presented a petition signed by 105 persons praying for the appointment of a special Commission to inquire into the conditions and general treatment of the lepers at Robben Island and various other leper institutions in the Union with a view to immediate legislative action for alleviating their condition and the establishment of a more suitable system of treating such patients. The petitioners prayed that at least one leprosy expert of international standing should be appointed as adviser of the Commission. The hon. member moved that the petition be read.

The motion was agreed to.

read the petition.

presented a petition in Dutch relating to the treatment of lepers, and moved that it be read.

The motion was agreed to.

read the petition.

from Isabel von Mensberg, Paarl, widow of A. H. von Mensberg, late member of the Police Force, praying for consideration of her circumstances and for relief.

from Maria F. Pienaar, President of the South African Women’s Federation, and 13 others, the Executive Committee of the said Federation, in opposition to the total prohibition of the sale of liquor to natives in the Transvaal.

from Chrissie Thompson, widow of C. Thompson, late sergeant in the Cape Police, praying for consideration of her circumstances and for relief.

from J. G. Mackay, L.R.C.P., and 227 others, inhabitants of the Province of Natal, praying for the appointment of a commission to inquire into the subject of leprosy in South Africa, or for other relief.

from M. H. Alves, of Woodstock, who was wounded whilst serving as a corporal with the Clanwilliam Light Infantry, and who in 1909 was awarded a pension for eighteen months, praying for consideration of his circumstances and for relief.

from R. S. Lewis, of Mowbray, formerly a gaoler at Windsorton, Barkly West, praying for consideration of his circumstances and for relief.

announced that His Excellency the Governor-General, having been informed of the provisions of clauses 3 and 23 of the University of South Africa Bill, has been pleased to give his consent that, in so far as His Majesty’s interest is concerned, this House may do therein as it shall think fit.

Schedule of pensions as at 30th September, 1912.

Return showing for the year 1912, fees collected on all bills of cost presented for taxation to Taxing Officers of all Superior Courts (Cape); subsistence and transport regulations for Judges of the Supreme Court; regulations governing Government Industrial Schools; regulations governing private institutions or retreats.

Reports of the Trustees South African Art Gallery and the South African Fine Arts Association, year 1912.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the annual accounts 1911-12 of the Provinces of the Cape of Good Hope, Natal and Transvaal, together with the reports of the Provincial Auditors thereon, which were laid on the Table on the 6th instant, be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the third notice of motion relating to a contribution by the Union to the British Navy, standing in his name and set down for February 25, be discharged and set down for March 4.

The motion was agreed to.

I should like to make a short break in the proceedings of this House to say a few words, because I think I am expressing the feeling of the House when I express our regret at the death of Captain Scott and his companions. When Captain Scott left for the South Pole the eyes of the whole world were turned on him, and the people of the Union were not backward in the interest displayed in the enterprise, and through the Government the Union at that time expressed its feelings by making a substantial contribution towards the cost of the undertaking. All parts of the world looked with the greatest interest and anticipation for a report of the progress of the expedition. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we received the sad news that Captain Scott and four of his companions had perished after having attained their object. Their names must be added to the long list of other men who have so gloriously sacrificed their lives in the interests of science and humanity. They are men whose memory will be honoured for ever by their countrymen in the first place and by the rest of the world in the second place, and I think that I speak on behalf of this House when I say that we deeply regret their tragic end. Their privations and sufferings must have been terrible, but our consolation must be to know that, however sad their end, their lives have not been sacrificed in vain. We have the greatest sympathy with their bereaved families. (Hear, hear.)

said: Perhaps the House will permit me, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House, to heartily endorse the sympathetic words which have fallen from the right hon. the Prime Minister. Though in matters of this sort fortunately there are no sides—(hear, hear)—we all unite in giving praise to the magnificent fortitude exhibited by Captain Scott and his comrades in the terrible disaster that has overcome them. I do not know that anything more pathetic has ever been written than in that statement in which Captain Scott himself said that had he lived he would have been able to tell the world of the fortitude and endurance displayed by his comrades. I do not think any tale could ever be told that would more strongly emphasise those qualities than the simple tale contained in the record which Captain Scott left behind him. I am sure the sympathy of the whole House goes out especially to Mrs. Scott, who is now on her way, as she thought, to join the conqueror in New Zealand, and to every member of the families of those who have given their lives in the cause of science and the general interests of the progress of the world.

endorsed the preceding remarks.

in moving the second reading of the Contract Immigrants Bill, said the measure had nothing to do with the broader question of immigration, which it would not restrict any more than similar legislation which existed in Australia restricted the flow of some 100,000 whites to that country yearly. The Bill was not designed to keep out of South Africa any free person who could assimilate with people of our own race in this country. Nor would the Bill prevent a single person less being employed than was at present the case. The Bill was a protective measure, and its purpose was to protect the workmen already here—(Mr. MERRIMAN: Hear, hear)—as well as professional men, while it would give those already here a greater security and encourage them to feel that they would not be pushed out by people who would accept less wages. The Bill was also devised to protect the contract immigrant from fraud and misrepresentation. There were plenty of precedents to go upon. The Bill was in its essentials a facsimilie of the Commonwealth Act introduced by Mr. Deakin, who was a good old Liberal like the right hon. member opposite.

