good as far as Cape Town is concerned, but at the same time it is an advantage. Under standard time it rises at 5.54 and sets at 7.7. If this measure is adopted, under summer time the sun will rise at 6.54 by the clock and will set at 8.7 instead of 7.7. In Cape Town it would make one-and-a-half hours difference compared with sun time. I am pleased these points have been raised, because I can see the difficulties that sometimes confront people until they see the thing in actual working. When it is actually put in operation the people say, “Why did we not do it years and years ago?” Rhodesia never adopted it entirely because the railways never fell into line. By making one exception this Bill will be no good. It would confuse the position and it would mean that people would have to keep two clocks, one for the railways and one for the town. That is ridiculous, and that was the position in Rhodesia. In the United States they have never been able to have summer time, but there are 47 or 48 states in the United States, and each state has a separate governing body as far as the internal arrangements are concerned. A Bill would have to go through every state to become effective in the sense that there were no exceptions. One can understand the difficulty of getting a Bill through 48 Parliaments before it could function in the United States. This Bill would confer a great blessing upon the masses of the people, not only from a recreation point of view, but also from the health point of view, and on the economic side there is a saving there as well. I think it would do a great deal for the comfort and pleasure of the people of this country. There is just one point where we mention what standard time is. There is no legal time in this country; the standard time is, in the meridian 30 degrees east of Greenwich has simply been accepted and adopted by the department concerned, so we are simply taking the opportunity of making legal what is the accepted position at the present time. There is also the point that it would not interfere with navigation and meteorology and things of that kind. But these things do not interfere with the life of the people, with commerce, and with our ordinary everyday life. When a ship was in port she would leave according to the port time. I submit it is something that will bring a great blessing to many people who are not in the same happy position as other people in regard to getting as much daylight as they should. I submit the House should agree to the second reading and when we come to committee stage, if there is any amendment—it might be felt that six months is too long—that can be considered in committee and on its merits we can come to what we consider a fair decision.

When I was in office a deputation came from Johannesburg to see me, advocating the introduction of a Bill by the Government on the same lines as the Bill now before the House, and they pointed out the advantages from their point of view, just as the hon. member has done. They said it would give an extra hour of daylight, especially to town workers, and that it would be a great saving in electric light. Those were the principal advantages which they mentioned. Then I asked them whether there was any demand for a drastic change like this, and they said it had worked all right in England, and they thought it would work quite well here. It seems to me there was too much of a desire to imitate what was done elsewhere without considering the conditions of South Africa. Ill England you have a country from east to west occupying, I think, seven degrees. In South Africa you have a country which measures from the coast of Zululand across the continent to the coast of South-West Africa about 22 or 23 degrees. You have not anything like the same problem to deal with in South Africa as you have in England. In England you have, I suppose one is safe in saying, a population 90 per cent. of whom live in the towns, about 10 per cent. living in the rural areas. Whereas in South Africa the great bulk of people are not urban dwellers at all. I have not the figures, but I should be surprised if there are more than 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. of our entire white population who live in urban areas. So that what is suitable for Johannesburg and other towns in the Union might be very unsuitable for the country population. The hon. member has said that he is going to put the sun back according to the time.

I never said anything of the kind.

