from Charlotte C. L. Mayhew, head teacher of St. Anne’s Diocesan College for Girls, Natal, praying that, for pension purposes, she may be allowed to register herself as a head teacher in terms of Act No. 31 of 1910, Natal

from F. H. Brutus, schoolmaster, St. Andrew’s Missionary School, Ceres, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

from E. C. Haupt, of Rouxville, Orange Free State, widow of Daniel Haupt, who was landdrost of Smithfield, from 1873 to 1900, praying for consideration of her circumstances and for relief.

from E. S. Theunissen, a teacher, of Dordrecht, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

from Catherine M. Marais, widow of W Marais, late trooper in the District Mounted Police, Beaufort West, who was murdered in 1900 while on duty, praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

from A. Tennant, Somerset Strand, formerly Collector of Customs of the late South African Republic in Durban, praying that the House may grant him certain arrear salary, or for other relief.

from J. Little, of Hillarys, Durban, formerly a clerk in the Natal Government Railways, praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

from A. Winder, of King William’s Town, formerly an architectural assistant in the Cape Public Works Department, who, in 1901, was granted a pension for two years, praying for consideration of his case and for relief.

from G. E. Underwood and 483 others, inhabitants of certain districts in the Transkeian Territories, in support of the petition of P. H. S. Bezuidenhout, presented to the House on the 31st January, praying for certain privileges in respect of his title of doctor of Mechano Therapy.

from B. J. de Lange, jun., and 74 others, inhabitants of the Ward Elandsrivier, district Pretoria, praying that legislative provision be made whereby Field-Cornets will be chosen by the voters of their respective wards, and whereby they will have jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases falling under the Masters and Servants Act.

from J. Mokhosi, of Rouxville, Orange Free State, who was discharged as a native Police Corporal in 1911 after twenty-seven years’ service, praying the House to consider his age and the circumstances of his case, and to grant him relief.

from D. Adamson, formerly Chief Clerk, Divisional Superintendent’s Office, Port Elizabeth, whose office was abolished in 1912, praying for consideration of his case and for relief.

Government Notice No. 1807, 28th December, 1912, regulations regarding occupation of coal stands, etc., belonging to South African Railways.

Annual accounts, 1911-12 (Gape, Natal, and Transvaal), with reports of Provincial Auditors. Regulations under Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, for guidance of officers with the receipt of securities.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to form the Select Committee on the Bill, viz.: Messrs. Krige, Baxter, Brown, Andrews, Vintcent, Henderson and Cronje; Mr. Krige to be chairman.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the petition from (1) John Andrew, accountant and chartered secretary, of Cape Town, (2) the said John Andrew as representing the Central Association of Accountants (Limited by Guarantee) of London, and (3) William Hay, accountant, of Cape Town, presented to the House on the 3rd instant, in opposition to the Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

Mr. C. P. ROBINSON (Durban, Umbilo) seconded.

Agreed to.

When the question was raised on the 3rd instant, by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) on clause 13 of the Financial Relations Bill, I stated that I would give a fuller ruling at a later date, and I will take the opportunity of doing so now: This House will, no doubt, exercise great caution in passing legislation which may either expressly or by implication disturb any Ordinance which has been passed by any Provincial Council and assented to by the Governor-General-in-Council. That this House, however, has the power to initiate legislation either for the repeal, amendment or supersession of any provisions of an Ordinance passed by a Provincial Council is clear from the terms of section 86 of the South Africa Act, which provides that any Ordinance made by a Provincial Council shall have effect in and for the Province so long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of Parliament. Moreover, the Bill in question now before the House is one to give effect to the report of a Commission appointed under section 118 of the South Africa Act, and it is difficult to see how it can be held that in the proposed Bill, which is specifically intended to regulate and determine the financial relations which shall exist between the Union and the several Provinces thereof, no provision can be inserted affecting any Ordinance already passed by a Provincial Council touching matters of finance. I must therefore confirm my previous ruling that the provisions in the Bill to which the hon. member took exception are in order.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what are the average hours, and the maximum hours, per day respectively, worked by the men employed at the signal-box at Mooi River Station, Natal, since it has been opened there?

Twelve hours per diem are worked by the signalmen at Mooi River, the only exception being that the man on the Saturday night shift has occasionally to work more than 12 hours in the event of extra trains being run on Sunday mornings. The maximum hours in such cases are 14, but only on two occasions during the last three months were 14 hours worked on this shift. Twice 13½ hours were worked, twice 13¼ hours, and on five occasions 13 hours. A signalman is not on duty on Sunday between 6 a.m., and 6 p.m., unless, as already indicated, when extra trains are run, when signalmen have to remain on duty till 8 a.m.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether the administration is in negotiation with Messrs. Cook and Son or other tourist agency with a view to such agency contracting for the handling of baggage of passengers arriving at the ports; (2) if so, what considerations influence the Government in thus reversing the steps they took when they took this service into their own hands; (3) whether Messrs. Cook and Son receive a percentage or commission on all tickets for travelling on the South African Railways sold through their agency; and (4) whether the granting of any such contract as mentioned above to Messrs. Cook and Son is not calculated considerably to increase the number of tickets sold through that agency and so more than counterbalance any financial advantage accruing to the administration from the contract?

The answer to the first question is in the negative, so that questions (2) and (4) drop. In regard to question (3), Messrs. Cook and Son receive commission on tourist tickets which they sell, but not on ordinary tickets.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) What profits have been made severally during the years 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912 by the following mines: (a) Roberts Victor Diamond Mining Company; (b) Blaauwbosch Diamond Mining Company; and (c) Elands Diamonds, Ltd.; (2) what sums have been received by the Government in respect of the forty per cent. reserved to the State in these mines under the diamond law of the Orange Free State; and (3) whether any contract has been entered into with any of these companies for the substitution of a fixed royalty per load or per carat for the proceeds of such forty per cent. share, and, if so, what are the terms of this contract?