Playing up to the Labour Party.

said that Act had created in Australia a feeling of security which all parties who had the interest of the country at heart desired to see grow. In the United States of America—which was dominated not by the Labour Party but by Trusts—there were laws preventing the importation of contract labour. In South Africa, especially in the Cape and the Transvaal, previous attempts had been made in the Immigration Law to restrict the importation of contract labour, but unfortunately those attempts had not been successful, the clauses in those laws appeared to have been allowed to become a dead letter. It might have been because they were faultily worded and unintelligible to the immigration officers, or more likely still because they were contained in the general immigration law where they were found to be impracticable. In 1908 a Select Committee was appointed in the Cape to inquire into the question of imported contract labour, and the Committee by ten votes to two—reported in favour of stopping the importation of contract labour. There was nothing in the present Bill to prevent the importation of contract labour on fair terms. The protection given in the measure had been asked for by the workmen of the country for a good many years past, and before the Labour Party come into existence. As showing how unfairly the present state of affairs worked the hon. member mentioned that in some cases no intimation was given to the employee until a person ready to take his place had arrived in the country, no opportunity being given to the former to accept the lower rates of pay that the contract man who displaced him was to receive. There was more than one firm at Johannesburg who made it a practice to import practically all their employees. It was, in fact, a practice in all large towns.

He pointed out that in one advertisement a wage of £15 was offered for a place in Pretoria, and he submitted that such was not a living wage for a man in Pretoria. Could the right hon. gentleman opposite who interrupted bring evidence to show that a house could be procured for less than £7 a month? Only the other day he was told of a case at Johannesburg where men who had rendered good service for ten or twelve years were displaced by men who had been brought from oversea. These men asked why they had been dismissed, and they were told that it was due to the fact that the newcomers could do the work that was required a great deal cheaper. Just over a month ago an advertisement appeared in a North of Ireland newspaper applying for a man to take a situation in Johannesburg at the munificent sum of £10 per month. He submitted that it was the business of the legislature to provide protection for people who were brought to this country under misrepresentation. He was sure that many hon. members of that House had heard of similar cases to the ones which he had quoted that afternoon. The chief reason for the importation of these contract hands was the fact that they displaced men who were drawing higher salaries. Another reason was the desire to punish those wicked men who started Trade Unions for the purpose of uplifting the workers. Dealing with strikes, he said that sometimes there was a bright side to a strike. Sometimes it was a sign of healthy progress, and sometimes they were started from a desire to obtain a better state of civilisation. He pointed out that no endeavour had been made by South African legislatures in the past to afford workmen means of adjusting grievances by other than forcible means, and said that he passed by the attempt on the part of the Transvaal legislature as not being calculated to prevent any strike. He claimed that the workmen of the country had the right to ask protection from the Parliament from these unfair methods of reducing their standard. In importing men of this stamp, who never gained the confidence of the workmen of the country and were often despised, the aim was generally to reduce the rate of wages in the town to which these men were brought. These men created a surplus of labour to the detriment of those men who had already made their homes in the country, whether they were strikers or non-strikers. The Bill would not prevent the importation of men such as happened not so long ago, when the hon. member for Pretoria, North, imported a number of potters into this country. It would, however, ensure them fair wages and conditions of labour. In passing, he wondered whether those men were still here, or whether they had been displaced by Kafirs who were earning a lower rate of wages. He would also point out that there was nothing in the measure which prevented an expert or a specialist being brought into the Union for a required purpose. Proceeding the hon. member dealt with the clauses of the Bill, and showed how it was expected the measure would operate. It had been considered advisable to make this a separate Bill instead of including sections in the Immigration Act, for several reasons. The first was that the before mentioned law dealt chiefly with coloured people and aliens. This Bill dealt chiefly with people of our own race, who could assimilate with the people already here. Secondly, there was not likely to be any delay in the operations of the Bill, as might happen to a general Immigration Bill, over which there had been a considerable amount of correspondence between the Imperial Government and the Union Government. Moreover, it would not lead to any confusion as was the case in Australia, where the Government found that it could not deviate from certain sections in the Immigration Act. He pointed out that if this Bill was passed the people concerned would be able to gain an immediate remedy. It might be said that there would be difficulties in the way of effectively administering such a law, but he thought that the Government would not find that such was the case when the measure came into operation. He would also like to point out that the Government had accepted the principle of a fair wage clause in all Government contracts, and unless it was a dead letter there would be found in the pigeon-holes of the various departments schedules which would show whether the wages offered in contracts agreed with the rate of wages now obtaining in various districts. If that were not so, officials could get the necessary information from plenty of sources wherewith to frame their schedule of rates. He could assure the House that there was no desire on the part of those sitting with him on the cross-benches to keep out of South Africa any desirable white person, but they would be hostile to the importation of labour of any sort which had for its object the keeping down of wages and the lowering of the standard of civilisation. He considered there was every justification for the Bill passing through the House. He would be interested to hear what arguments could be brought forward as against the reasons which had prompted the introduction of the measure. He specially appealed to hon. members opposite, who were settled in this country to support the Bill. At present the possibilities of their children were limited by the importation of foreign labour, and if only for this reason the Bill was worthy of their consideration, so that their children might be protected. He moved the second reading.

supported the principle of the Bill, because he had always believed in the practice of engaging those who were settled in the country as against importing men. He did not propose to follow the hon. member in his wanderings, but would simply content himself with saying that he believed in the principle of the measure. Contract labour he had noticed, produced unrest in the country, and such a measure as that brought forward would remove the cause. He hoped, however, to see the Bill amended in some of its clauses when in committee.

