from M. E. Carstens, District Mounted Police Force, for condonation of a break in his service.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

from A. M. Bengtson, formerly an employee South African Railway Department, for relief.

The petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions. Grants and Gratuities.

Return of rentals, waived under Mineral Law Amendment Act, No. 16 of 1907 (Cape). Amendments to regulations relating to private registry offices (Transvaal). Mines Department annual report, 1911, part III., geological survey. Report of the Transvaal Leasehold Townships Commission, 1912.

Statement showing all gratuities paid to persons who on May 31, 1910, were in the permanent employment of the railway administration, and whose services were dispensed with prior to October 1, 1912, owing to a reduction in or reorganisation of staff or for other good cause.

Copy of International Radio Telegraph Convention in terms of Post Office Act. Copy of Postmaster-General’s Report, 1911.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether the Government has received the report of the Sunday Observance Commission, and if so, whether he intends to lay it upon the table of the House without delay, and to introduce the necessary legislation during the present session; and (2) if the report is not yet in the hands of the Government, what is the cause of the delay?

replied: (1) The Government has not yet received the report of the Sunday Observance Commission, but as soon as received it will be laid on the table of the House. I understand that the evidence has been closed, and that the report is being drafted and considered. Until the receipt of the report it is not possible to say whether legislation will be introduced. (2) I am unable at the present moment to say what the cause of the delay may be, but the question was one which required the collection of a vast amount of evidence and very careful consideration on the part of the Commissioners.

asked the Minister of Public Works, whether, in regard to contracts given out in future by the Public Works Department he will cause a condition to be inserted that in every contract in the execution of which wages are paid the employer shall pay to the workmen engaged wages at not less than the minimum standard wage rate of the district according to the particular trade which the workmen concerned follow; or whether, if the Minister has no such power at present, he will introduce the necessary legislation during the ensuring session?

A clause is inserted in all contracts entered into by the Public Works Department for the execution of work in the Transvaal, Orange Free State, and Natal, providing for the payment of the standard rate of wages, and for all skilled labour being performed by white men only. The Government is not prepared to insert a similar clause in contracts in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, in consequence of the different conditions existing in that Province.

MINERS’ PHTHISIS BOARD.

asked the Minister of Mines whether any report on the working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, has been submitted by the Miners’ Phthisis Board, and if not, whether he will arrange that such report may be obtained in time for amending legislation if required, being submitted to Parliament this session?

I have had a departmental inspection and report made for the four months ending 30th November relative to the working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, and have arranged that the Board will furnish a report to the 31st January for the period of six months, which will then be completed from the commencement of the administration of the Act. I propose to await the Board’s report before placing any papers on the table, which I anticipate it will be possible to do about the 15th February.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the final report of the Railway Grievances Commission has been printed, and when it will be laid on the table ?

Yes; the report of the Grievances Commission has been printed in English, and as soon as the Dutch edition, now in printer’s hands, is published, the report will be laid upon the table of the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Agricultural Department, during the past 12 months, received a request for standard samples of South African grain to be sent to representative bodies in Australia; and, if so, what reply has been sent?

No request for standard samples of South African grain to he sent to representative bodies in Australia has been received. Mr. Mortimer Rush, of Melbourne, however, applied to the Chamber of Commerce, Cape Town, for standard samples, and these were supplied to him.

asked the Minister of Mines whether he is aware of the depressing effect upon communities resulting from the closing down of mines in their vicinity; and, if so, whether he will cause close inquiry into all such instances of closing down to be made with a view of enforcing, where necessary, the compulsory working provisions in the Transvaal Gold Law?

In reply to the question of the hon. member. I may assure him that I am well aware of the important influence of mining development on the communities in the neighbourhood, and that the closing down of mines must necessarily affect the trade and prosperity of the district, whether such mines are working under the gold or diamond laws of the country. I may add that all such cases are carefully watched by the department, and if there is reason to believe that any mine has ceased mining work without adequate cause, action will be taken in accordance with the terms of section 127 of the Gold Law, or of any other mining law which is applicable,

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware of the complaints of farmers and merchants about the shortage of trucks for the conveyance of their hay and grain; and, if so, what does the Government intend to do to remedy this state of affairs so that farmers and merchants may be able to carry out their contracts ?

The administration recognises that farmers and merchants have, during present grain season, experienced inconvenience through shortage of trucks. The Western Province farmers have had an exceptionally good harvest, and instead of the usual steady flow of traffic, grain and forage has been offering in abnormally large quantities, due possibly to the drought in northern territories, and the natural desire of the farming community and merchants to get traffic inland as quickly as possible while prices are high. During 1912, 698 trucks were placed in traffic; at 31st December last 605 trucks were being built; and at that date 1,168 trucks were on order. The administration is fully alive to the position, and the best use possible is being made of the rolling stock available.

said that he had had a complaint from Malmesbury that there were no trucks and no sheets. There was a perfect state of chaos at Malmesbury Station. The matter was certainly a very serious one for the Western Province.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what steps have been taken to give effect to the resolution adopted by this House on the 11th June, 1912, directing the attention of the Government to the urgent necessity of providing adequate railway facilities for the conveyance of coal from the Natal coal fields to Durban?

This question has been deliberated upon during the recess, and the Government’s proposals will be provided for in Capital and Betterment Works Estimates, which are now in course of preparation for submission to the House.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether a man suffering from mental derangement has been recently confined in a, dark cell in the Cape Town Police Station for several days; (2) whether he is still so confined, and, if not, when was he released; and (3) what justification is there for so confining anyone who is not a prisoner?

replied: As the hon. member who asks this question is doubtless aware, the lunatic asylums in this Province are filled to overcrowding, and in the absence of accommodation it is not possible to admit cases as expeditiously as should be. An endeavour is being made to find room for the case referred to in this instance, but the hon. member must understand that if he is admitted it will be at the expense of some other case of longer standing, for whom prior application for admission has been made.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours-whether the recent ballot among railway men on the piecework question resulted for or against the institution of piecework; and what were the figures in the various centres?

The ballot was not taken by the administration, but so far as can be ascertained the position is as follows:

Durban: Number of employees, 1,389; voted against, 760; remainder, 629; made-up of: Voted for, 7; non-voters, 614; neutral, 8.

Pietermaritzburg: The men decided to be guided by results of Durban ballot.

Pretoria: Number of employees, 989. No ballot.

Bloemfontein: Number of employees, 408. A mass meeting was held and at tended by about thirty workmen, who resolved that they had nothing to represent.