(1) The profits for the three companies have been as follows: (a) Roberts Victor, 1909, £65,646 loss; 1910, £8,059 loss; 1911, £9,603; (b) Blaauwbosch, 1910, £252; 1911, £11,674; 1912, £3,100; (c) Elands—production only started June, 1912. (2) These mines held under agreements under section 50 of the Free State Precious Stones Ordinance and the amounts received by the Government have been as follows: (a) Roberts Victor, 1909, £1,200; 1910, £1,200; 1911, £1,560; 1912, £1,934; (b) Blaauwbosch, 1910, £91; 1911, £769; 1912, £344; (c) Elands, 1912, £564. (3) The Blaauwbosch and Elands agreements provide for a rent of 5s. per claim and a royalty of 1½d. per load washed and 40 per cent. of the realised value of any stone found, when the realised value exceeds £1,000. Both companies are subject to the 10 per cent. Profits Tax under Act 6 of 1910, when profits exceed £1,000 per annum. The agreement with the Roberts Victor has come to an end and negotiations with regard to the new agreement are still pending.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) Whether he is aware that those people, including many widows, who received assistance out of the repatriation funds are in great poverty and that many of them are in very critical circumstances and unable to provide for the necessaries of life; (2) whether he does not think that it would utterly ruin them if under these circumstances they were forced to repay the sums they owe; and (3) whether the Government will not seriously consider the advisability of assisting the poorest among them by wholly remitting the sums they owe?

(1) The Government is fully aware that certain persons who have received assistance out of repatriation funds are in impoverished circumstances. (2) In such oases the policy of the Government is to allow the debtors to liquidate their liabilities by instalments commensurate with their financial position or to suspend temporarily all demands for repayment—as the circumstances of each case may appear to justify. (3) It is not considered advisable, however, to remit all claim to repayment so long as there is any prospect of the financial circumstances of the debtor showing an improvement at a future date. Any such policy of remission would be calculated to encourage attempts at evasion of their liabilities on the part of other debtors who can reasonably be expected to meet their obligations. As each case is dealt with according to its merits, no real hardship is inflicted upon individuals.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Mr. Chas. Weidner, appearing in the “Cape Times” of 9th January, 1913, to the effect that the South African Trade Commissioner in London had not been supplied with samples and exhibits of South African products; and (2) whether this assertion is in accordance with the facts; and, if not, what samples and exhibits have been sent him during the last twelve months?

The assertions contained in the letter referred to are not in accordance with the facts. Samples of all South African products except cereals, wool, and mohair have been in the hands of the Trades Commissioner for months past, and have been exhibited by him. The greater bulk of the samples was forwarded as early as May last. Samples of cereals, wool, and mohair could not be sent as they could not be obtained—the time not being seasonable; they will be sent as soon as received.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether any legal opinion has as yet been obtained on the subject of distressed miners abroad who are unable to obtain compensation owing to a provision in the Miners’ Phthisis Act that they must obtain a medical certificate in South Africa; (2) what is the nature of the opinion; and (3) if no such opinion has as yet been obtained, when does he expect one will be available?

The answer is in the negative. I expect to receive an opinion shortly.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether the Railway Board has recommended the construction of a railway from Ladysmith, in Natal, to Acton Homes, in favour of which railway a large number of landowners and other residents in that district submitted a petition to the Administration last year; and (2) whether he will include this line in his railway construction proposals this year?

The railway construction proposals are still under consideration by the Government, which is not yet in a position to state what lines will, or will not, be included in the construction programme proposed to be submitted to Parliament during the present session.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that men in the South African Railway Mechanical Engineer’s Department, Cape Province, are being retired on pension several years before reaching the age of compulsory retirement; (2) whether for the purpose of calculating their pensions in these cases varying periods up to eight years have been added to their service; and (3) whether such action is being taken with a view to eliminating as rapidly as possible the Cape Pension Fund men, whose position is better secured than that of employees working under more recent Acts?

(1) Yes; this being due to their positions being abolished in consequence of certain changes in the workshop organisation at different centres. (2) Yes; but the maximum number of years added is ten, not eight. For pension purposes such additions have been made to the service of these men as are provided for in Acts governing their retirement. (3) Certainly not. The question as to which fund employees belong does not in any way influence the Administration when deciding whether or not it is necessary in the interests of the service that certain servants should be retired.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether he is aware that until about 15 months ago the gaolers and convict guards employed at the Central and Point Convict stations, Durban, carried out their duties in shifts of eight hours; (2) that since new regulations have been put into effect, the same staff doing the same work are now compelled to be on duty, or on the gaol premises, from 12 to 14 hours at a stretch; and (3) whether he will inquire into the necessity of these long hours of labour, and if possible revert to the old system of working ?

replied that the information had been telegraphed for to Pretoria, and when it was received it would be communicated to the hon. member.

moved for a return showing: (1) Particulars of the construction of the quarters occupied by the railwaymen at Mooi River Station, Natal; (2) the value of such quarters; and (3) the accommodation given in the same to (a) married men and (b) single men, with particulars of amounts received for rents, respectively?

seconded.

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS laid the return on the Table.

The motion accordingly dropped.

for a return showing all correspondence which has passed either directly or through the High Commissioner between the Education Department and the University, the University Colleges, Mr. Otto Beit and Sir Julius Wernher or their representatives, or other persons concerned, in regard to the proposed establishment of a teaching University at Groot Schuur.

The motion was not proposed.

I am sorry that the hon. member has not moved the motion, as I want to lay the papers on the Table.

moved that Algoa Bay shall be appointed to be a port of landing for thoroughbred stock imported from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

seconded.

moved to insert Mossel Bay and East London after Algoa Bay.

seconded.

hoped that hon. members would not by means of amendments try to affirm large questions. In reply to the motion as it stood, he just wished to remark that under Proclamation 264 of 19th October, 1911, Port Elizabeth had been proclaimed a landing place for imported cattle. This proclamation had only been temporarily suspended owing to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in England and Holland. Cattle from all parts of the world, except from the two places mentioned, could now be imported through Port Elizabeth. The speaker had already received a deputation on the subject and had promised that the existing temporary prohibition should as speedily as possible be withdrawn.

The amendment was withdrawn.

The motion was withdrawn.

moved for a return showing for the year 1912, fees collected on all bills of cost presented for taxation to Taxing Officers of all Superior Courts in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, distinguishing between fees collected on actual fees charged and on disbursements made, respectively.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from Thomas Wesson, of Graham’s Town, an asylum attendant, who was retired in April, 1912, after over twenty years’ service, praying for the consideration of the circumstances of his case and for relief, presented to the House on the 11th June, 1912, be laid upon the Table.

seconded. Agreed to.

stated that the petition was upon the Table.

then moved that the petition be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved for a return showing: (1) The total amount of profit made by De Beers Consolidated Company, Ltd., from trading in mine compounds for the past ten years; (2) the general allocation thereof; (3) the nature of the charges ordinarily debited to this trading account; and (4) the balance of profit from this source actually in the hands of the company undistributed at the close of its financial year.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

said he desired to withdraw the following motion: That the petitions from W. F. Spann and 15 others, traders in the Glen Grey district, and from H. W. Prior, a trader in the same district, presented to the House on the 29th January, 1913, be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for consideration and report. He explained that he had taken this step after discussion with the Minister of Native Affairs.