said he would not be faithful to his colleagues, as representing the soft goods trade in the north, unless he challenged the statement made by the mover of the Bill, that they were the chief offenders in importing contract labour. He was prepared to prove that in his firm, out of many scores of men who had been engaged, only one in their employ had been secured by contract labour, and that was on account of not being able to engage a suitable man. What he took exception to was that the hon. member made a charge against a certain class of employers, which he (Mr. Oliver), was not then going to flatly contradict, but he was going to ask the hon. member to name the firms in question. (Cheers.) He might say that when on previous occasions similar charges had been made explanation had shown that they were not correct. As far as possible he would lend his voice, and give his vote for a fair wage and reasonable hours. He admitted that hours of many people employed in this country were not reasonable—(hear, hear)—and he was prepared to support legislation in this direction. He took the opportunity of saying that as far as he was aware merchants preferred the local man, because they were liable to get out men about whose capabilities nothing whatever was known, it was for this reason that men with local experience were preferred. There were certain matters in the Bill which he hoped to see amended before the second reading was passed. He agreed with the contention that children raised in South Africa had a prior claim for consideration, and as long as they had South African born applicants for situations others ought not to be imported.

could not support the Bill, because it prohibited the immigration of skilled labour. It was not necessary to study the Bill carefully to see this, it was noticeable at a glance. He could assure hon. members that much water would flow under the bridge before the House sanctioned such a Bill. The object of the Bill was nothing more than to bolster up the Labour Party, and make strikes an easy matter to bring about. That was a weapon which hon. members on the cross benches wished to resort to in cases of industrial disputes.

Personally, he had no objection to a strike, if only the real views of the workmen could be ascertained: but if that Bill became law, the labour leaders would be placed in the position of organising the strike without consulting the interests of the workers of the country. Pass this Bill, and then soon they would hear of the railway strike—and what would that mean in this country? It would mean that the whole business of the country would be paralysed, because transport was conducted by the Government railways. Hon. members on the cross benches had said that unless they got their rights—unless the workmen got their rights with regard to piecework, they would have to resort to stronger measures, and this meant a general strike. If the Bill became law the Government would lose control of the railways, and this Bill would prevent the Government getting skilled labour from across sea, with the result that the Minister of Railways would have to agree to the terms submitted. What would happen to the railways would also happen to the other great industries of the country therefore he hoped the House would make short work of the Bill, and reject it by a large majority.

said the mover of the Bill had informed the House that the main provisions had been copied from similar legislation now in force in Australia. It was a common failing of men in this country to copy the legislation of another without first studying the different conditions existing. There were two essential points in which the conditions in Australia differed from those in South Africa, one of these was that they had a coloured population here, consisting of Indians and Natives.

The hon. members who moved in this matter would probably say that they were protected against the coloured man, because skilled labour was defined under the regulations, as far as the Transvaal was concerned, as white labour. But that was distinctly not the case in other parts of the Union. It was not the case here. If by legislation of this kind they kept out competition, because, after all, that was what it amounted to—

Contract, not free.

So long as you keep down competition of this kind the result is that you drive more and more skilled work into the hands of the coloured men. (Hear, hear, and Labour dissent.) Proceeding, the Minister of Mines said he was not discussing the advisability of removing the colour bar in the Transvaal. But they must not look at the economic conditions in the Transvaal merely; they must look at the economic conditions in the rest of the Union. Legislation of this kind would undoubtedly tend to increase the number of coloured men engaged in skilled work, because they would do it when no white labourers can be obtained. This Bill was introduced into the Australian Legislature, not when they commenced their labour legislation, but at the end of it. There they had their wages boards and complicated machinery for dealing with labour disputes. In this country we had nothing of the kind. (Hear, hear.) To apply a Bill of this kind to South Africa, where we had not got the preliminary machinery, made it impossible. If they prevented people from coming into competition, the result was that they kept up prices to whatever the Labour Union might think to be the ruling prices. Let them look at the difficulty of administering an Act of this kind. Upon the Minister was cast the duty of finding out what was the current price How would he do that? Was he to go to the coloured man and take him as his standard, or was he to go to the European and take him as his standard? There was no machinery by which he could decide. The inherent difficulties, as he pointed out, which arose from the difference of the social and economic conditions of South Africa and the legislation which preceded legislation of this kind in Australia, seemed to him to make it inapplicable to South Africa. (Cheers.)

said that the Labour legislation which had been put into effect in Australia was, in the first place, due entirely to the agitation and efforts of the Labour Party in the past. Some members who had spoken seemed to have lost sight entirely of the real object of this Bill. The real object was to protect those workers in the country who were contributing to the revenue of the country by means of taxation, workers who were called upon to defend the country in times of trouble, and it was only by means of legislation of this description that they could be protected, economically, from the introduction of cheaper labour from overseas. Other countries had cried out for immigration and development just as this country did, and had introduced legislation of this kind for the purpose of protecting the workers in the country at the time. He would like to give a few instances of the contracts entered into by men who had been brought out to this country under contract. He instanced a blacksmith, employed by the Union Whaling Co. who was brought out at £3 a month, and who had certain quarters placed at his disposal and certain rations, which consisted largely of whale beef.

What were his wages in Norway?

What his wages were in Norway has nothing whatever to do with the case, any more than if he came from Timbuctoo. (A laugh.) Proceeding, he said that the question was what were his wages here, what was the cost of living here, and the conditions under which he had to work. This blacksmith was only one of a number who were imported and who went on strike last year. He was glad to say that they were now getting rather better conditions than they were when they were brought out. There were also men brought out by the Durban Whaling Co., a fireman at £2 4s. a month, another at £2, a cooper at £5, a blacksmith at £3 5s., a fitter at £5, etc. These men were brought out here, under-cutting the men in the country. (Hear, hear.)