Salt River: Number of employees, 1,196; voted against, 932; remainder, 264; made up of: Voted for, 14; non-voters, 240; blank papers, 7; spoilt papers, 3.

Uitenhage: Number of employees, 820. A ballot was taken, but the administration is not aware of result.

East London: Number of employees, 488. A mass meeting was held, and the result communicated to Mechanical Engineer by secretary Workmen’s Committee was to effect that meeting unanimously decided against piecework. No information is available as to number of men who attended meeting.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether, in view of the fact that Civil Servants who joined the services of the late Cape Colony, Transvaal, Natal, and the Orange River Colony prior to Union did not undertake in their contracts of service to serve outside of their respective Colonies, their transfer from the Province in which they joined for service is not a breach of section 145 of the South Africa Act?

said it was the desire of his colleague that the question should stand over for a few days for further inquiries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether the Government is aware of the heavy losses incurred by farmers owing to the disease of lamziekte; (2) whether he will give the return of the losses during the past twelve months; (3) whether the Government will establish an experimental station in the South-eastern District; and (4) what steps the Government is taking, or proposes to take, for the purpose of dealing with this disease?

The question apparently has reference to what is known as gal-lamziekte. (1) The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. (2) Gal-lamziekte not being scheduled an infectious or a contagious disease, in terms of the Diseases of Stock Act, statistics as to the losses are not available. (3) The Government does not intend establishing another experiment station in the South-eastern Districts of the Cape Province. (4) Experiments in connection with this disease are being carried out at two places in Albany district, one by means of feeding with bone-meal, and one for testing the effect of certain grasses fed to the animals. Experiment stations have also been established at Armoedsvlakte, in Vryburg district; at Kaffraria, in Bloemhof district; and at Bestersput, in Bloemfontein district, respectively. These stations are in areas where most deaths from the disease occur. The experiments consist in testing a variety of grasses fed to the cattle, and also in investigating at Armoedsvlakte an alleged cure discovered by a Mr. Edwards. The Director of Veterinary Research has arrived at the conclusion that the disease is due to something eaten by cattle in the course of grazing, and the experiments are mainly conducted in accordance with this theory. Future action will depend on the results of these experiments, which will take some time to complete.

suggested that there should be issued monthly in the “Agricultural Journal” a map, showing the infected areas, so as to warn the public where the disease existed.

said that, according to Dr. Theiler, the disease was not contagious. At the same time, the matter was having the Government’s attention, so that, the best means of obtaining information might be achieved.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he is aware that agricultural societies in the Cape Province import cups and medals fully engraved, and that no duty is paid on these articles, and whether he will take steps to adequately protect local industry in connection with such matters?

The hon. member has evidently overlooked the fact that the Customs tariff specifically provides for the free importation of the articles to which he alludes, provided that the full engraving is made thereon prior to importation or delivery from the Customs. Such engraving is the only security the Customs have that the articles are not diverted to any other purpose. In order to ensure that the engraving should be done in South Africa, the law would have to provide for the articles being imported unengraved, and for the engraving to be done locally under Customs supervision. This could not easily be carried out.

asked whether the Government has received complaints from any newspaper or newspapers to the effect that Reuter’s Agency has refused to supply them with cable news, and, if so, whether the Government proposes to institute an enquiry into the matter.

The reply is in the negative.

asked the Minister of Justice when the promise made by the late Minister of Justice to increase the number of police in the Benoni, Springs, and Boksburg districts will be carried out?

The late Minister of Justice stated in the House last session that provision was being made on the Estimates for an increase of police in the Boksburg-Benoni area. This increase will be given effect to within the next few months when the recruits in the police depot have completed their course of training.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the Constitution of an Appeal Board to inquire into and deal with grievances submitted to it by persons in the employ of the Administration of Railways and Harbours.

seconded.

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

The Bill was set down for second reading on Wednesday, February 19.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the Registration of Accountants in the Union.

Central) seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time.

moved that Mr. H. W. Sampson be a member of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and Parliamentary Buildings and Grounds.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved for a return showing: (1) The average number of children enrolled in State or State-aided schools in each of the Provinces during each of the last five years, distinguishing between Europeans and others; (2) the expenditure in respect of education, other than higher education, in each of the Provinces during the last five years, distinguishing between expenditure defrayed by the Treasury and other expenditure defrayed by local authorities; (3) the sums produced by the sources of revenue proposed to be assigned to the Provincial authorities by the Financial Relations Bill in each of the last five years; and (4) the minimum amount assigned to each of the Provinces in respect of education under section 118 (a) of the South Africa Act. The mover thought the motion was important in view of the Financial Relations Bill.

seconded.

said he had already given instructions for the information to be collected and he hoped to be able to lay it before the House on Monday.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petitions from Charles Stevens and 244 others, A. Olivier and 54 others, J. C. Claassens and 68 others, J. M. Ward and 21 others, E. R. Hine and 13 others, J. S. de Villiers and 53 others, and B. J. Krog and 74 others, inhabitants of the districts Senekal, Ficksburg, and Bethlehem in the Grange Free State, praying for the extension of the Lindley-road-Senekal line of railway to Ficksburg through Senekal, Witkop, Rooikrans, Moolmanshoek, Grootnek, Hammonia, and Wonderkop Valley, or for other relief, presented to the House on the 27th January, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from C. T. Simpson, an accountant of the Provincial Service at Bloemfontein, praying for consideration for pension purposes of his previous services, or for other relief, presented to the House on the 18th April, 1912, be laid upon the table.

seconded.

Mr. SPEAKER stated that the petition was on the Table.

Mr. C. L. BOTHA thereupon moved that it be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions.

seconded.

Agreed to.

That in the opinion of this House: (1) The institution of piece-work in the railway workshops should be abolished; and (2) that those provisions of the Railways and Harbours Service Regulations published in the “Gazette” of the 23rd of December, 1912, which govern employees in the railway service are calculated to inflict upon them injustice and hardship, and should be withdrawn and fresh regulations submitted to this House for approval. The mover said he felt sure that hon. members would realise that in view of the very serious discontent prevailing among the railwaymen, no apology was necessary for bringing forward this subject at that very early date of the session. Furthermore, it would give many hon. members who had often expressed sympathy with the railway employees an opportunity of recording their protest against the piece-work system. It would further give hon. members an opportunity of protesting against the extremely dangerous and bad habit which the Government appeared to have developed of trying to govern the country by departmental regulations which had not had the approval of that House. (Hear, hear.) There were many matters of executive detail which must, of necessity, be left to the departments concerned, but when revolutionary changes were adopted—particularly the piece-work system, which would affect the whole social, physiological, and political life of the people—the whole responsibility should rest with Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In dealing with the piecework system one was at a loss to understand why the Railway Department should deliberately go out of its way to adopt a principle which had been devised through economic pressure by private employers in order to exact the greatest output from the workers and give in return the least possible wage. The system was a pernicious and a vicious one. The Railway Workshops Committee in a majority report, which was more or less inspired in order that the Government might have some justification for introducing the piece-work system, pointed to Pretoria and Bloemfontein, and stated that the standard of efficiency at these two places was much higher than at Salt River and Durban.