The motion was withdrawn.

moved that the detailed Estimates of Expenditure of the Provincial Administrations be laid upon the Table of the House. He said Parliament was discussing, a measure based on figures that Parliament had not got. They trusted that the Minister of Finance would take the earliest opportunity of giving members the figures, because at present they were voting blindly on a Bill which involved an enormous sum of money without the information which they ought to have.

seconded.

said that there was no difficulty about laying these detailed estimates of expenditure on the Table when his department received them, but his hon. friend should understand that it would be some time yet before the Provincial Councils would meet. He did not know how far these detailed estimates of the Provincial Administrations were in order. What the Provincial Administrations put before the Government was the total amounts under the four heads that were required. His hon. friend knew that the Provincial Estimates were based on lump sums under four heads, and they formed the estimate of the total under those four heads that would be required. They were not in a position to criticise the details, nor had they got the details, but, naturally, as soon as the details were available he was prepared to lay them on the Table for the information of the House. What he had at present was the globular amounts under the four heads under which Provincial Estimates were framed.

said he saw that the Financial Relations Bill was down for discussion at a later stage that afternoon. He hoped the Minister would move the Bill off for that day in view of what had passed, because, taking the estimates before them of what would be required by the Provincial Councils they found that those estimates had risen in the course of three years, in the case of the Cape of Good Hope, 33 per cent.; Natal, 48 per cent.; Transvaal, 12½ per cent.; and Orange Free State no less than 60 per cent. If they were to have estimates rising on this scale they were going to be led into national bankruptcy. With estimates of this character, the House was at least entitled to have before it financial details before these enormous sums were voted.

said that what he wanted to specially bring out was that in his Bill the Minister of Finance was giving certain work to the Provincial Councils under these four heads, and he proposed to provide them with funds. What would be suggested to him later was that when they had those amounts of expenditure under each head they should endeavour with each head by itself to allocate funds for carrying out that work of the Provincial Councils on some fairer basis than was provided for in the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

That a Select Committee on Public Accounts be appointed; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of fourteen members, and that Sir Thomas Smartt, Sir Thomas Cullinan, Messrs. Duncan, Currey, Jagger, Orr, Sir Edgar Walton, Messrs. H. S. Theron, Robinson, Neser, Creswell, and the mover, be members of the committee.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

(continuing his speech) said that the reply of the Minister of Railways would occasion great disappointment to the men concerned. There would also be great disappointment among the constituents of the Minister of Finance, who would look to him for a fulfilment of the promise made by him at the General Election to better their conditions of labour. He would like the Minister to take back to his constituency the little Red-book which had been published to the railway men, and tell them that was what he had done for them. With regard to the amendment, his opinion was that it would not take them much “forrarder.” They had had sufficient committees and commissions to inquire into this matter, and what was wanted now was a definite expression of opinion by the members of the House on the question of piecework and the regulations. That expression of opinion they should be prepared to give without further hedging. With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, who thought these grievances should not be discussed here, and the hon. member for Woodstock, who deprecated the constant dragging of the railway men’s grievances on to the floor of the House, he submitted that a great change had come over certain members in this House since last session. There was now quite a mania for Committees and Commissions, formerly deprecated. It was quite a different tale to what they had heard in the past, when the grievances of other public servants were introduced here for discussion by the same hon. gentlemen. He had thought all along that it was only right that these grievances should be discussed on the floor of the House. It was true that since last year, however, a number of hon. gentlemen had become supporters of the Government, and though that might have changed their views, he did not think they should swallow the arguments of the Government simply because they had taken that step. In justice to the Minister, he would say that that hon. gentleman only put forward the cold, unrelentless, official view of the administration. He would give the hon. gentleman credit for not being so cold-blooded himself. He ventured to say that no private employer of labour in this country would have put forward such a cold and unrelenting reply to the points that had been raised by his hon. friend the member for Greyville without expecting trouble. It was not a question of threats or the encouragement of strikes, but the Minister had explained the matter in a very different way than be ought to have done. It showed an utter lack of consideration of the men’s point of view. The hon. Minister had quoted from a certain document, the report of the Grievances Commission, in support of his case. Hon. members had not had an opportunity of reading this, because it had not been laid on the Table. Were they to accept the Minister’s version of what it contained?

You can see it at any time.

You have not given the men an opportunity of seeing what their representatives stated. At any rate they had learned this much that they were against piecework. Continuing, the hon. member said he thought the Minister was merely trying to prejudice the men that their leaders had no case. On that Commission were men who were pledged to piecework, and who could not change from that standpoint without eating their previous words, and he did not think that that was the sort of men that should have been appointed to the Commission. The Minister had stated that piecework was necessary from the point of view of national economy. He had not seen any petitions presented to that House asking that such a system should be instituted. He had not heard of any public meetings in the country demanding that this reduction in the scale of living of the men should be brought about. He submitted that there was no such demand. Then the Minister had told them that care would be taken to see that the men did not scamp their work. What would be the cost of this supervision to see that the men did their work properly? Would that not outbalance any saving effected? Why was it that private employers in this country had dropped the piecework system, because they knew that they would lose trade and custom. The Minister had said that this was not piecework, but a bonus system. It was called bonus piecework by the Department and was every bit as open to their objections as piecework itself. It sacrificed efficiency for output. There was to be no reward for the man who did his work well, only for output. While he had said that payment would be made according to results, this did no such thing. The man who increased his output by 50 per cent. would only receive 25 per cent. The Minister had told them that piecework had been in vogue for a long time. That was true. He knew it had been in vogue for twenty years, but it had not always been compulsory. Piecework might have been all very well twenty years ago. Then there were very few men, and the Governments were probably justified in instituting such a system, because it was the only way of getting the work done, as the workshops were understaffed. The Minister had juggled with the figures of recent ballots taken upon the question. He had tried to assure them that all the men who had not voted yet were in favour of piecework and the Regulations. The hon. member referred to the ballot that had taken place at Uitenhage, where 540 were against piecework, 4 were for the system, and 6 were neutral. He submitted that not one man in ten was in favour of the piecework system as instituted by the Minister. Then, because the Maritzburg men had said that they would be content to adopt the attitude of the Durban men the Minister had said that they were in favour, but a ballot revealed the fact that 291 of these were against, and only one man for.