They had a share in the profits.

said that they did get a small bonus of a farthing a barrel on the output of oil, but even that was so ridiculously small that they went on strike last year. He would give an even more glaring case. A representative of a factory in Natal interviewed a number of moulders in Glasgow and offered them piecework at a penny more per article than they were getting in Scotland, and told them that the plant they would work at was new, and that the cost of living in South Africa was cheaper, if anything, than it was in the Old Country. Eight men came out under this contract. The company paid their passages out here. The day after their arrival they started work. They had to clean up the shop and get their tools ready. On the next day they commenced their actual work. On the second day they made 3s. 6d., and on the third day they stopped work because they said they could not make a living at these rates. However, they were persuaded to give the work a three weeks’ trial. At the end of the first week one man made £1 6s., and at the end of the second £1 9s., and the others made similar amounts. The firm then recognised that it was absolutely impossible for the men to make anything like a living wage, and of its own accord raised the pay by 20 per cent. After this increase three men made £4 8s. 6d £3 11s. 9d., and £4 6s. 6d. for three weeks’ work. Even then the men found that they could not pay their expenses. The firm which brought them out must have anticipated this, because it had entered into an agreement to be responsible for their board and lodging at the rate of £1 3s. 6d. a week, deducted 2s. 6d. a week for travelling expenses, and in case there was a deficit, charged that up against the men’s future wages.

Local industries carried on under these conditions were nothing less than local crimes—(hear, hear)—and it was in order to obviate similar instances that the House was asked to give the Bill its serious consideration. The best way to fill South Africa with a happy population was to make the conditions of labour good, and then there would be a stream of immigrants flowing into the country similar to that flowing into Canada and Australia. (Hear, hear.)

as chairman of one of the whaling companies referred to by the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Boydell), said the men’s passages were paid out and back, and they were given a bonus of, I think, a penny per barrel. The men were well treated, and perfectly satisfied. He regretted that very often the facts given in that House were calculated to mislead: he thought hon. members should lead the House, rather than mislead it. (Hear, hear.)

said South Africa was importing large quantities of a certain article from Europe, but not made in Europe. A business man here wanted to start a factory in South Africa for its manufacture. He agreed to bring out half-a-dozen experts, who would be repatriated after they had trained local labour. But the Government said they could not allow it.

He wanted to correct an impression which had been left by the Minister, who in referring to Australia, said there was no coloured labour available there. As a matter of fact, within a short distance of Australia there were millions of men available at a small wage if the Australians cared to have them. Some years ago a large number of Javanese were imported into Australia, but because of the evil effects which followed the whole thing was stopped. Ever since the abolition of black labour the Australian sugar industry had flourished. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, had said there was no sincerity in politics, proceeded the hon. member, and they had had an illustration of that that day. He failed to see any moral or national reason why any check or barrier should be placed on the coloured man, who should be given the same chance as any white man was. He was afraid that some of the hon. members who cheered what the Minister had said were largely responsible for what they had deplored. One saw advertisements in the Cape papers saying “Coloured men preferred.”

said he was informed that the bonus per barrel was a halfpenny. What the Labour Party asked from the Government was that it should prevent the importation of contract labour unless Government was satisfied that that labour was really wanted in the country. If the Minister would refer to the debate in the Australian House on this subject he would find that the leader of the party opposed to the Labour Party had said that the importation of labour in local disputes was not calculated to lead to any permanent settlement of any labour question. Continuing, he was understood to say that the Minister by his attitude had shown that he was not willing to interpose between the employer and these people, and so would allow the employers to use their financial power in a matter of that sort. He was afraid that the attitude of the Minister would not be palatable to a large section of the people of this country, and that in consequence the party to which the Minister belonged would lose a great deal of support. He was sure that the hon. member for Cape Town did not desire to bring men into the country when there were men already in the country who were able to do the work that was required.

No, he does not.

Then what is his position? Continuing, he said he did not think that the White Labour Department was likely to err in the administration of a law of this kind. Did the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the Minister object to the contract being examined, so as to see that the remuneration that was offered was advantageous to the man concerned? Did they really desire to allow employers to bring men into this country under the conditions that had been illustrated by the hon. member who had moved the second reading of the measure? Here was a very reasonable Bill before the House, and yet the Minister would not allow it to go through the second reading.

said it seemed very curious that no sooner were one set of arguments met than another set of arguments were brought forward. Why had none of these objections been raised in the past? They were not raised in the Cape, and he did not hear them raised in the Transvaal. It seemed to be overlooked that once the Bill passed the second reading members would have an opportunity of making any amendments which they desired. It had been stated that he had only brought forward the cases of shop assistants, but he could refer to one big firm in Kimberley that brought men out to that town, and then sent them on to Johannesburg to work at the Kimberley rate of wages. There were a lot of people in this country who supported the Government and who were in favour of the measure that he had brought before the House, and he thought that the Government party would lose a great deal of support if they did not go forward with the Bill. With regard to strikes, he would point out that men did not go out rashly on strike for the reason that one member of the Labour Party was in favour of such a course. The Minister had said that this Bill would abolish competition—(An HON. MEMBER: Diminish)—and that would be a mistake.

asked whether the Minister would go to the ostrich farmers and diamond merchants and tell them that. He would go further, and bring it to the door of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Why should they strive to keep out Asiatics? The white workers could buy their goods more cheaply from these Indians than they could from the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Was competition good in this case How was it good in the one case and not in the other?

said that the hon. member must address the chair.