The report was an official libel and an unmerited slur on the honesty of the Salt River and Durban railwaymen. (Hear, hear.) The Regarding Commission stated that the sole object of the piecework system was to increase the efficiency and to reduce the working costs. Continuing, Mr. Boydell said that there had been a net profit on the South African Railways of £2,570,000 for the year, although the expenses had been £555,000 more than in any previous year. The General Manager of Railways had stated the working costs in South Africa were 59.62 per cent., compared with 59.4 for the Argentine, 72.5 for Australia, and 69 per cent, for Canada. There was, remarked Mr. Boydell, no urgent necessity from a financial point of view for any change to be made in the direction of the adoption of piece-work. The men were to be allowed an addition of 25 per cent, extra on their time wages. He said if the men were going to do 25 per cent, more work, and receive 25 per cent, more wages, then the Government would not be getting any advantage. Through the process of speeding-up, by getting down the prices, 75 men would soon be doing the work of 100 men, and receiving only ordinary time wages in the long run. He recollected that in 1908, in Durban, the rate for erecting a 35-ton wagon was £5. The same work was now being done for £2 17s. 6d, although the price offered was only £2 10s. It was arranged, however, that the price should be further increased to the amount stated. Consideration must also be had from the point of view of the travelling public. There was a great amount of care required where was necessary, therefore, that men should not be paid at a price which would incline them to scamp their work, and thereby endanger the lives of the public. With the fives of the public were concerned. It reference to the petitions which had been made and the figures quoted by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, he (Mr. Boydell) was not prepared to take them as accurate, although they might look upon them as being something approximately correct. He would like to know whether the ballot was taken amongst those who were likely to work under this system, or only amongst those who would not be affected by it? He noticed that less than two dozen had recorded their votes against the system of piecework. Of course, the Minister of Railways had no right to assume that those who did not vote were in favour of it. They on that side of the House were equally justified in assuming that they who did not vote were against it. They might take it for granted that those who did vote for it were the sort of men who were anxious to make as much money as quick as possible, and then get out of the country. That, he thought, was not the proper basis on which to fix a rate of wages, and would never prove satisfactory. He thought a word of explanation was required as to why the second portion of the motion standing in his name asked for the withdrawal of the whole of the regulations, in so far as they affected employees. Since Union had been established, it had been in the air that there would be a consolidation of the regulations affecting workmen in the various Provinces. There had already been a Re-grading Commission and a Grievances Commission, but he did not think the workmen were going to benefit much by either of these two reports. The point was that these reports should have been submitted to this House for discussion, and on the result of that discussion the regulations should have been framed. The hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours had taken the Cape view of the position, in so far as he had adopted the lowest rate of pay throughout the Union as a maximum rate for the whole of the country. The maximum rate of wages in the Cape Province was 13s.; in the Transvaal, it was 15s.; in Natal, 14s.; and in the Free State. 15s. They now found that the basis had been fixed at the level of the Cape rate of pay, viz., 13s. It would be said that this rate did not affect those now in the service, but he maintained that it would detrimentally affect the men at present in the employ of the Cape. Clause 171 stated that those men in the various Provinces who were in receipt of the maximum wage higher than 13s. were to be allowed to retain this amount, but those who had not reached a higher rate than 13s. would never be able to exceed that rate of pay. These, therefore, would never be able to rise to the maximum which their other fellow-workers were at the present time receiving, and which, in the event of Union not having taken place, they would have attained At present the railways and harbours were engaging numbers of men on the lower scale of pay, and there was no doubt but that men who wore receiving the higher rate of pay would have to make way for those who were drawing less money on the slightest pretext. Then, with regard to local allowances, those made at the Transvaal were 4s. a day; the Free State 2s., which, in a, measure, made up the difference in the daily rate of pay. In one of the provisions, he noticed that no allowance was made for Sunday expenses, just as if by some miraculous circumstance the cost of living went down on that day. Most of the men he believed, would prefer to work under the old conditions; hut, in order to give a bit of sugar to the bird, the Government offered the men twelve days’ holiday, instead of the usual 6½ days under the old regulations.

The matter had been taken up by the Transvaal Trade Union because it, considered that the Government, by their action, had extended a direct invitation to private employers and the mines to do the same. Consciously or unconsciously, the Government, being the largest employers of labour, set a standard, and if they reduced that standard and gave an indication that that standard was too high, it was a very short time before private employers fell into line, and set the standard for the whole of the country. Consequently the Transvaal Federation of Trades Unions had taken that matter up and were prepared to do all they could, financially or otherwise, to assist these railway men, and prevent these regulations from being put into effect as framed at the present time. Then they came to the question of apprentices and improvers. When a man had served his apprenticeship, after six years he was to be classed as an improver and get 10s. a day after eight years’ service. The term “improver” was a misnomer, the hon. member submitted, with all due-deference to the Minister of Railways and Harbours. When an apprentice had served his apprenticeship and he was out of his time and the department had done their-duty, he ought to be an efficient workman and receive the maximum rate of pay for the work which he was doing. He was in a different position to a man on the clerical staff, who could go up, step by step, on, the ladder. His outlook as a mechanic was-always that of a mechanic, and the sooner he could get his maximum rate of pay the better. He was not only entitled to it, but he was a journeyman who had learnt his trade and was doing the same work as the man next to him, who might have been: there for 20 years. Coming to the running staff, they found that drivers, firemen, guards, and others were to be classed in three, and sometimes four, classes, and a dangerous policy had been adopted of paying a man according to his class, and not according to the work he did. They had a given number of first-class drivers, say 500, but as the necessity for more first-class drivers arose that constant number was not increased; many more second and third-class drivers were compelled to do exactly the same work as a first-class driver did; but because they were rated as second and third-class drivers they could not get any higher rate of wage than was laid down in the regulations; and their only hope and their only chance was to wait until one of the first-class drivers was-either pensioned off, died, or left the service, and he was next on the list and formed the “constant number.” The constant number was always considerably less than what it ought to be. If a man was a driver, surely the responsibility was the same whether he drove a train with 100 or with 500 passengers in it, or whether he went to Wynberg or Johannesburg. The whole responsibility rested on his shoulders, and he should receive the best possible rate the Government could afford. The hon. member went on to refer to the “booking-off” system, and said that they had the position that a man went on a short journey and when he got to the end of it he was booked off, for which he received the sum of 3s., but the man was only there for the convenience of the Government, and he got the magnificent sum of 3s. for being somewhere he did not want to be.