Because a few men were willing to adopt the piecework system that was no reason why it should be foisted on to the whole of the men. The Railway Board could have fulfilled its purpose equally well by giving a cash bonus to the men who did more work than the others or who did their work more efficiently. What was wanted was better supervision and more encouragement for the men. In addition to the preposterous idea of calling upon apprentices to wait 10 years before they received a journeyman’s wage, the Minister was putting a bar on apprentices properly learning their trade. Owing to specialisation under the piecework system they would be instructed only in one particular branch. The hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat), had not shown a great deal of sympathy with the motion, but had stated that as a medical man he was against piecework on physical grounds. He supposed that point of view did not appeal to the Minister and the Board. If the Minister was desirous of effecting a great economy in this matter, he should get rid of some of the incompetent nonentities on the Railway Board—for ever since they had been connected with the railways there had been a state of ferment. Another point of view was that of public safety. The men should be given sufficient time-in which to do their work properly.

said he desired to take the standpoint of the humble taxpayer. (Hear, hear.) He felt very sorry for the Minister who started with a very bad case against him, but made the case worse as he went on. The attitude of the Minister was not calculated to make that the last debate on the question. He (Mr. Haggar) deprecated references being made to the effect that an attempt was being made to get political capital out of the question. Speeches on piecework were not required from the cross-benches in order to obtain political capital. The Minister’s speech on the question, delivered when the subject was last before the House, was very carefully edited in the paper on the following day, and some very important points were left out. Continuing, Mr. Haggar said the question of piecework on the railways was before the Natal public in 1905. For three years the question was kept before the Natal Ministry, and then in a moment of heat the men went out on strike. He wanted to repudiate the suggestion that the movement against the system had been engineered by a member on the cross-benches. The movement was entirely independent of any present or past member of Parliament. So far from members being in collusion with the railwaymen, the latter, in some instances, had rather resented the attitude taken up by the former. Almost with one voice the men had condemned the piecework system. When the men had to consider their future and the despotism which was being exercised over them, they said, “We are going to be men, and not mere machines.” As the Minister had raised the question of men versus machines, he (Mr. Haggar) would read the following extract from J. A. Froude: “If an employer considers that he stands in human relation towards his workmen, if he believes, rightly or wrongly, that he is responsible for them, that in return for their labour he is bound to see that they and their families are decently clothed, fed, and lodged, then political economy will no longer direct, and the relations between himself and his dependents will have to be arranged on quite a different principle.” (Hear, hear.)

There was one point made by the hon. member for Commissioner-street which had been lightly passed over. They had medical practitioners, lawyers, architects, and other professions who fixed their terms and fees irrespective of the harm they might do. He did not know that society would suffer at all if they were all swept away, but he was quite sure that if the railways stood still, because the men refused to work, the community would suffer very severely. These men asked that they should be allowed to have some say in the terms and conditions under which they should labour, and that conditions should not be forced upon them, conditions which would deprave them and weaken them and make them old men before they had reached middle life. Why should these men be treated in any exceptional position? They treated the professions in an exceptional way, and protected them against unfair competition. Why should South Africa not be a land of peace? Why should these men be aggravated? If these new regulations were enforced and the men resisted, the Government had no means of punishing them. If these piecework regulations and the other regulations were enforced, he said there would be trouble, trouble they did not want to see. This so-called economical system of working meant unemployment, and it meant that the men would have to suffer. They must look at this question, not from the attitude of the Administration, not from the attitude of the men, but from the attitude of the country. The evidence which had been presented in that House in favour of piecework had no locus standi at all. The evidence would be accepted by no independent authority. The hon. member quoted the views of Prof. Marshall, Prof. Gunton, Shadwell, and others on the disadvantages of piecework.

Proceeding, he said that this system had led to a great deal of unemployment in South Africa, and it was his opinion that every man should have a fair chance of earning his living. The hon. member proceeded to quote the Labour Commission, Prof. Loria, the Hon. Chas Booth, and the Board of Mediation, New York, on the subject of “speeding up,” and said that the men at the Durban yards not long ago worked so hard that they had to crawl to a public-house for a glass of beer before they could go home. He wanted this matter thrashed out, and he wanted the Minister to see that this was no mere party dodge for the purpose of getting men into the House at the next election. He was sorry that the Minister’s remarks on physical degeneration had not appeared in the report of his speech, and quoted the report of the British Consul-General in New York on this subject to the effect that workmen in America, in consequence of speeding up, broke down, when in England men were in their prime. Dealing with the Durban workshops, the speaker said that the state of affairs he had mentioned at Durban existed five years ago. They all knew of it, and the matter was also mentioned in the Natal Parliament. The Minister had said that all the imported work was done by piece-work. If that was so, the follies of other people were not calculated to make South Africa wise. Private firms tried to make the greatest profit. Was that the system which the Government wished to adopt in this country? It was a violation of the spirit of the S.A. Act. He wanted to see a strong manhood in South Africa, not a prematurely aged manhood. Let them take the larger outlook in South Africa, and ask: What does the country demand ? He said that they had no more moral right, or intellectual justification to interfere with a man’s political opinion or his liberty of exercising that opinion, than to tamper with his religious opinions. And yet the Government dared to interfere. It was an insult. Hon. members said “Oh,” but if Parliament were to dictate—and they had just as much right to dictate in the one case as in the other—that those hon. members be not allowed to stand for Parliament unless their utterances were sufficiently polished grammatically, they would be the first to say “Oh,” in a different way. Now there was no free living. The Government held the consciences of these men. What were these men but helots? Their dignity had been trampled in the mire by offensive regulations. He wanted them to enjoy democratic liberty. The fight had commenced, and it would go on, and the men would have their rights again. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman), in a recent article had stated that “the true life of the people was in the soul and ideals of the people.” Those ideals, concluded Mr. Haggar, were that the men might be free to take their full part in the business life of the people. He hoped the Minister would listen to the appeal of human nature. The Railwaymen had been likened to machines, but the Railway Administration cared more for their trucks and machines than they did for their men. (Labour cheers.)

said it was a revelation to him that workmen did not want piecework, for he had always found them anxious for it, especially those who were desirous of getting on.