I am trying to do that, sir. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the Minister had then tried to convince the House that the work would go to the coloured man, but he had failed to show how. He did not complain about the employers. He complained about the agents of these employers, who by means of fraud and misrepresentation, induced people to come to this country at a very low rate of wages. They never told people they were to fill the places of people on strike. He thought that a good case had been made out for the Bill, and considered that the main objection to the measure was the fact that it had been brought forward by the Labour Party.

put the question, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division.

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

declared the motion negatived.

in moving the second reading of the Lien Bill said its provisions were so simple that they scarcely needed to be discussed. He sincerely hoped he was wrong, but there was a feeling that it was a mistake for those on the cross benches to introduce any kind of legislation. He repeated he hoped he was mistaken. The Bill, he might say, was the result of consultation with the workmen themselves, merchants, and the Master Builders’ Federation throughout the various Provinces. The latter body had been moving for a long period to get legislation in, this direction. The principles of the Bill had been discussed in Natal as far back at 1905, while in the Transvaal a law much the same as the one under notice had already been in force. He was sure members on both sides of the House were in favour of workmen’s wages being secured at all times. He could give instances where men had been engaged by contractors and secured part of their wages and informed that the remainder would be paid on receipt of cheque. The result had been that the men never received the balance. The contractor having secured his cheque and left the country. At present a contractor gave no security, either to his workmen or the merchant who supplied him with goods. With this Bill in force, the workman on finding there was no money for him on Saturday, could apply to the owner and thus be able to get his wages. If this was a class measure it was a measure to secure the interests of all the classes concerned. Objections had been raised to the Bill by those who had been getting property on the cheap. A contractor would half complete his contract and then give it up, with the result that some building society, or persons, would step in and get it at a low figure. He might say that the Federation of Trades so far agreed with the Bill that a number of resolutions had been passed approving its main principles, with some few amendments. The Bill would also meet the requirements of merchants, who would be given some redress where a contractor failed, and unused material could be reclaimed and removed by the vendor. In conclusion, he hoped hon. members would forget the source from whence the Bill came and vote for the second reading.

said the Bill, simple as it looked, was going to have far-reaching effect. This Bill was taken from the New Zealand Act.

No, sir.

said that a lot of the clauses were taken from the New Zealand Act. The hon. member had left out part of the clauses and tried to enact other clauses. He also imported a vendor clause, No. 9, which would mean a lot of trouble that he (Sir T. M. Cullinan) though was unnecessary. He thought, having regard to these matters, the order for the second reading should be discharged and set down for some future date, giving time to contractors to make themselves conversant with the provisions of this Bill. In regard to the payment of weekly wages, this Bill opened a very large question. A lot of contractors paid monthly. Most of the wages were paid fortnightly. They were going to force upon the whole of South Africa a weekly wage at once. He thought that the Bill was not so simple as the hon. member wanted to make out and that the country wanted time to consider the matter.

said that as to clause 2, dealing with the payment of weekly wages, he did not know why the hon. member did not bring forward some reasons why it was necessary to interfere with the employers of labour and their employees by asking the House to endorse this very revolutionary and drastic proposal. This Bill, if passed in its present form, would apply to all workmen, white, coloured or native, no matter whether they worked on a mine, railway or farm, and would compel the employers to pay weekly wages, unless there was a contract to the contrary. He did not think it was good policy to legislate in advance of public opinion on this matter. In this matter of payment of wages, there had been no demand for payment of wages weekly, as compared with monthly wages.

Question.

said he was free to admit that they had heard at times of a demand for payment of weekly wages, but there was no general consensus of opinion in favour of weekly as opposed to monthly payments. He had a great deal of sympathy with the Bill in so far as it sought to protect the work man against being done out of wages by a dishonest contractor. The Bill ought to have been confined to this point and would thus have been more favourably received. In cases of insolvency the interests of the workmen and contractors were bound up with the interests of other creditors of the defaulting contractor. They had not only the question of wages, but they had a host of preferential creditors whose interests had to be considered.

Provided for in the Bill.

They are not provided for in the Bill. Proceeding, he said that in some parts of the Union at the present time if a contractor or any person went insolvent a preference by law was given to domestic servants. In other parts clerks, workmen and others had a preference up to £50 for their wages or salary. If the hon. gentleman’s Bill were passed into law in its present form, it would have the effect of limiting the rights which certain people had under the existing law. (Hear, hear.) If this Bill were passed into law, it would only give workmen a preference for 14 days’ wages.

Proceeding, the Minister quoted the following from a report by Lord De Villiers, Sir James Rose Innes, and the Hon. W. P Schreiner: “Certain classes of servants enjoyed in different parts of Holland a varying degree of preference. It has been expressly enacted at the Cape that servants shall enjoy no tacit hypothec (Act 5/1861, s. 8 (7)); and the same may be said of Natal (Law 13/1887, s. 5). The Courts of the Free State and of the Transvaal have held that no such preference exists in those Provinces. The draft Insolvency Law, however, proposes to confer upon all persons in the continuous employment of an Insolvent a preference for wages for one month and the current month, to an amount not exceeding £50. Your Commissioners, recognising that those by whose service the estate has been kept together may fairly claim some degree of protection for arrears of wages, have adopted the proposal contained in the draft Insolvency Bill. They desire to point out, however, that the Transvaal Companies Act of 1907 (sec. 181) gives a somewhat larger preference to the employees of companies; and they recommend that its terms should if possible be brought into conformity with the proposals in the draft Insolvent Law. They have not inserted in the proposed Hypothec Bill any clause repealing the provisions of the company law above referred to, because they are not aware of the extent to which such provisions may be required to meet local conditions. They content themselves therefore with drawing attention to the matter.”