The hon. member dealt with what he called the “Government white labour scandal,” saying that there were. 3,876 white employees working for the Government at the rate of between 3s. and 5s. per day. At first sight some of the members might say that they were doing these men a good turn by employing them at all, but he asked whether the work these men were doing was necessary, or was it not necessary ? He did not think that the Railway Department were going to pose as philanthropists, and surely, if the work was necessary, white wages, and not Kafir wages, ought to be paid to these men. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. members might say that they could get Kafirs to do the same work at less pay, but if the Railway Department wanted Kafirs to do that work the sooner the country knew that that was the policy of the Government the better. What happened was this. When that policy had first been adopted, according to the General Manager’s report, the Government had had some difficulty in getting men at these low rates of pay, and said that owing to the low rate they could not keep the men or get fresh ones, and so they had increased the rare to 3s. 6d. a day. The Government wanted these men, and enticed them along in the same way as the most unscrupulous private employer did, and said that they were going to take advantage of their necessitous circumstances and were going to offer them a certain wage. If they did not like it, well, there was the veld. Continuing, the hon. member said that in order to infuse a touch of humour, clause 151 stipulated that in order to prevent these employees from living an extravagant or fast life, they must get written permission from the General Manager before they were permitted to keep racehorses. (Laughter.) Coming to the last regulation in the “Gazette,” the hon. member said that it had for its object the taking away of the citizen rights of the railway employees. He wished to make it clear that they were asking that this clause should be removed from the employees, and they did not want them to be confused with the Civil Servants. They were only applying it to the employees, and throughout the whole of the regulations and all the Acts these had received different treatment than had been received by the officers and salaried staff. They would find that under the Act the salaried staff or officers got better conditions with regard to annual leave and sick pay, and could be put on the permanent staff when they had been in the service for 12 months, while the employees must be two years in the service. Altogether there was a distinction made and recognised between the employees and the officers. These were clearly defined under the regulations and in the Act, and it was not necessary for him to define the differences. An “employee” was willing to labour in the open market, and was not a railwayman before he was a mechanic. The hon. member went on to refer to the pension which these employees could receive, which, he said, varied from £1 11s. per annum to £60 or £70. It could not be said that that sum was adequate or sufficient to keep any man, after he had reached the age of 65, in any degree, of comfort. They saw that in other countries, such as Australia and at Home, they received pensions without having to contribute to any superannuation fund. In other countries they got a pension of £24 per year where a man had not been on the railway or contributed to any fund at all, but because he had been a citizen of the country and contributed to the work of the country, in order to supply the wants and needs of the people of that country. (Hear, hear.) They saw the same principle at Home. In South Africa a man could get a pension of £5 per month only after having to contribute for so many years to the Superannuation Fund. They contended that, under these circumstances, the wage-earner on the railways was a mechanic and a citizen before he was a railwayman. He had his home here, and it did not matter twopence where he had come from; if he lived in South Africa and made this country his home they said he was a citizen, and surely, as such, he ought to be entitled to his full citizen’s rights. It might be said that they might exercise undue influence on the Railway Administration, but a mechanic could not be said to exercise any undue influence like that, and he could not believe that that argument could have very much weight with the Government, ‘because the Government had gone out of their way and extended that disability to municipal as well as parliamentary life. In regard to the suggestion that the men would be able to dictate to their masters, he said that in so far as the 24,389 men who were affected by this political disability formed a good section of the total electorate of this country, they were entitled to instruct, not their masters who sat on the Government benches, but their servants. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Boydell recalled the decision of the Natal Assembly in 1899 to eliminate a similar rule which had been applied to the railwaymen in that colony. After that had been done, he pointed out, it was found that not one of the railway employees abused the right which was thus granted. He contended that the regulation now introduced was a contravention of the Act of Union, which specifically laid down that any rights which were enjoyed by any man in any of the Provinces were safeguarded by the Act. This was a right granted to the men in Natal, if not by an Act of Parliament, certainly by a resolution passed by Parliament.

In this connection he would like to call the attention of the House to the experiences of a fellow-workman in the railways and himself. At the consummation of Union they were nominated as candidates for Parliament. He applied for three weeks’ leave. There was a certain amount of leave due to him, and he asked that that leave should be extended to enable him to contest a particular constituency. On the day when the nominations closed the then Minister of Railways, now Minister of Justice, replied that his fellow-worker and himself either had to withdraw or resign from the service at once, as they were violating clause 53 of the Act of Union, which laid down that no person should be eligible to stand as a candidate for the Assembly or the Senate who held an office of profit under the Grown. (Labour laughter.) He considered that one’s imagination had to be stretched almost to breaking point to make one’s self believe that a rivetter, a mechanic, or a fitter held an office of profit under the Crown. If it were an office of profit under the Grown, then he would suggest that they neither saw the Crown nor the profit. The election took place, and his colleague and himself were defeated. They applied for reinstatement, and received a curt note that their reinstatement could not be considered. He submitted that if a similar case occurred in future it would be no injustice to the department if an employee so nominated were allowed to proceed with his candidature without being penalised. Having referred to the protests which had been raised in different centres by the railway employees in regard both to piecework and the new regulations, Mr. Boydell, in conclusion, said that another ballot had been taken by a section of the railway employees as to whether, in the event of no consideration being granted to them, they would be prepared to take the strongest measures they could to resist the application of these regulations, and he might say that this ballot had been in the affirmative. It had been decided by a small majority that if necessary they were prepared to do this. He did not put this forward as a threat, but it was a fact that, he wished to bring under the consideration of the House. If the second part of the motion he had introduced were carried, the regulations would be withdrawn, and nothing would be dislocated, and the position would be that the railway employees were working under the conditions that they were working under last month. It would be in the interests of the country and the public service if hon. members were to give the matter their serious consideration, and the regulations were withdrawn and fresh ones submitted for approval. (Labour cheers.)

formally seconded the motion.