Have you ever done piecework?

said John Stuart Mill had stated that a man should be paid for the work he did, and not for the hours he worked. Men from Australia—when they were liberated from that country—(Ministerial cheers)—and came here, asked for piecework. As to the apprentices, he agreed that there was a grievance, and it was absurd that a young fellow should have to serve an apprenticeship of eight years before earning 10s. a day. (Labour cheers.) He moved, as a further amendment: In line 1, after “House,” to omit all the words to the end of the motion, and to substitute “a Select Committee on Railways and Harbours be appointed, and that it be an instruction to the committee to inquire into and report upon all alleged grievances under the new Railways and Harbours Service Regulations, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.” He had no trouble with his workmen, and he did not see why the Railway Department should have any. (Hear, hear.)

seconded.

said it was desirable in order to give the railway workers a juster, fairer, and more reasonable idea of the effect of the new regulations, that he should point to one or two cases in reply to what had been said to the cross-benches, because it was the last thing in the world that the Railway Board or Administration desired that there should be any justifiable feeling of grievance. They desired to do all they possibly could to meet the just grievances of the men, and the course suggested by the hon. member (Sir T. Cullinan) offered a reasonable method of doing that. The principal complaint that had been made by the men was in regard to the proposed method and rate of pay. Under the new regulations it was proposed that the form of pay should be uniform. In some Provinces a system of consolidated pay existed before the Union. In the Cape and Natal, the railway artisan always had pension rights, and the C.S.A.R. granted pension rights four years ago. The men would resent any attempt to withdraw these pension privileges. In fixing the basis of pay, the question arose, “What is a fair substantive rate plus local allowances?” The additional cost of living entailed on railway men living up-country was met by giving a local allowance to them in Natal and the Cape prior to Union. It was now proposed that the substantive rate of pay throughout the Union should be taken at 13s. a day. That had always been found adequate in the Cape, and it was not uncommon at all for European skilled men not in Government employ, to have lower pay than that, although they had no pension or other privileges. At Durban the outside ruling rate of pay for artisans was 14s. a day. If they gave 2s. a day more for the intermediate districts of the Union, and 4s. a day more for the Rand and Pretoria, they would arrive at a rate which gave fair remuneration. The administration had come to the conclusion that whereas in years past 20s. a day might have been a fair rate to recognise as the ruling one on the Rand, yet to-day it was in excess of what should be recognised as a fair and reasonable rate. Of course, this meant a reduction for some of the men who would be employed in the future, but if any employee who was in the service on December 31, 1912, earned less under the new regulations than he would have under the old conditions, his case would be investigated, and conditions granted to safeguard him.

Whereas hon. members sitting on the cross benches went into those cases of men in the Transvaal and the Free State who were not getting the maximum, they appeared entirely reluctant to refer to or examine the rates of pay or conditions of service for the remaining 24,000 employees in the railway service, because, after all, all their railway service did not consist of skilled artisans. No mention was made of the fact, for instance, that the old Cape maximum rate of pay for a driver was 14s. 1d., whereas the new maximum was 15s.

A special class.

said that the old Cape maximum for guards was 8s. 9d., and the new maximum was 11s. Only a minor change had been made with regard to overtime conditions. A very large number of the employees who had joined the service since January, 1909, would greatly benefit under the regulations. The spirit of the regulations was that no man who was in the service on December 31st last should be worse off for his total time worked than he would have been under the conditions prior to January 1, 1913. The majority of them would be very much better off, and evidence of this was to be found in the fact that their increased expenditure on account of the new staff regulations would be £150,000, of which the men at large, the great body of railway workers, would have the benefit. He would gladly accept the amendment to refer any points outstanding, any substantial points, to the Railway Committee. In regard to the new apprentices, the regulations defined their position much more clearly than ever before, and had been framed by men who had served their time in the workshops of South Africa. There was nothing in the new regulations affecting apprentices to prevent a mechanical engineer and an improver from obtaining the maximum rate after his second year. It was a most unusual thing, he was told, even in England, for apprentices to be paid the top rate of pay as soon as they had completed their apprenticeship. In Australia an employee in the Government Railways was required by regulations, framed under Act of Parliament, to serve for five years after he had completed his apprenticeship before he could attain the maximum rate.

Nonsense; five years altogether.

Five years after he has completed his apprenticeship. I would refer hon. members to Regulation 54 of 1911, Victoria. Under that regulation there is no option to the mechanical engineer. Proceeding, he said he wanted to make it quite clear to the House, to the country, and to the railwaymen at large, who did not perfectly understand certain points in this matter, and to repeat once more that the spirit of the regulations and the spirit of the Administration were that no man who was in the service to-day should suffer in the slightest degree by reason of these new regulations, and if any cases were brought to their notice those cases would be adjusted. Any case that offered fair and reasonable grounds for investigation would be entertained by them, and he could make no fairer offer to the House than to say that any matter of this sort, if it were not satisfactorily dealt with in the eyes of the men by the Administration, he should be happy to refer to the Select Committee. He was therefore prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria, North. (Hear, hear.)

said that the Minister might be desirous that there should be no misunderstanding on the part of the railwaymen. He thought, after the Minister’s remarks, there would be an erroneous conception, not only in the minds of the railwaymen, but of every wage-earner throughout South Africa of the policy of the Government. (Hear, hear.) He had taken upon himself to stand up in that House, and invite the large employers of labour on the opposite benches to reduce the wages of men in their employ. Did the Minister know what was likely to be the effect of his words? If the railway men had the manhood in them that he (Mr. Creswell) hoped they had, they would make up their minds to stand together with every other wage-earner in the country, to resist any attempt to deprive them and their brothers of their fairly-earned money, because the Railway Board and the Railway Minister thought that 17s. was enough, instead of 20s. He would like to put a few questions to the Minister. Was this proposed Select Committee not to be allowed to take any evidence on the subject of piecework? What were the “ substantial” grievances that the Select Committee was going to admit? When was that committee going to report? Was the Minister willing to stipulate in the motion that the committee should report not later than March 6? He felt himself that the original terms of their motion set forth what was their opinion of the Government. It was a most curious thing to hear the hon. member for East London, one of the leaders of the Opposition, talk about this motion as a vote of no confidence in the Government. What right, he would like to know, had the Government got to practically give a lead to the employers of labour in this country to reduce the wages of artisans by saying that, although a few years ago 20s. was a reasonable rate, in their high and mighty opinion it was now quite time that those rates came down? They must know that such a speech as that was an invitation to all working-men to stand together, and say that, unless these things were withdrawn, they would stop work. (Hear, hear.) The best recruiting agent that they had for the ranks of the Labour Party were hon. members who, like the Minister, blurted out most indiscreetly the ideas in their minds. (Hear, Hear.)