In conclusion, Sir T. Watt said that if the Government had time, they intended Introducing a Bill dealing with tacit hypothecs, and also another Bill dealing with the insolvency law, so that all persons employed by insolvents should have their rights protected up to £50, and not merely to protect the small class of persons referred to in the Bill now before the House. He trusted under those circumstances the hon. gentleman would not press the second reading, because if he did the Government would be compelled to vote against him. (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. member who had introduced the Bill desired to secure a certain result, but he would not do so by the present measure. The Bill would require a good deal of “licking ” before it would assume the shape the introducer desired. He (Mr. Nathan) and his friends on this side of the House were entirely in favour of doing all that would secure to workmen the due payment of their wages, but did not think the House should be required to refer Bills to Select Committees on every occasion. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, that committee would have 14 days work to do, and even then he doubted whether an amended measure would receive the acceptance of the House. The measure was called a Lien Bill. It was indeed a lean Bill—in fact he might describe it as a haggard Bill—(cries of “ Oh.”) The Bill went much too far and tried to achieve too much. As to the merchants they had been able to protect themselves in many ways—(hear, hear)—and he thought the House could very well leave that section of the community to look after itself. It was well represented in the House, and he was certain it would condemn the Bill in its present form.

The Bill made the most extraordinary provisions in clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 was as follows: “ Any person who has supplied any materials or goods of any class or kind to the order of the contractor or his agents for the purpose of being used by the contractor or any of his workmen in the execution of the work named in the contract shall, if payment has not been made to him within a specified time be entitled to reclaim and to remove such materials or goods at his pleasure if such materials or goods have not been already used or consumed; if the materials or goods have been already used or consumed in the execution of the work, the vendor shall be entitled to claim from the employer the full value of such materials or goods; provided further that where such materials have not been used or consumed in the execution of the work named in the contract, the employer may retain such materials or goods upon payment to the vendor of the full value thereof.” This may entail very great hardship and loss on the employer who may not be owing anything to the contractor. Clause 10 was as follows: “A contractor shall not be required to deliver up any, or any portion of any premises, building, work, or chattel to the employer, and thereby lose any possessory lien he may hold, unless and until the employer shall have secured to the contractor the due and eventual payment in terms of the contract of the balance of account, and any retention moneys either by depositing in the joint names of the employer and the contractor in a substantial bank or financial institution to be mutually agreed upon, the requisite or adequate and approved security to be held in trust by such bank or financial institution, and such moneys or security shall be paid over to the contractor on presentation of the certificate of the architect, or by some other person mutually agreed upon.” Continuing, Mr. Nathan said that if the hon. member knew anything about Roman-Dutch law he would know that it was unnecessary to introduce clause 10, as the contractor already had the jus retentionis.

I said that.

said dangerous pitfalls would await the public if the Bill in its present form became law, and litigation would also be increased. Under the circumstances, it would be advisable to accept the advice to allow the Bill to drop and see if something better could not be put in its place. What opportunity was there for anyone to make any search so as to be able to find out whether a building in course of construction was liable for these liens. The tendency of modern times was to do away with liens and not to increase their number. Then clause 11 was a most extraordinary one. It read: “When moneys are due and not paid by the employer or contractor an action at law may be instituted for recovery—surely this right existed now —and if the lien or liens exist over any chattel affixed to such land, such chattel may be sold and removed by order of the Court, and, except where buildings have been erected on land without the mortgagee’s consent, the land may also be sold to meet the claims made.” He (Mr. Nathan) did not understand that last clause, for if it meant anything at all, the effect would be to impair the security of a prior mortgagee, whereas the law contemplated that the earlier the mortgage the better the preference but the Bill struck at that. He moved that the Bill be discharged, and read a second time that day six months.

seconded.

said it was not always that he could agree with hon. members on the cross benches, but on this occasion he realised that there was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. member for Roodepoort in regard to the protection of the wage earners. (Hear, hear.) This Bill, he held, was worthy of the consideration of this House. The South African Party had always tried to protect the workman, and would still continue to do so. Many associations had expressed concurrence with the main principles of the Bill, but he regretted that the Master Builders’ Association had not directly requested the Government to introduce a measure of this kind. The Minister had admitted that legislation in that direction was necessary, and the Bill should, therefore, not be rejected. There were naturally good contractors, the hon. member proceeded, but they on the Rand especially, knew of bad contractors, men who as soon as the work was finished, drew their money and cleared off without paying the men. He agreed that the Bill should go to a Select Committee to be put into shape. After all, many Government measures had to be sent to a Select Committee for that purpose. (Laughter.) This matter had to be dealt with now, and they could not wait till the Government had time, therefore he hoped they would vote for the second reading of this Bill and polish it up in committee. (Labour cheers.)