said that he wanted to add a word or two to what had been said by the hon. member for Greyville, but while he congratulated the hon. member on the moderate character as a whole of his speech—better than very often came from that quarter of the House —he could not exactly congratulate him on the wording of the resolution. It was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the administration. The motion in its present form was bound to be beaten. The more diplomatic language one used in a case of this sort the more likely was one to get the support of the Minister of Railways, who was sympathetic in the matter, and who tried to administer justice throughout the whole of the department. He (Colonel Crewe) suggested that the words “and fresh regulations submitted to this House for approval” should be omitted from the motion, for there was no definite authority by which the House had power to approve of railway regulations. The mover, however, was perfectly right in saying there was trouble in the Railway Department. Railway servants in the employ of the C.G.R. before Union were contented, but now all the men were discontented. He was opposed to piecework, and thought it desirable that a protest should be entered against the existing conditions. His vote must be taken not only as being against piecework, but also against the conditions in the service which were causing supreme dissatisfaction all round. Failing an amendment he would vote for the motion as it stood. As to the piecework system generally, he could see its utility when a firm was turning out large quantities of one particular article, but to apply it to the repairing of the roofs of railway carriages was ridiculous. The result was that the same work had to be done over and over again. One of the railway coaches which had had its roof repaired twice had a defective platform, which had not been repaired. Some of the footboards were rotten, but as the men were paid to repair the roof only, they naturally did not remedy the defective footboard, which was in a dangerous condition. An important point to be remembered in connection with the Union Railway was tips: that if the supervision exercised over the rolling-stock and permanent way were bad, there was no outside authority which could step in and insist on mutters being rectified; but in Great Britain the Board of Trade could interfere. And take the Gaika Loop accident—we had never had the real reason of that disaster. He was certain that a good deal of responsibility rested on the management, and that before long we should have reason to regret the introduction of the piecework system, unless there was better supervision than that which existed at the present time. With regard to the second portion of the motion, he would ask what remedies had the men had? He would mention a case which he had laid before the Minister privately. There was a faithful servant of long standing in the Electrical Department of the railway, who came out to South Africa under an agreement, which included a stand-by allowance of a day and a half. Although his pay could not be reduced under the Act of Union, he was now receiving £31 a year less than when he joined the Railway Department several years ago, for his stand-by allowance had been knocked off, and nothing had been put in its place. The Grievances Commission thought that this man had a grievance, and recommended that his rate of pay be restored to its original figure, but this had not been done.

thought the present Minister of Railways was to be congratulated on having gone back upon the decision of his predecessor in this matter, and upon having made a slight concession, so that the men were now guaranteed their full day’s pay. The piecework system, as applied to repairs, was now carried on, to justify the action of the Minister and the department; but, unfortunately, bad work and dangerous work was being turned out under the piecework system. It was, no doubt, a good thing to be able to establish the reputation of a Minister, but the safety of the travelling public was an even greater thing. The matter was pot a party but a national one, and the whole railway service was seething with dissatisfaction in consequence of the administration of the last year or two. (Hear, hear.) The best and most far-seeing men were just as much dissatisfied as anyone else—in fact, it was extremely difficult to find a satisfied railway man. Surely they could not have 25,000 men all bad, just to prove that there were two good’ men here. (Hear, hear.) In view of this widespread dissatisfaction, it was necessary that the House should not consider the matter in an offhand manner.

Continuing, he said last session the House had been led in its opinion by a certain committee, which had stated that there was no great feeling against the system of piecework amongst the men. But the figures showed that their opinion was really wrong. They had been entirely misled. He would like to say that the Minister took steps which they all agreed with when he called a conference of representatives, as the result of which the system of piecework was more or less agreed to, the men’s daily pay being, however, guaranteed. But the men could not be induced to accept this. A feeling of suspicion had been raised throughout the railway service by the mischievous speech made by the late Minister of Railways, when he first proposed the adoption of this system. It created in the minds of the employees a sense that their feelings were not being respected. As to what should be done, he was rather sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. members opposite, that the appointment of a Select Committee would do no good; because, if members had the opportunity of inquiring fully into the matter, it would tend to alter public opinion in the House. He thought the idea would be well received if the House was prepared to institute a genuine inquiry into the question. He also believed a great deal could be done, if the Government were determined to persevere in the piecework system, if they would attempt to remove the suspicions which had been raised, and remove some of the objectionable features which were associated with that system. It seemed to him that to ask the House to express an opinion upon piecework was asking them to do too much. It was equally impossible for the House to express an intelligent opinion about the regulations which had just been framed, as there were something like 100 pages and sufficient time had not yet been given for their study. But there was general dissatisfaction with them. Therefore he would venture to move as an amendment to omit all words after “that” for the purpose of substituting the following: “a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the System of piecework, and the Railways and Harbours Service Regulations published in the ‘Gazette’ of December 23, 1912. The committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers. The committee to consist of nine members.”

seconded the amendment, and in doing so, said he did not think the House was competent to express an opinion about the piecework system. The question had been discussed both inside and outside the House and very different conclusions had been arrived at and feelings expressed. Its applicability differed according to the classes of trade. In some workshops it was adopted with satisfactory results both to the employer and the employee, while in other cases it was entirely the opposite. They were asked if piecework could be properly applied to the workshops of the Government? There was a great deal to be said against this system unless it was carried out under careful regulations, otherwise the average working man would find himself unable to obtain a living wage. There was again the danger of work being scamped under the system. He did not suppose that anyone in the House knew whether the new regulations gazetted contained those safeguards.

Why not look at the regulations ?

said there had not been sufficient time to do that. He thought that regulations of that sort could only be successfully drafted after consulting the men concerned. They required to hear from the workmen their actual experience, and it was for that reason that he seconded the amendment. He also thought that the system of payment for overtime demanded enquiry. He also thought it had been a mistake not to appoint a Grievance Board on which the men could be represented and that until this was done he was afraid that whatever discussion for or against the question which might take place the House would not be competent to deal with it.

agreed that the question of piecework was a serious one, but there were other grievances besides that. One of these was that of the apprentice. They were all concerned about the future of their boys. Regulations had been framed which made it impossible for an apprentice to become a full-fledged workman until after eight years of service. For six years boys were expected to serve for small pay, and after eight years they received 10s. per day. Such regulations were not going to encourage their boys to enter the Government workshops. Personally, he would be ashamed to make such proposals for apprenticeship. There were other regulations which appeared to him to be monstrous. He did not marvel that there was so much discontent in the service. The wonder was that there was not more. He maintained that they had no right to say to 20.000 men that they were to be subject to these regulations without consulting them. He did not know who had been responsible for drafting the regulations, therefore he could not say who was to blame. They would have to alter the conditions under which the boys enter Government workshops if they were to make the service attractive. The House was indebted to the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell) for having put the matter so clearly, and having given them facts. Let them draw their own conclusion. The whole plan of the proposed system of apprenticeship was wrong; and after eight years’ service an apprentice was to be an “improver,” and not a journeyman. Something ought to be done, and he hoped that they would get a change made. He hoped hon. members would not neglect that very important matter and he hoped that a remedy would be found. These grievances should be removed, because, if they were not, he feared that there was going to be serious trouble. They could not treat a large section of the population in that sort of fashion. (Hear, hear.)