The actual result of this Bill will be that we shall all get out of bed during six months of the year an hour earlier than we do at the present time. It might be a very good thing for some people, but it would be a most inconvenient thing for other people. I can imagine a housewife who at the present time finds it very difficult to get her children dressed, fed and sent off to school in time, not being at all pleased with the Bill, if she has to do it one hour earlier than at the present time. I have often heard members of this House say it is a great fag after a night sitting to get up, have breakfast, a dip in the ocean at Muizenberg, and attend a committee meeting here at 10 in the morning. Will it be any the less irksome to get here by 9 o’clock in the morning, for that would be the result. Although daylight saving has been quite a success in England, the farming population there has taken it very badly, but they are in a minority and are not considered. I am quite sure that the hundreds of farmers who live along the railways near the towns in South Africa and supply milk, vegetables and various things to the townspeople, do not want to get up one hour earlier than at present. Even the working men, as far as I know, have made no demand that they should get out of bed one hour earlier than at present. No, before a Bill of this sort is introduced, there ought to be some consensus of public opinion in favour of it. When you consider the circumstances of the case, the Bill is totally inapplicable, because in Cape Town we are 45 or 4b minutes before solar time. When our clock is at 9 o’clock it is really by the sun only 8.14. According to this Bill it would be 7.14. Although this Bill might be good for Johannesburg and some portions of the country, when you come to the western portions it would cause a great deal of inconvenience and grumbling. We ought to be satisfied that the people, generally speaking, and especially those affected by the Bill, wish to see it passed into law. The Bill also refers to the south-western territories. Walvis Bay and other portions of this territory are seven or eight degrees west of Cape Town, according to the map, so that at the present time in these parts the clock is already fully one hour in advance of solar time, and, according to the Bill, it will be two hours in advance of solar time. Although there are undoubted advantages, the disadvantages outweigh them. The hon. member said it is practically in working order amongst the mining houses, certain offices in Johannesburg and the public service in the Transvaal. That is so, but when the public service at the Cape was sounded a few years ago, whether they would like the system extended there, they said: “No, thank you, the system will not suit us.” The great bulk of the population in this part of the country would say the same. I see that on 30th September people would have to get up, if they wanted to get up at sunrise, at 5.25, if the Bill was in operation, instead of 6.25. If put into effect, there would be an immediate agitation for the repeal of this Act. The hon. member will have to educate public opinion, and until he has behind him the majority of the public, he ought to educate them, and in the meantime withdraw his Bill.

I agree with the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) that there is a good bit of education about the business. Do you want to apply this to a wide country like this?

You have it in Australia.

In the U.S.A. they have four different times—Pacific time, western time, mountain time and eastern time. You cannot have the same time in the east as in the west. It is not a question of states there, but of the width of the country. It can suit Johannesburg, because it is very much more central. I can quite understand that in Pretoria they do, to a certain extent, adopt the practice, but circumstances are different from here. There is a difference of 46 minutes between standard time and sun time in this part of the world. This Bill means putting on the clock one hour. There is clock time in this country, which is regulated by the relation of a place to its longitude. Besides that, there is sun time which the farmers have to go by. In Cape Town the difference even now between sun time and clock time is 42 minutes.

That is in December.

All the year round, especially in June as we find out to our cost. The Bill will, so far as the Cape Peninsula is concerned, make a difference between true time and clock time of 1¾ hours. I have not heard of the farmers in Great Britain withdrawing their opposition to daylight saving. Farmers will be put to considerable inconvenience if the change is carried out, as the trains would run according to the new time, but farming operations would have to be carried out according to the actual time of sunrise. I admit that the change would be better for the Transvaal, but would cause immense inconvenience to farmers down here. I don’t think the proposal is a fair one. As it is, we have to put up with the clock being three-quarters of an hour in front of the sun, but to make that difference almost two hours would be to inflict on the Western Province more than is reasonable. I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

I also want to recommend this measure to the attention of the House. I know it is a new thing, and that, as the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has said, it has not yet found favour in public opinion. Yet I am convinced that it is worth the attention of the House. The rejection of this Bill does not mean that the sun will not shine, or that the moon will be clouded. The people will not notice it at all, yet it is important for us to consider the matter. When the Bill was brought up last time, an hon. member used the argument that the cocks would be confused, and not know when to crow. That is, of course, no argument. They will crow when they want to, and not bother about the law. Moreover, some hon. members then said that the object of the Bill was to give the townspeople a chance of sleeping an extra hour. Exactly the opposite is the case. I have myself had experience of this measure in three countries, namely, England, Holland and the United States of America, and it worked well there. When I say the U.S.A., I mean actually the state of New York. Although in the different states of America there are four times, and New York differs four hours from California, they introduced daylight saving in the state of New York, and it appeared to be a great benefit. Notwithstanding the disadvantage of the difference in time they kept to the system. It also gives satisfaction in Holland and England. I just want to quote what a correspondent in Holland wrote to an English newspaper shortly after the introduction of the system—