said that he had heard with some-amusement the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, North, and he had heard with still more amusement the acceptance of that amendment by the Minister. He should like to ask the Minister where he could find the slightest difference between the amendment which he had accepted and his own amendment which he had refused. There was absolutely no difference between the two amendments, except that it was an extraordinary thing that the Minister was prepared to accept an amendment when it was proposed by the hon. member which he was not prepared to accept when it was proposed by himself (Mr. Fremantle). He was glad to have made that discovery. He should now know when he wanted the Minister to accept a favour who to go to. Under the circumstances, he was sorry that hon. members on the cross-benches should press their motion. He hoped the committee and the House would rid themselves of the entirely groundless notion that the men voted on these matters, and expressed themselves upon them, in consequence of agitation. Since the House last met, his constituents, without any agitation, had voted by something over 250 to 1 against piecework. He hoped the hon. member for Fordsburg, who seconded his motion, would agree to his withdrawing it in favour of the identical motion moved by the hon. member for Pretoria, North.

replying on the debate, said that if there was one thing which the motion had done more than anything else, it was, he thought, that it had made the Minister of Railways and Harbours realise that it was brought on the floor of the House, not so much for the purpose of making political capital, but because there was such a state of grievance and discontent right throughout the country as he himself had now to admit wanted inquiring into. He would suggest to the Minister that in future he should make himself au fait with the regulations and conditions, especially any change of the conditions, under which his department had to work, in order that, when he got up to reply to any speaker who was impugning his department, he would be familiar with the conditions, and not rely on typewritten documents which were placed before him. Proceeding, Mr. Boydell said that last Thursday when the motion was brought forward, and he spoke upon it, exactly half his time was devoted to the question of piecework, and the other half to various disabilities. He touched upon the low rate of pay for white labour, the rules and regulations governing the rates of pay, hours, and overtime. All those questions were touched upon. To-day the hon. Minister said the piecework question was the only one touched upon. There was one point in the hon. Minister’s statement that the hon. members should pay particular attention to. He said that not one man in the service at the present time would suffer in any way if these regulations were put into effect. He relied entirely on the written statement sent down by his department. Statesmen were apt to be tripped up by representations of the official heads of departments, and they should familiarise themselves with the regulations as gazetted. Mr. Boydell quoted a clause of the regulations, which said that if any man in any centre had not reached the maximum, he would be denied the opportunity of reaching higher than the maximum laid down for the whole of the country. He would give an example. Supposing a man in the Transvaal was working on piecework, and according to the regulations was entitled to make 25 per cent. more than his day’s pay. At the present time his consolidated pay was 19s., and if he made 25 per cent. more it would bring that to 25s. 9d. for his day’s work on piecework; but under these regulations what was going to happen? His rate of pay was 13s., and if he made 25 per cent. it would bring that to 16s. 3d. for his day’s pay. That was a glaring instance. The details had only to be examined and it would be seen that rank injustice prevailed. Last Thursday the hon. Minister said that in so far as it lay in his power, nothing which was unjust in his opinion should go out of the office. He (Mr. Boydell) submitted there was something very radically wrong with either his power or his opinion. It would be quite reasonable to think there was something wrong with his power, when he told the House that those who were responsible for drawing up the rules and regulations for the piecework conditions were the Railway Board.

Continuing, Mr. Boydell said that telegrams and letters were reaching the Labour members asking them to do what they could to suspend or hold these regulations in check until a proper inquiry had been made. It had just been brought home to the hon. Minister that there was something outside of political capital in their bringing the matter before the House. It was a matter which was entitled to great consideration. In view of the fact that the hon. Minister had accepted the amendment that he would allow a Select Committee to go into the matter, he would not trespass at such length as he had intended to do, but there was one reason for which he was grateful of having that opportunity of once more addressing the House, and that was with reference to a suggestion which the Minister made last Thursday when he informed the House there was a vast difference between straight piecework and bonus piecework, and that he had concealed information from the House. He repudiated that there was any endeavour on his part to conceal any safeguard which had been put round the piecework system. He would like to ask the hon. Minister if he would take his mind back to the statement he made, which was that “granted the Railway Administration had endeavoured to safeguard piecework by hedging it round with various fences; it had been done in other parts of the world, and they had no reason to expect it was going to be successful in South Africa. Those safeguards were not worth the paper they were written on.” The difference between the Minister and himself was this, that it was a matter of degree of importance which they attached to those safeguards. Mr. Boydell invited examination, and referred to the regulations, clause 4 of which stated that if a man was employed on piecework any adverse balance would be carefully investigated, and if found to be outside the control of the workman day time would be allowed, but they must remember this, that losses would be carried over and deducted from subsequent balances in order that wages should be maintained at the standard rate.

Regarding the guarantee of a full day’s pay, he would like to point out that there was no suggestion whatever of a guarantee of a full day’s work. A glaring instance happened in Durban, where 23 men had to lie off three days whilst other 23 men were working those three days. That was a glaring illustration of men working at top speed for three days’ work only. In other countries where officials had been asked to determine whether the workers were at fault, they picked out a man known as a “time-speeder,” who did the work in a certain time, and a man who could not do it in that time was considered to be at fault and got into debt. He (Mr. Boydell) was a member of a committee in Natal who inquired into these matters three years ago—it was a top-heavy committee like the proposed Select Committee would be, if appointed— and the witnesses invariably said that they had got into debt, and ran on into debt week after week. As to how they were to get out of debt they explained that they had to get the foreman to put them on work which paid a bit better. They got a surplus then, but they never got the advantage of it because it went to pay off the debt that they had incurred.

In the case of bonus piecework, suppose a man earning £1 a day was given certain work to do which amounted to £5. If he took five days he would be just earning his ordinary pay, but if by hurrying he could manage to do it in four days he would draw £5 for the four days. That would be 25 per cent. more than the ordinary time wage. But the next time he would be told he would only get £4 10s., and not £5. There was tons of evidence on that point. Suppose instead of the man doing the work in four days it took him six days to do the work, it would work out at 16s. a day. But the Government say they will not pay him 16s., but £1, and because the time-speeder could do the work in a fewer number of days the extra money would be debited against the man, and in future when he made a balance it would be deducted. He would repeat what he said last Thursday, that the bonus system had been tried in all parts of the world and had proved a failure, and so far as these safeguards were concerned he had no reason to believe that they would be more successful in South Africa than elsewhere, and were not worth the paper they were written on. There was another specious argument put forward by the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours last Thursday which appealed very forcibly to industrious men, that the object of the bonus system was to encourage the industrious, those who wanted to work a bit harder than others, and to give them an opportunity of earning more. This was a contradiction to the recommendations of the Commission, which said that the object was to reduce working costs. Not only that, but if they looked at the grievances of the railwaymen, there was no foundation whatever for the statement made by the hon. Minister that the industrious man was being considered. The railwaymen’s affairs had had far too much consideration and not enough relief. They had had a great deal of consideration, but not half an ounce of assistance. Never in the whole history of the railway world has there been such a terrific slaughter of the interests of a large section of the community as was taking place at the present time. Continuing, he said that on the last Commission men who thought that to make the most profit was the best business were in the majority. Select Committees might sometimes do good, but he would refer to the last committee, when the hon. member for Georgetown voted in a minority of one on 29 occasions. He appealed to hon. members on both sides of the House who had expressed sympathy to do what they could, and he made a particular appeal to hon. members of Natal, for men in that Province were losing a lot. The future of South Africa was not going to depend on the lowness of working costs but on the happiness and healthiness of the people in the land.