said that he would advise the hon. members on the cross benches to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle). He was in sympathy with them entirely as far as piecework went. His experience of piecework as against departmental work went back many years. He had tried both systems, and had had ample time to see the results, and he assured the House that anyone who had had the same experience of piece-work as he had had would condemn piece-work. He gave instances where the system of piecework had been adopted, and said that in one case ten years ago they had subcontracted, for piece-work, with the result, they found, that the work had been absolutely scamped. Of course, they could not blame the men. A stern wheeler for the Pungwe which had been put together by piece-work went on a bank and broke her back. If they got such results from piece-work as far as private firms were concerned, what would be the result if the Government adopted it? He would strongly support the amendment, and advise the hon. members on the cross benches to accept it.

urged upon the Minister of Railways and Harbours the advisability of accepting the amendment. After their labour last session it was a sad disappointment, he said, to notice throughout the country that instead of causing any satisfaction in the railway service of the country, the position seemed to be worse than 12 months ago. His views on piece-work were purely theoretical, and he had not been able to convince himself, from his studies of that matter, that it was a system which could be defended. He agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) that an investigation was necessary before they could say aye or no as to the merits of the system. A case had been made out for inquiry. He could hardly imagine that 30,000 or 40,000 men would be up in arms against the whole system of railway management unless there was something substantial at the back of it. It was the duty of the House to make as deep and profound an inquiry into that matter as it possibly could, and no department required closer attention than the Railway Department. As far as complaints to him were concerned, living in a comparatively small railway neighbourhood, men had come to see him, and there seemed to be a sort of horror on the part of the men as to that system.

said that, as one who knew a good deal about piece-work in England, he wanted to tell hon. members on the other side just what it meant. All workmen were not equal, and where piece-work came in it meant speeding up. Farmers know that one man could shear more sheep than another; the system of piece-work was to make every man do as much as the fastest man, and therefore the system was not fair. There were other ills with regard to piece-work, and the Government were putting in the thin end of the wedge in introducing piecework throughout South Africa. It would be a lamentable thing if the system were introduced into the mines. The system reduced people to human automatons. The system was not honest and just. The Minister would be wise if, at the last hour, he would accept the proposition to appoint a Select Committee.

said that last session this very question was debated, and many interesting points were adduced for and against the adoption of the piece-work system. This session an additional element of considerable importance had been introduced in the dissatisfaction amongst the men. They were told that it would reduce costs by introducing the piece-work system, and it would induce men to make greater efforts to produce more work. With regard to the reduction of costs, his experience was that cheapness was not always true economy, and when life was at stake and the work was of so important a character they should hesitate before agreeing to the conditions as they were proposed by the Administration, He knew a case where work had gone in matters of machinery which had resulted, through careless manipulation and inferior work, in loss of limb and in loss of life. They very frequently had the experience that it cost infinitely more in the end to have work done hurriedly, carelessly, and cheaply, than to have it done more carefully, which, of course, involved more time. It was shown last year that the work done in the day workshops was better in quality than that turned out hurriedly in the other shops, and they ought to be guided in forming a judgment by that fact. The hon. member for Greyville had stated very clearly many details which they need not go into, as they had been so lucidly and completely set before them, but it seemed to him (Mr. Wiltshire) that a case had been shown for their investigation. The hon. member for Greyville had stated them, from a very serious point of view, how very important it was that they should have some information before they ventured to legislate on so important a matter. Those regulations were of an important character; they were voluminous, and required experts to go into. A very strong case had been made out for the appointment of such a Committee of Inquiry as that suggested. The hon. member for Greyville had shown that the question of overtime, allowances and classification of work of guards, firemen, and drivers, during the hours of work the waste of time sometimes involved in these matters, and their loss of wages, were questions which ought to be most carefully considered and investigated.

In Natal, some years ago, they had the same difficulty, and their then General Manager—who, he was glad to say, was present in the House to give them the benefit of his experience—introduced a system which, while it did not call upon the men to make undue efforts, was calculated to reward them for any superior knowledge and adaptability they had. He introduced the bonus system so that those men who had the faculty of doing their work very quickly and well, got the proper reward for their labour. The experience and knowledge of the older men very often made up for their physical inability, and they had a chance of utilising their best efforts by means of the bonus system. There ought to be a fair day’s work guaranteed, and if a man was able to exceed the amount of work laid down by the Administration, he ought to have the benefit. With regard more particularly to the regulations, he thought they ought to know better before they voted upon it exactly what the effect of many of the regulations would be—whether they would be in the interests of the public, whether they would be satisfactory to the men, neutralise the ferment which existed amongst them, and conduce to the public benefit generally. He thought it was his duty to support the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage, and he hoped hon. members on that side of the House would lend it support also.

said he thought he could speak for a large number of railway employees, not all, as some would pretend to do. Many who had approached him said they strongly objected to their affairs being constantly drawn across the floor of the House for party purposes: a great deal of it was done, and they were used as shuttlecocks for the purposes of electioneering. The men said they were being constantly overlooked on account of their grievances, which were many and just, being badgered about the floor of the House. The result was that grievances which were at one time amicably discussed with the Administration and got consideration were now treated otherwise, and the men could only explain this as being the consequence of this constant political agitation by a certain section of this House. Speaking for the bulk of the Salt River men, he would ask why they should receive such a want of consideration. They had not had it in the past, and did not deserve it now. At the present time the men were not consulted; they had the regulations thrown at them, which they had to accept or not, and if they did not accept, they had no other alternative than leaving the service. It was unfair for the Administration to take these men, and put them under different conditions—conditions of which they had no knowledge when they entered the service. The railway servants had got grievances. In the past their grievances had been put right in a legitimate and amicable way, but now there was no means of doing so. As to the question of piecework, there was no doubt that from an employer’s standpoint there was one object in view, and that was to get the most work at the least pay out of those who did the work. That was hardly fair, and it was not the way that a private employer would do, at least a considerate employer. Then looking at the question from the employee’s point of view, there was no doubt that it was the intention of the administration to give a man a fair, honest day’s pay for a fair, honest day’s work, hut that was not going to continue.