The difference between the towns and the country was here referred to. I want to discuss for a moment what the practical effect will be in the towns and villages. In the first place, people must get up and start work an hour earlier. Under normal circumstances they will also go to bed an hour earlier, because a man who is accustomed to retire at 11 o’clock will also do so under the new circumstances which will men 10 o’clock by the old time. He will not notice the difference at all. I have experienced it myself. On a certain day, the newspaper says, the clock is altered an hour, and the man then goes to bed at 11 o’clock as before. He also rises at 7 o’clock, but in reality he gets up at 6. It only applies, of course, for a few months in the year. The third advantage is that when he leaves office at 5 p.m. it is really 4. He therefore has an extra hour’s daylight for recreation. It is, therefore, very clear that it is beneficial to the town dwellers. They will learn the value of the proverb—“Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.” Now I come to the countryside. In general the farmers will not be affected. The farmer does not go by his watch, but according to circumstances. It will, therefore, not cause him the least inconvenience. He merely concerns himself with the necessities of the day and its work. But when he comes to the town it does make a difference. My experience is that a farmer often comes to a town and finds the offices still closed. He leaves his farm at sunrise, and has to wait till 9 o’clock for the offices to open. If this Bill is passed he will find the offices open an hour earlier in the summer. He can then leave town earlier to return to his work on the farm. As I have said, it makes no difference on the farm, though it does in the town. The question has been raised whether legislation is necessary. It probably seems strange to some members to introduce such a Bill.

Yes, very strange.

Yes, but there are people in towns who get up, go to their work, and come home at night and do not enjoy the sun for a moment all day. Hon. members will possibly ask why we do not leave it to the people to settle themselves. They must, however, not forget that the fixing of the working hours does not lie with the employees, but with the employer. He says that the people must work from such to such a time, but he himself can leave at any time while the workmen has to obey him. If anybody in the country could say: “We shall go to work an hour sooner in summer,” it would be sufficient, but under the existing circumstances the workman suffers. If the day comes when the time is altered an hour, the people will not notice the difference. I myself was born and grew up on a farm, and subsequently lived in a town, and it has always appeared strange to me that the people in South Africa never make use of our beautiful mornings. Why do people not get up early in the morning when they are fit for work? In the towns the people make no use of the early morning. They will learn to work in the morning when they are fresh, and then they can get off an hour in the afternoon. I admit there are people opposed to the Bill, but I hope it will receive the earnest consideration of members, even if they are possibly not prepared to vote in favour of it, because it is in the interests of the population of our towns and villages, and causes no inconvenience to the country population.

I would like it to be clearly understood that the difference is approximately 48 minutes between our standard time and our sun time. That means that already we are 48 minutes ahead of the sun. It is now proposed to add another hour to that, which will mean that in this part of the Peninsula and upon this meridian people will be 1 hour and 48 minutes ahead of the time. What is going to be the effect of that? Already we have to get up long before sunrise if we want a dip in the surf, have a shave and breakfast. If you added another hour to that we shall have to breakfast before sunrise. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said this would only apply for a certain portion of the year. What is going to happen when you change the time? You will find the farmer and others downing tools one day at sundown being 5 o’clock, while on the next day it will be 4 o’clock at that period. It is now proposed at one sweep to make a further difference of an hour, That is going to create the utmost confusion. The hon. member further said that farmers are accustomed to disregard the clock, and that they look to the sun for their time. In this we make no effort at all to make the time conformable to the sun time. Hence the farmer, who is guided by the sun, as the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) says he is, will, when he goes to the station, or conies into contact with standard time, find that he is nearly two hours out. I really think there is no necessity for this. This Bill would shift the line of meridian from Louis Trichardt, or where it at present is, right to Madagascar or thereabout.