said he would have liked to have been able to support the Bill because he thought the workman’s wages should be secured to him. The protection seemed to be accorded to everybody except to the unfortunate man who was building the house. He was in favour of workmen in good employment being encouraged to build their own houses. They all wished to facilitate the workmen and the small man getting his own property and living on it, but so far as he could see this measure as put forward would do everything possible to deter men from doing that. It puts all sorts of obstacles in the way. For that reason he could not support the measure, and he thought it would be better if it were withdrawn altogether in favour of another Bill which would give more protection to the wage earner and the small man without introducing all these complications.

said it was becoming increasingly evident to those on the Labour benches that, at the present time, as it would be in the future, the attitude of the remaining portions of the House whenever a motion or a Bill emanated from any member of the Labour benches was to receive it in the first place with expressions of sympathy. It was then immediately subjected to analytical and legal scrutiny, and afterwards fault was found with detail. They would find a displaced comma, or no comma at all, or no parentheses were put in. Such fiddling matters had nothing to do with the principles. He would like to point out that in the second reading of a Bill they should only consider the principle, and not go into details of the matter at all. He put it to the members of that House whether, individually or collectively, if they were in favour of protecting the workers’ wages they must vote for the second reading of the Bill, because it was the simplest matter in the world in committee to alter details in the Bill, and if the Government were sincere in their expressions of sympathy, as voiced by the Minister of Public Works, they should take over the Bill and lick it into shape, as the hon. member for Vrededorp put it. They could do that quite easily. Their real reason for putting the principle of weekly wages in the Bill in the form in which it was put in, was in order to bring before the country the necessity for such method of payment. The hon. Minister said there was no evidence of public desire that that method should be instituted. He (Mr. Madeley) would say that the Minister walked about with his eyes and ears shut, and so far from the statement being correct, or the enunciation of the principle that he gave vent to a little while ago that it was the business of a Government to follow public opinion and not to lead it, he (Mr. Madeley) would say it was an enunciation of a wrong principle; a Government should think out what was best for a country and act upon it. The people of this country did want the institution of weekly wages, especially one section—the commercial section of this country. What was the position at the present time where monthly payment of wages was in vogue? There were a great number of people constantly living behind their income, so to speak—he was referring to the retailers. They were always in debt to the wholesalers, because their money was so seldom forthcoming. He instanced a firm of grocers who did business last month amounting to £2,000, and the House would be astonished to hear that the net cash takings of that particular firm was precisely £100; and they ascribed it, rightly, to the monthly payment of wages. The whole business of the country depended primarily, wholly and solely, originally and ultimately, on the wages earned by the working men.

The hon. member went on to point out that the workman having to get his goods on credit the result was that the retailer had to go in for long credit, and the result was the retailer got into the grip of the wholesaler, and simply sold what the wholesaler desired him to sell. The consequence of the whole matter was that the workman, perhaps not being able to pay the first month’s account got into debt, which increased month by month, until he found that he was quite unable to meet his liabilities. He thought that the hon. member for Roodepoort had done the House and the country a great service by bringing this measure before the House. In spite of what the Minister had said the people of the country were in favour of their wages being paid weekly. Chambers of Commerce throughout the country considered it was a necessity for the salvation of the business community of this country, and certainly it was in the interests of the working people of this country. He trusted that hon. members would not take notice of those who would not look below the surface, but think of the principle of the Bill, which was the protection of the wages of the workers of the country. The hon. member for Vrededorp had asked why the workers did not come to the Government instead of going to members on the cross benches. It was proof of the relation of members on the cross benches to the workers of the country, who knew that if they wanted anything brought before the House it would only be brought by hon. members who sat on the cross benches. If any hon. member was willing to show that he wished to do something for the workers of this country then he should vote for the Bill that was now before the House.

objected to the Bill, which he held contained wrong. Instead of protecting people he feared that it would have exactly opposite effects, and the employer especially would be placed in a very awkward position. According to the Bill, contractors would have to pay their men at each stage of a building or work, if the workmen demanded it. Thus, the employer would be continually inquiring whether the men had been paid. He thought the Bill was quite unfair.

said that he would not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the remarks that had been made by the hon. member for Springs. He deprecated the remark made by the hon. member for Springs, that when any measure emanated from the cross benches it was never supported by hon. members on other sides of the House. He could tell the hon. member that that remark was beside the truth. When he saw this Bill on the paper, he approached the hon. member for Roodepoort, asked him to withdraw the measure, and bring in another simply dealing with wages alone. The Bill that was now before the House was so involved that it would be impossible to lick it into shape. If the hon. member did not adopt the course he had suggested he was afraid he would have to vote against him on the second reading. The hon. member for Springs had said that two years ago when he (Dr. Macneillie) was saying that workmen on the Rand did not desire weekly payment of wages, he (Mr. Madeley) received a wire from the Chamber of Commerce asking him to support the proposal. He (the speaker), was the hon. member concerned, and he pointed out that he made that statement owing to a ballot, which showed that 75 per cent. of the men were in favour of monthly wages. He did not pretend to speak on behalf of the commercial class. One of the best things the hon. member for Roodepoort could do, would be to bring in a Bill providing that the monthly servant should be given a month’s notice. In conclusion, he said he could not support the Bill in its present form.

said he thought they all agreed that the wages of the workmen of the country should be protected. He pointed out that three parts of the Bill before the House had been taken from the statute book of New Zealand, and that the measure as a whole was not suited to the present circumstances of this country.