said that he was a good deal surprised at the Minister’s acceptance of the proposal that had been made. They wanted to hear what was behind all this; what was in the case. He thought that the hon. member was right in this way, and he hoped that he would consider it with an open mind, and see whether it is not possible to make the position quite clear. Where were they drifting to? Were they going to manage the railways on the floor of that House? He thought that such a state of affairs was very bad for the men, and very bad for the service. He did not know how the railways were going to be-managed if everything was going to be revised by Parliament. There were some of the hon. members of that House who had been placed into the House by the votes of the men. They were not put there because they were experts in railway management, and they were going to interfere with the management of the department. That was not the thing he had in mind when they made the new law and endeavoured to achieve the aim of the South Africa Act, and remove the railways outside of political influence. This was only the beginning. Every little question would be raised in the House. The hon. member for Greyville put one construction on the piecework system. Then the Minister placed another, and now the hon. member for Greyville had read paragraphs which placed another construction altogether on the matter. He did not think that this evidence being bandied across the floor of the House was good business for the country. Surely some machinery could be devised for dealing with these things in a businesslike way. If the section in the railway South Africa Act concerning the railways meant anything it meant that the Railway Board was to take the responsibility, and that if the Government found fault the matter was to be brought before the House. On the other hand, if the Railway Board came to a decision on a question, and the Government backed it up then a very strong case would have to be made out to upset that decision. He could not presume to judge the Minister or the Railway Board who made this matter of railways their daily business. He would move that after the word “that” that words to the effect that the question of piecework and the Regulations published in the “Gazette” should be referred to the Railways and Harbours Board for the submission of a report to Parliament not later than Friday, February 21st. He thought that if the Minister and the Railway Board had done their duty and had gone carefully into this question they would be able to furnish a report in a very short while. The Minister had stated that he had acted with the concurrence of the Railway Board. He did not wish by his proposal to mean that that assurance was being doubted.

With regard to what?

Piecework and railway regulations.

Yes.

said he did not want to suggest that he doubted the assurance given by the Minister. At the same time, he would like to express the opinion that he did not think that that assurance would carry the same weight as a formal report from the Railway Board. Those who were ignorant had only heard a part of the case. Now they wanted to hear the Railway Board on the subject. It was no light thing for them to interfere in the management of the Railways when they had competent and expert managers with a Minister in charge. They wanted the fullest evidence. No doubt the Railway Board would take up the points that had been brought forward by hon. members on the cross benches. If those points could be answered the Railway Board would answer them. Some of them represented railwaymen, and all of them the taxpayers of the country, and if that formal report came from the Board it would enable them to make the case intelligible and clear. He did not like the present proposal. They were going to set up a committee that was composed of different parties. He presumed the Government would have a majority, and that a certain proportion would be composed of hon. members on his side of the House and the cross benches. There was no doubt that one section would ask for a great many things that could not be granted. They were going to establish a political committee, a standing committee, for the management of the railways. Everything was going to be brought before that committee, and the members were going to bid for popularity against each other. It was a bad precedent. They might think that it was a temporary committee. Not a bit of it.

said that it was the Standing Railways and Harbours Committee.

Oh.

said that it was the ordinary committee.

proceeding, said he was a member of the Select Committee last session, and that committee was never called together to receive a final draft of the Bill or the most vital clause in it. So much for its usefulness. The people responsible for the management of the railways were outside the House, and there must be other machinery outside Parliament, and non-political in character, to adjust the railwaymen’s grievances. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. members had a record in the matter of securing political and personal rights for the railwaymen so that they could fairly say to the men: “We are not your enemies, and we will vote for you, but we will also vote for the rights of the taxpayers.” (Opposition cheers.) He would not like to sit on such a committee as had been suggested, for it would be constantly interfering with the management of the railways.

He would like to bring forward another point. Last session when discussing the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants they were told that the members of that society numbered thousands, that they included the vast bulk of the men, and that hon. members on the cross benches voiced the opinions of the men. (A LABOUR MEMBER: “No.”) Since then there had been a change in the management of the society. The managing secretary issued a statement a little while ago in which he said he believed that the best policy for the men was to work in harmony with, and to come to terms with, the Administration, to respectfully but firmly represent all their grievances, but not to be drawn into party politics—(hear, hear)—and not to be under the leadership of the Labour or any other political party. That was answered by the hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews), who said at Salt River that they did not want friendly or peaceful relations at all. That was contained in a newspaper report, but the hon. member did not question its accuracy.

The speeches made on this subject by hon. members on the cross benches were calculated to inflame the feelings of the men and to prevent the peaceful settlement of any grievance. The speeches made in the House during the past few days were directly calculated to inflame the men’s feelings. That was contrary to the interests of the men. This constant nagging and bringing out of grievances would excite the men to do what had been openly threatened—to take the law into their own hands. He firmly believed that what many members had been striving for for years would be lost—unless a change were made—and that the men would be imperilling their own political rights and privileges if they were led on to violence or to take the law into their own hands. He believed the men were going the downward path to danger, and that they would go on, step by step, until they were disfranchised.

Try it.

I don’t want to try it. The hon. gentleman is full of fight, and, no doubt, when the time comes he will head the army. (Laughter.) Continuing, Sir Percy said they had complained against the piecework system and the new regulations. The men would have to act promptly if they were to be heard at all by the Select Committee, but there was nothing to show that the Board had been approached with representations to show where the regulations had needed amendment.

They have, many times.

But there is nothing to show that to Parliament.