I support this Bill with enthusiasm. It is very unfortunate that we get tied up with farming practices in regard to the clock. The sun takes no notice of the clock face—it rises and sets “on its own.” If you think of those in employment, looking out of the window, and wishing to get into the sun light, we see at a glance the advantage of this change. You then can realize that those of us who are kept to sedentary or inside occupations are missing the charm of the summer day, and losing actually the best time to recuperate health. For what? For the face of the clock. One could wish that some good fairy would come along and introduce this change in the night, and we could wake next morning and appreciate the advantage of it. One wishes in the same way that we could get that same beneficent fairy to come along and introduce the decimal coinage, it would benefit people by having to add up only two columns instead of three. But we cannot have these reforms brought about suddenly. We must persuade people that there is no detriment in the change; that nobody loses anything. Take the reform of our system of weights and measures, in a week or two everybody would be quite accustomed to the new methods, and coming generations of children at school would call us blessed. Under this proposed measure we are getting a better arrangement of daylight service by this simple little process than we could otherwise obtain. It is a very useful measure, and one that will be appreciated by those who have to wait on that wretched clock, and who are losing the best part of the day.

In moving the second reading of this Bill, I tried to put the position entirely as it affects South Africa, and not to be concerned with how it affects other countries. All I mentioned was that in other countries opposition had been shown, but after the Bill became law, and was actually in operation, then that opposition fell away. An hon. member has said that the farmers in England were in the minority and, therefore, had to accept the position. I would like to tell my hon. friend that the position is this—it is quite true that the farmers were very much against the Bill before it came into operation, but in recent years they have really shown, through their agricultural papers and agricultural unions, that they would never go back to the old state of affairs. They are just as much in favour of summer time as anybody else is in England. I submit that once the farmers in this country have seen this in operation they would never go back to the standard time as far as summer is concerned. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to the fact of there being different times between east and west. That is quite true. It is so under standard time. Under the existing time in Durban the sun rises at 4.54, and in Cape Town at 5.35. But the fact that we have standardized the time does not get away from this, that both Cape Town and Durban will still get this extra hour of daylight. Certainly the one gets an advantage over the other, but they both get that extra hour. As regards the question of getting up in the dark, which has been referred to by one hon. member, I would point out that that is not so. Under this arrangement it would still be quite light, so far as the ordinary man is concerned. My hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) insisted on arguing that the difference of 46 minutes from sun time would remain whether it was December or June. I would like to put him right. I can only give the figures supplied me by the Observatory, which show that in Cape Town the difference between sun time and standard time on October 25th is 30 minutes, on November 25th 33 minutes, on December 25th 46 minutes, in January 58, and in February 59.

The average is 46 minutes.

Yes, but you said it was always the same. Of course, there must be a difference between the beginning of summer, midsummer and the end of summer. I thank hon. members for the interest they have taken, and I quite agree with the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) that the more we go into this question and the more we discuss it, the better people will understand what it means. I will just say again, that taking it from the school children’s point of view alone, the result would be that they would have one hour more in the cool of the morning, and one hour of heat less in the afternoon. There is no question about that. Then, in the cool of the evening, they could do their home studies. If the House will pass the second reading I will agree to move that a select committee be set up to take evidence and call for papers, so that when we get to the committee stage we shall have the advantage of all sections concerned having put their views before the committee.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—24.

Allen, J.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Fick, M. L.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Lennox, F. J.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Reyburn, G.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Strachan, T. G

Te Water, C. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Swart, C. R.

Noes—42.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, B. W.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Vermooten, O. S.

Question accordingly negatived and the word omitted.