He could assure his hon. friends on the Treasury benches that a strong desire to protect workmen who could not protect themselves existed on his side of the House, and he thought if the Government would state its intention to introduce legislation of this character during the session, all reasonable requirements of the Bill would be met. It appeared to him that the Bill had been framed in a library—(laughter)— and without reference to the conditions existing in this country. Clause 7 stated that “ whenever notice shall be given to the employer by a workman, a vendor, or a sub-contractor during the progress of any work or undertaking, that the wages, or payments due have not been made on the date when due, the said employer shall deduct from any money due, or that shall become due to the contractor, and shall pay such amount to the said workman, vendor, or sub-contractor, and such payments shall be deemed to have been made to any by such contractor,” and that was irrespective whether the workman had been paid or not.

Where does it say that in the other Bill?

I say that that is where it differs from the other Bill. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said the opinion on both sides of the House was unanimous that workmen should be protected, and he hoped the hon. member would withdraw the Bill on receiving assurance from the Government that a measure to that effect would be brought in this session. (Cheers.)

wished to point out to the hon. member who had just spoken that voting for the second reading of the Bill would not preclude his voting against any particular clause when in committee. With regard to a Government measure being introduced, he saw very little probability of that taking place, as hon. members had probably noticed how faint the desire was House with legislative measures. (Laughter.) It would be impertinent of him to on the part of Ministers to overload the assign a reason for this attitude.

called the hon. member to order. The question before the House was the second reading of the Bill.

said they on the cross benches appreciated the wish of certain hon. members to take the Bill “ and mould it more completely to their hearts’ desire.” But if there was a possibility of this being done there might be some reason for the suggestion being made that the Government should take up the question and bring in a Bill. They would at least be doing something towards safeguarding the interests of workmen by voting for the second reading when the exclusion of the objectionable clauses could be moved. He thought the time of the House might be more profitably spent by carrying on the discussion, because it gave members an opportunity of showing their sincerity. It was useless to argue that they could not go on with the Bill owing to the objectionable clauses which it was said to contain. If that were so, very few Bills would pass their second reading. He maintained it was for the House to expunge what was undesirable and to adopt the main principle of the Bill. He asked that support should be given to the second reading, or the protestations of the House in regard to its interest in the working man would be taken for what they were worth.

replying, said the question had been asked, “Why did not the workmen go straight to the Government? ” He had had a promise from Ministers for a long time that this, or a similiar Bill would be introduced, but nothing more had been heard of it. The men, he said, had come to him, and others, because they despaired of the Government ever doing anything. It appeared to him that the attitude of the House towards the Bill was not legislation, but war; that being so, he accepted the challenge. It had been said the Bill was sprung upon the House. He might inform members that the Bill was printed and put before the country two months ago. However, if the hon. Minister gave the House an assurance that a measure of like character would be brought in this session he would withdraw the Bill. Failing this, he (Mr. Haggar) would push it to the vote.

withdrew his amendment.

asked whether, if the Bill mentioned by the hon. member met the case, the Minister would give a reply.

I cannot allow the hon. Minister to reply. This new method of members standing up after the conclusion of a debate is out of order.

Would one of the Ministers on behalf of the Government in the legislation which had been prepared and was to be introduced this session or in legislation which was to be prepared and introduced this session safeguard workmen’s wages, not merely in the case of insolvency, but introduce a real safeguard for the payment of the men who did the work?

said he would like to have a plain answer from the Minister on the point that the Minister would bring in a Bill on these lines this session and would push it with the whole of the Government support behind him.

The motion was put and declared to be negatived.

called for a division, which was taken.

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

declared the motion negatived.

in moving the second reading of the Trustee Investment in Union Government Securities Bill, said that the object of the Bill was to make the Government stock of this Union available for investment by trustees in Great Britain. Legislation was necessary for the purpose. Under the Colonial Stock Act of Great Britain it was necessary that they should have legislation on the lines of this Bill. That Act required that certain conditions should be complied with in order that Colonial stock should be available for investment by British trustees. The first and second conditions were:

1. “(1) The Colony shall provide by legislation for the payment out of the revenues of the colony of any sums which may become payable to stockholders under any judgment, decree, rule, or order of a Court in the United Kingdom.”
2. “(2) The Colony shall satisfy the Treasury that adequate funds (as and when required) will be made available in the United Kingdom to meet such judgment, decree, rule, or order.”

Hon. members would see that these two conditions were satisfied by the second clause of the Bill. Then there was a third condition, as follows:

“The Colonial Government shall place on record a formal expression of their opinion that any Colonial legislation which appears to the Imperial Government to alter any of the provisions affecting the stock to the injury of the stockholder, or to involve a departure from the original contract in regard to the stock would properly be disallowed. ”

That was a matter simply which was placed on formal record. The procedure adopted here in 1902, when a similar Bill was passed in the old Cape Colony, was for the Government to pass a measure sanctioned by the Treasury, and that was considered sufficient. They proposed to follow a similar procedure in the present case. He thought it would be rather strange for them in a Bill like this to put the formal conditions into the Bill which were acceptable to the British Government. He hoped the House would deal with the matter in the same manner as it was dealt with in 1902. when the Cape Act was passed.

said he heartily supported the Bill. The investment of trust money in Great Britain was strictly limited by law. Trustees were enabled to invest in Colonial securities on certain conditions, one of the most important being that the Colonial funds purchased by trustees should be subject to British courts of law. This Bill would enable that condition to be fulfilled. It would also bring forward as purchasers of South African stock the class of people it was desirable to encourage to buy them. We wanted our stocks purchased not by speculators, but by investors, and the Bill would largely increase the value of the stocks and also enlarge the market for them.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for committee stage on Wednesday next.