It was only human nature that when they found certain employees could earn so much more than others they were going to cut down and cut down until they forced the older man down, and he would get smaller wages than the man who could devote his full eight hours’ slaving toil to his work. It was sure to follow that the administration would use piecework to lower the rate of wages. Even the old and tried servants of the administration were becoming discontented on account of these constant changes of regulations. He asked whether some way could not be devised whereby this frequent changing of regulations could be avoided? In the regulations issued in December last there were many points which any man, and especially an employee who was going to suffer thereunder, must take strong exception to. Take the case of the engine-drivers and firemen, who were sent out on a trip to Frenchhoek. These men were allowed two and a half hours for the journey each way, and they were away practically all day. Instead of the engine-drivers and firemen receiving lower wages than they had had before, they were entitled to higher wages. A man had to work 26 days a month, and if he did not do that in the ordinary way he had to work on Sundays to make it up without extra pay. Dr. Hewat also stated that some of the cases mentioned before the Grievances Commission had not been put right.

Those that have not been before me are going to be put before me.

(concluding) said he only hoped that he had pointed out that the railway employees did not desire to be constantly badgered across the floor of the House, and to have feeling constantly aroused on both sides for the purpose of trying to gain their points. The Salt River employees were anxious to meet the administration to enable them to fairly work the railways, in justice to themselves, but they strongly objected to regulations, rates of pay, and other changes in the system of work being thrown at them unawares without due consideration being given to their requirements and wants before this was done.

said he was sure that the hon. member for Greyville would have served his cause much better if he had taken advice as to the form and matter of the resolution; at any rate he was sure that the House could not pass the resolution in the form in which it had been put forward. As to subsection (1), in which it was suggested that piecework should be abolished, his own difficulty in regard to this was that he had no knowledge as to what the system of piecework was which was in force on the railways at this moment, and he had been unable to get any information on the subject. Reasonable piecework was not in itself objectionable; but, as far as railways were concerned, there were a great many things in which piecework was not adequate and ought not to be introduced. To that extent he sympathised with the hon. member for Greyville, and was prepared to support some motion which would take account of that and bring about an improvement in the methods which are alleged to characterise the Railway Department. As to sub-section (2), he thought it had been overlooked that last year this House passed a very long law which had been before a Select Committee for two years previously, and which required and empowered the Government to prepare and issue regulations for the proper carrying out of that law. The proposal of his hon. friend was simply that these regulations should be abolished or withdrawn, and that a fresh set of regulations should be framed for the approval of this House. He (Sir D. Hunter) hoped they would never so far err as to undertake the discussion and approval of all the regulations that may be issued under Acts of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)

That was a matter for which the Government was responsible, and they must not allow Government to escape its responsibility. The regulations, which had been issued a month ago, should be given a fair trial—say, a year—and then if necessary they could be remodelled.

The Railway Department, proceeded Sir David, was upside down. The Railway Board had not fulfilled the purposes for which it was understood it was created. (Opposition cheers.) The board had no relation to the great body of men employed by the department, and did not know the grievances which existed. The board must be directly responsible to Parliament, and be composed of men thoroughly acquainted with railway subjects. The hoard was believed to be intended to be a non-political body under the Act of Union, but the very opposite was the case. The fact was that the board was a political machine; that was a very serious position indeed, and until it was remedied there was very little hope of railway matters being put on a proper footing. Having announced his preparedness to support the motion for appointing a Select Committee if no better proposal could be put forward, Sir David explained that the bonus system to which reference had been made by his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Wiltshire), and with which he had been personally connected years ago, always guaranteed the men their proper wage, but gave them more if they did more work. He was distinctly against the idea of reducing all men to one level, and paying a brilliant, diligent man the same wage as a “duffer.” Let the House see that ample justice be done to the great mass of railwaymen, and he believed that in the Union Railways we had a respectable and self-respecting body of men of which we should be proud. (Cheers.)

said his railway constituents strongly resented political capital being made out of their grievances. (Cheers.) They did not pretend that they had no grievances, but they wished to lay them through the proper channel. The men realised that having their affairs discussed in Parliament was not always to their advantage. (Hear, hear.) If resolutions antagonistic to the Government were brought in and the Government said “No,” the men gained nothing, and the only thing secured was an advertisement of the grievances, but no remedy was obtained. Surely the proper plan was to allow the railway men to bring forward their grievances in a proper way. Should Government prove unreasonable, then the House should demand an explanation. Some of the regulations were unreasonable, but the men should be permitted to discuss them with the Minister of Railways before they were debated in the House. For that reason he could not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenbage. When the Standing Committee on Railways and Harbours was appointed, it could take cognisance of this question, and he preferred to rely on a standing committee and on the consideration of a Minister who had never taken up an unreasonable attitude towards the men. If reasonable grievances were brought before the Ministry— whether the present or any other Ministry —they would receive fair consideration.

Only consideration!

(concluding) said he found it impossible to vote either for the motion or the amendment.

said he was glad to hear the remark of the last speaker, because if he (Mr. Burton) told hon. members what the position was, they would feel that it was not advisable either in the interests of the railway men themselves, the administration, or the country generally that the House should agree upon either of the courses that had been suggested. He did not see how it could be expected that the cause of justice to their men could be furthered by suggesting —as he was sorry to hear had been hinted —that there should be a resort to forcible measures if the men did not get what they wanted. (Hear, hear.) So far as it was in his power, he allowed nothing to go out of his office which, in his opinion, was unjust to the men. Sometimes, however, a view of justice to the men was of a very strained character, was pressed upon the Minister without it being remembered that there was such a person as the simple and humble taxpayer—a person who was constantly forgotten. (Cheers.) There would be an entirely different spirit displayed by the men if they were left to think these matters over for themselves. (Government cheers.) He noticed that at the conclusion of meetings of railwaymen at which their grievances were discussed they were told that they must vote for a Labour member next time. (Labour cheers.) Proceeding, Mr. Burton said it was impossible for him to accept the motion as it stood. Take the matter of piece-work—one would imagine that there was something entirely new and unjust in it. The piece-work system, as a matter of fact, had been in vogue in various centres of South Africa for some years past, and it was now proposed, after most careful consideration, to introduce it into the railways.

Hon. members would be surprised to hear that the system that was proposed to be introduced—or rather extended—was not a system of piece-work, but a bonus system. One of its conditions was that no man shall receive less pay than he is getting now. Every man was guaranteed to get his daily rate of wages.