Addition of the words “this day six months” put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I sincerely hope the committee will not accept this clause. I was, unfortunately, not here when the second reading was debated, but I know the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) based his case for the necessity of this Bill by saying—

I venture to say that his case rests on a complete misconception of the true position. This authors’ society is not an international society trying to combine to bleed the public, but it is to safeguard the rights given to them by law. These, under our copyright law and the Berlin Convention, are “exclusive rights authorizing public performance.” In forming this society all that they are doing is co-operating to obtain their just rights which the law gives them, and there is no other way in which they can obtain them, because in practice if they are without the protection of a big co-operation they ate powerless to collect their dues under the law, and powerless against wholesale piracy. If this clause passes it means wholesale piracy with regard to copyright works. I was glad to read the speeches of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The author is not trying to squeeze the public of something illegal. The hon. member for Rondebosch rightly called this Bill a grave infringement and injustice as far as private rights are concerned, and I thoroughly agree with him. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out that, without an organization such as this, these people are unable to draw their royalty. I know of several South African composers who are drawing their royalties, and would not be able to do so were it not for this society which protects them. There is more than one aspect of this matter. The Union Government is a signatory to the Berlin Convention, which is the law of this land, and also of the subsequent protocol of Berne, which is the law of our country. This is not the way to deal with an international treaty—by way of a private Bill like this. I fully admit this country has the right to vary the Berlin Convention, and it would be ridiculous if we did not have that right, hut you can do it only by formally denouncing the Berlin Convention. This Bill infringes the Berlin Convention to a vital degree.

Why do you say that?

Because it is a fact. Under the Copyright Act and under Proclamation 72 of 1920, we entered the Berlin Convention.

That is a fact; the other statements are not.

This Bill is a grave infringement of the Berlin Convention of 1908, which says, inter alia—

In April next we are, sending a special South African representative to the international convention of Rome to deal with this very matter of copyright. This society is not a private monopoly, but a co-operative institution for the collection of royalties, due under law to authors and composers. This society of authors and composers is not a trust which is trying to bleed the public, for the royalties are distributed amongst the authors and composers, some of whom are entirely dependent on these royalties. One of them, for instance, is the widow of G. R. Sims, vet the hon. member proposes to take the bread out of the mouths of a great many honest people. At a convention in Rome last year of the Federated Society of Authors and Dramatic Composers a resolution was passed protesting against this Bill as a violation of the terms and provisions of the Berne agreement. The Minister of Justice had received a letter from a very influential society of authors and composers in Germany pointing out that the Bill would infringe international treaty obligations. A private Bill should not he used to disrupt I solemn treaty entered into by the Union Government. The Performing Rights Society is the sole protection these people have against wholesale piracy.

At the Paris Convention of 1896 it was laid down that copyright should be obtained solely according to the country of origin, so that if an author published a book or a piece of music in his own country he could impose his copyright in any other country. Great Britain, however, refused to sign the agreement, and in 1908 at the Berlin Convention, Great Britain’s contention was upheld. [No quorum.] In Australia and New Zealand registration is permissive, but royalties are available only to the person who registers his title. This Bill, however, does not go nearly as far as that, for it does not apply to persons who have registered. The Bill has been considered very carefully by the Department of Justice which is of opinion that it will not infringe international agreements. Composers can sell their copyright.

The Bill is an infringement of the spirit of the Berne Convention. It will prevent people getting the fruits of their labour under the Copyright Act. The purpose of the measure is to make it impossible for a South African or any other composers to reap the benefits of their labours. Under the arrangement with the Performing Rights Society a well-known South African composer, who before received nothing for his performing rights, now has an annual income of £40. The hon. member who introduced the Bill has endeavoured to make a bogey of an international trust of authors and composers. The African Theatres Trust will benefit by this Bill to a very large extent.

And nobody else.

And the money will be taken out of the pockets of authors and composers and their widows. I do not think it is fair that the Bill should be passed. A man who composes music has a right to receive a fee for the performance of that music. An international convention will sit in April next in Rome to consider the question of copyright, and the South African Government is sending a representative to it. If the hon. member wants anything done he should make representations to the Government, and ask it to see what the actual position is. Don’t let us try by a subterfuge to get behind the scrap of paper we have signed with other nations. If we wish to do it let us do it by straightforward means and not by such a Bill as this.