Lots of representations have been made.

said that last session a clause was introduced enabling any large and considerable body of men, if they felt themselves aggrieved, to get a Court of Inquiry. Had such a Court been asked for? The Minister himself admitted that they knew that representations had been made. There should be no difficulty in getting one-fifth of the grade affected by piecework or the regulations. Therefore the men should set this machinery in motion, or put the onus upon the Government of doing so He made this appeal to the Government to start that machinery, imperfect as it was. He made an appeal to the men to appeal to the law, imperfect as it might be. The ballots of the men had been quoted, not always voluntary, on the question of piecework. He had abstained from uttering one word of opinion on this piecework. Who took these ballots?

The men.

Who arranged them ?

A Voice: The men.

I should say, as a matter of business, that the people who were affected by the ballot would see that the ballot was taken under reasonable conditions.

Would you like the General Manager of Railways to do it? (Laughter.)

The hon. member has got a particularly distilled slow poison, which he spreads abroad on this question. He is always inciting people to rise one against another, and he has openly advocated that there should be hostility, instead of agreement.

That is not true.

I appeal to hon. members whether it is true or not.

On a point of personal explanation, I will read the report.

What does the hon. member rise for?

A misstatement by the hon. member for Pretoria, East.

What is the statement?

That I incited the men to hostility.

That is a matter of opinion.

It is a matter of fact.

The hon. member cannot raise that now. It is a matter of opinion.

submitted that, the hon. member for Pretoria, East, having given way, his hon. friend was entitled to make his explanation.

said his point was that in a certain speech made at Salt River, the hon. member said he had used certain words. He proposed, with the permission of the House, to read the newspaper report on which the hon. member based his statement on to the House.

What exception does the hon. member take to the words?

My exception is that what the hon. member said is untrue.

What were the words used by the hon. member, that the hon. member now takes exception to?

I cannot put them word for word—(a laugh) —but in effect it amounted to this, that I had said that I recommended the railway-men to remain hostile to the Administration. The words that I used, as reported in the Press, the “Gazette” of the Railway Society, were these: “Friendly relations between the leaders of the Union and Administration were a good thing, but not when they led one to believe that the men’s interests were being overlooked, and when the Association ceased to be a vital force.”

continuing, said he was not referring to that speech at all—(hear, hear)—but to what the hon. member had said in the House when he taunted the Minister with having made such rules as he had made under coercion. There was a perfectly clear intention to make as much political capital as possible out of this matter. (Hear, hear.) To enable the House to form a judgment he wished to propose an amendment which he hoped the Minister would be able to accept. It was as follows: To omit all the words after “that” in the original motion for the purpose of inserting the following: “The questions of piece-work and of the regulations published in the ‘Gazette’ of the 23rd December, 1912, so far as they affect railway employees, be referred to the Railway and Harbour Board for special report to be submitted to Parliament not later than Friday, the 21st instant.” This would bring the matter, he hoped, a step further, if not to a head.

seconded.

said that his difficulty about the last amendment was that he was afraid it would be of no use whatever. (Hear, hear.) They were going to refer all the matters which were the subject of discussion for report to the very authority which had brought these regulations into existence and had decided on this piecework business and all the rest of it. Naturally, they would support what they had done themselves. He agreed with a great deal that his hon. friend Sir J. P. Fritzpatrick had said. Proceeding, he said that it was very unpleasant to have these matters continually discussed on the floor of the House. They had arrived at a time when there was a very real discontent in the country which it was their serious business to put an end to if they could. They had listened to the speeches from the cross benches and to the hon. Minister. He would not question the veracity of the hon. gentlemen, but there had been serious discrepancies. They could not all be facts, but a more impressive case had been made out than that of the hon. Minister. There were evidently many things going on that the Minister knew nothing about, and he agreed with the hon. member for Greyville that the hon. Minister had merely relied upon the typewritten documents supplied. There was something in the regulations and the application of them which if they did not amount to trickery was something very near it. He was in a dilemma regarding what the hon. Minister said. They were told this committee was no good. It would be useless for the purpose in view, and it would amount to referring the grievances back to the fathers of them. What they wanted was the evidence and not the reports. They must have expert opinion. He did not say that the case made out by the hon. member for Greyville was not a one-sided one, but the House should have an opportunity of judging whether it was or not. Certainly they should not keep sending the affairs of the railwaymen back to men who would simply fortify what they had previously said by further argument. They were bound to confirm their own work.

said that last year his predecessor was being continually and vigorously attacked for being autocratic, and he was now criticised as being the exact opposite. The position was that they could not have their cake and eat it. If they wanted a working body to deal with the railways in South Africa, and especially a business body, they must not have it subject to Parliamentary control. So long as they had they would have debates on railway matters on the floor of the House. They could not have it both ways. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, suggested there should be a report from the Railway Board. It would be an interesting document no doubt, but when they had got a report of the Board, on piecework system, and on the regulations, and when they got that report, how could they possibly commence a discussion on it without having the same questions raised. They could not get out of the difficulty. He did not accept the proposal of the hon. member for Uitenhage. The proposal of the hon. member for Pretoria, North, was quite different, and he could not see how any Minister, placed as he was placed, with Parliament as master of’ the situation, could refuse to allow the Standing Committee on Railways and Harbours to hear complaints. It would be for the committee to decide the extent of the investigations. And he would point out that there were volumes of evidence on these very subjects. He thought the only possible way out of the difficulty for the committee was to make such investigations as it might think fit.

said he hoped that the hon. member for Pretoria, East, would accept the proposal.

I—

Mr. SPEAKER said he could not allow the hon. member to speak.

said he wished to know whether his amendment would be accepted as an addition to the motion.

said that the Minister had already replied in the negative.

said his hon. friend did not wish to substitute these words, but merely wanted them accepted as an addition.

said that the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was to omit certain words.

said that his hon. friend must have been misunderstood.

said that his hon. friend considered that one of the first things to be laid before the committee should be a report from the Railway Board. Would the Minister give the House the assurance that that would be done?

I have no objection to the proposal, but if you have a committee that committee will report.

With the leave of the House, the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was withdrawn.

then put the question; That all the words after “House,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, upon which a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, H. W. Sampson, Serfontein and Wiltshire) voted in favour of the motion,

declared the question negatived, and the words were accordingly omitted.

then put the substitution of the words proposed by Sir Thomas Cullinan in lieu thereof.

Agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to, viz.: That in the opinion of this House a Select Committee on Railways and Harbours be appointed, and that it be an instruction to the Committee to inquire into and report upon all alleged grievances under the new Railways and Harbours Service Regulations, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

asked for the ruling of Mr. Speaker with regard to the recording of the names of the majority when a division was taken in that manner. There would be no means of discovering how a member voted under such circumstances in the future.

It is not open for me or any other member of the House to question a Standing Order of this House. (Laughter.)