As the result of agitation.

said that was the spirit in which the question was being discussed. Not a word had been said about this particular system, although the hon. member who introduced the motion knew perfectly well what it was. Every man would receive his due, but the capable man would receive a little more In fixing the rate of pay the average workman had been made the standard, and as to those who were not competent, their position would be the same as that under any other system. Hon. members opposite desired to have a standard wage for everyone alike, but there might be men who were worth 25 per cent, more than others, and the system would allow them to get it. One of the objections which had been urged was that the system would be inclined to induce scamp work, and that the lives of the public thereby would be endangered. He could say that this phase of the question had been considered by a Departmental Commission, and nowhere was it alleged that defects in railway rolling stock were due to the system of piece-work. It was true that the minority report of the same Commission did not favour piece-work, but it was admitted that no defect could be traced to the system. He might say that every railway carriage imported into this country was constructed in Great Britain or America on the piece-work system and repaired by piece-work. This showed how baseless the argument was. They had the piece-work in vogue at the Woolwich Arsenal; in fact, it was a world-wide system. The Government had not adopted it in order to screw out of the men the last drop of blood, but to encourage the competent man to do his best and to secure a reasonable standard of efficiency. The Railway Grievances Commission which he bad referred to had thoroughly gone into the question—

rose to a point of order. Was the hon. Minister in order in quoting from a report not before the House?

The Minister is quite in older.

said it was unfortunate the discussion had been brought on before the report could be placed in possession of the House. He (Mr. Burton) had had interviews with a deputation of fourteen men who came as the chosen delegates from every workshop in the Union. He had gone with them and the Railway Board most minutely into the whole question, and had found that the objections to the system were not substantial. As to the Railway Grievances Commission four out of the six members were strongly in favour of the piece-work system. But the minority report, which was signed by the two lay members, while it did not favour the continuance of the system, could not lay its finger upon any particular point which acted unfairly or unjustly towards the men; but there was a sort of feeling that where there was smoke there was fire, and they pointed out that there was only one thing more remarkable than the unanimity of the men against the system, and that was the lack of evidence in support of their position The important question was: Could it be shown that that system acted or was likely to act, unjustly on these men? Upon that point the majority were absolutely emphatic, and upon that same point the minority could only say that nothing could be proved to the contrary, but that they were afraid that the natural tendency of the system must be injurious.

Now, remarks had been made about the Railway Board which he regretted very much indeed. Criticism had been directed against the Board on the ground that it did not attend to these matters, and one hon. member had made a charge which he did not think should have been made—that it was merely a political machine. He was not going to notice it. Whatever view one might take of the competency of the Board, that charge should not have been made. As far as the Railway Board was concerned, he wanted to tell the House at once the view he took of that matter, and if anyone were to inquire from the Board, they would find that his statement would be confirmed. He took it that that Board had, under the South Africa Act, to manage the railways of that country, under the control of the Government: and he knew of nothing of substance and importance he had done without consulting and getting the approval of the Board. Suggestions were made apparently that the Board was a sort of visionary body, before whom piecework had to come. The decision of introducing piecework, the regulation with regard to piecework, and the general staff regulations of the railways were the result of the most careful, detailed investigation of the Railway Board itself. Now one came to the proposal to appoint a Select Committee; he viewed that proposal to have a committee appointed, in order not to further clear up a point, but to have thrown at their heads the whole of that piecework business which had already been inquired into by commission after commission, and by experts who were competent to go into the matter, as impracticable. They wanted to turn on that Select Committee the whole of the regulations, which had been drawn up by experts who knew all about them. He said that the Government should not accept the proposal, although no one recognised more than he did the supreme authority of Parliament. It was undesirable and unwise to do what had been proposed. There was not the least objection to refer to the Committee of the Railways and Harbours any points which might crop up, such as the question of apprenticeships, but that was entirely different from appointing a Select Committee to go into the whole of the question of piecework. He trusted that neither the motion nor the amendment would be accepted. (Ministerial cheers.)

said that Mr. Kendal, who had been referred to as an agitator, was the organiser for the society known as the A.S.E.. and had performed the duties of his office in endeavouring to get as many engineers as possible to enter the society. They claimed, as free citizens, to have their organisation, whether it was of engineers, carpenters, or any other trade or profession, just as the professional men had their Chambers of Commerce, Chambers of Mines, and the like. As to the change brought about in regard to piecework they had not to thank the administration for that, but it had been forced upon them as a result of representations from all quarters. As to the bonus system, it was not a just system, any more than the piecework system. The whole of the argument of the Minister had not convinced him in the least, or any other sensible hon. member, that piecework was good for the workers—and it was the men whom they (the Labour Party) represented, not the masters. Piecework might be good from the masters’ point of view, but it was certainly not from that of the men. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth. Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had made great play that the only motives which animated hon. members on the cross benches were to make political capital; but nothing was said of political capital when hon. members brought up the grievances of farmers, or the poor mine-owners.

Their reasons were political, and they would continue to say at the end of their speeches that there was no hope for the working classes of the country, nor other countries, until they learned to govern themselves; and they would govern themselves through Parliament by sending their own representatives and not self-appointed politicians of either the Unionist or the Nationalist Party. Being an ex-railway man himself, he repudiated the suggestion that was made by the hon. Minister of Railways—in an interjection—that the men were being led. He had a greater respect for the railway men than to associate them in his mind with a flock of sheep. If the hon. Minister knew as much about them as he (Mr. Andrews) did he would know that they were extremely difficult to lead. They were just as capable of thinking as the hon. member who was laughing, and they were not willing to take their politics from any party until they were convinced as to the justice of the politicians. He had made it clear that he was not convinced by what the hon. Minister had said, and he asked the House whether it thought that the men would be convinced, when they read their newspapers, by what the Minister had said. He thought not. The hon. Minister had made a most able speech and it had tickled the ears of his supporters on the back benches; anything that was said against the wage-earner did tickle those employers of labour, as they were, because it appealed to them. But it would not appeal to that large section of the taxpayers, the railwaymen, when they read the report in the papers. It was not calculated to decrease their dissatisfaction. Injustice would be resented and there would never be a contented service until the House was prepared to do something for it.

expressed his disappointment with the reply of the Minister. His hon. friend behind had put forward the great necessity for some steps being taken with a view to remedying the grievances that undoubtedly existed, and the railwaymen would still have the same conviction tomorrow morning that they were being wrongly treated. He would like to hear another member of the Ministry who represented a large section of railwaymen express his views on the matter as other members had done. He had much to say before his election that his party stood for improvement in the conditions of labour, but compared with the time of his election these conditions had become very much worse.

At this stage the hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate until Wednesday, February 5.

seconded.

Agreed to.