The Bill will make the Berlin Convention and the Copyright Act useless. The only people who will benefit by the passing of the measure will be the Schlesinger group of companies. When the hon. member was asked to introduce the Bill he had no idea of what is going on behind the scenes. I have discussed the matter with him and I am convinced that he introduced the Bill in the utmost good faith; his bona fides are unquestioned, but the Bill is in effect an underground battle between the company and the authors and composers. We know that practically the entire amusement industry, if I may call it, is in the hands of one monopoly, one trust, the Schlesinger group. I may be wrong, but to all intents and purposes every bioscope, every music hall, every theatre in this country and the films are all in the hands of one single trust, the Schlesinger trust, or whatever they call themselves. It is not an occasional concert in a municipal hall, or the Railway Institute that is going to be affected. The people who are going to benefit if this Bill goes through are the Schlesinger group of companies and practically no one else. I have here documentary evidence that the Schlesinger group tried to get hold of this Performing Rights Society, and when they could not do that they went to the municipalities and small cafes, etc., and started an agitation. I have documentary proof that Mr. Schlesinger personally intervened and tried to corner this thing. His trust has already got its octopus claws on a great many things in this country. We are told by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) that the Performing Rights Society made an attempt to form a great international combine to squeeze the public. The very opposite is correct. We are trying to prevent the public and the authors and composers from still further falling into the hands of this huge trust that we have in this country. I do not know that I need read to this House the correspondence between the Performing Rights Society and Mr. Schlesinger’s manager, in which he stated that on behalf of Mr. Schlesinger he wanted an interview for the purpose of acquiring the sole administration of the Performing Rights Society for himself.

There would have been no Bill then.

It would not have been necessary.

Why do you say that?

I hope the hon. member will realise that, I am not in any way impugning his own good faith. I have got a good deal of inside information about this, and I do know that the hon. member was not told these things. He did not realize that this was an underground war going on between the Schlesinger Trust and the authors and composers, and that it was only after they had failed to obtain this further addition to their monopoly that they started agitating. I have got here a letter which shows that that was the intention. [Letter read.] It is abundantly clear from the documents that I have that Mr. Schlesinger thought he saw a good thing. He realized that these people, under the law and co-operating as they did, were able to collect their just, dues, and he thought he would like to extend his dominion over them, too. That is not the genesis of the Bill, so far as the hon. member for Delarey is concerned, hot that is what went on behind the scenes. Are we going to pass this legislation now, knowing that in effect it will mean putting the authors and composers in the hands of this trust? Have not the African Theatres Trust Limited got quite enough interests in their power without our putting the authors and composers in their power? There is no conceivable way that I can see under which an author can collect what is due to him for a performance. He is given the right, by our law, to authorize performances, just in the same way as in the case of an author, if you read his book, you have to pay for it. In the same way, when the work of a composer is performed you have to pay for it.

He claims it now even though his music is not performed.

No, he only claims it where it is performed. The case was set up of the municipalities, but how many municipalities perform the works of these composers? No municipality will pay a penny unless they claim a right to perform. If this Bill goes through, there will be no conceivable way that I can see, for these people to collect their rights. The hon. member says “Let them register.” As the law stands, that is impracticable. If the object of the Bill were to force people to register their songs, there might be something in it, but this Bill is so designed as to make it impracticable for an author or composer to collect anything, because he cannot give a week’s notice. If this House feels inclined to deal with this Bill at all, which I do not think it ought to do, because I consider it is a serious infringement of the Berlin Convention—

The makers of gramophone records manage to collect their money quite easily.

Because they do not put the records on the market before they get their royalty. That is a very different matter from a musical composition. I move—

The Minister of Justice is not here, and this is a very important matter. I do not think that in a dead House, and in this heat, we should discuss a matter of this sort.

I would like to make a few remarks in regard to this Bill, as a layman, and not as a lawyer.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion to report progress.

Motion put; upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—25.

Ballantine, R.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Reitz, D.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Tellers: Robinson, C. P.; Reyburn, G.

Noes—22.

Brown, G.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Fick, M. L.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.