from S. Robinson and 63 others, inhabitants of Middelburg, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief and a similar petition from E. de B. Thurston and 65 others, inhabitants of Middelburg.

from W. M. Schofield, of Port Elizabeth, a member of the Corporation of Accountants, praying that the said corporation may be included in the Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill, among the societies whose members are eligible to practise under the Bill in the Union of South Africa and a similar petition from D. M. Brown, Junior, Accountant, Port Elizabeth, a member of the Corporation of Accountants.

a similar petition from W. Eaton, Town Treasurer of Johannesburg, and 5 others, Town Treasurers and Fellows of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants (Incorporated), England.

from D. Smith, a ganger and diver at the Durban Harbour, praying that he may be allowed to contribute to the Superannuation Fund on the higher emoluments which he formerly received, or for other relief.

from P. Botha and 42 others, inhabitants of the district of Heidelberg, Transvaal, praying for the extension of the Grootvlei—Koolmijn railway to a point on the Bethlehem—Villiers line, or for other relief; a similar petition from J. Lanser and 84 others and a similar petition from M. Trope and 47 others.

from H. W. Coley, formerly outside foreman of the Stores Department, Central South African Railways, Durban, praying for compensation in respect of leave due to him at the date of his retrenchment, or for other relief,

from F. Barber and 268 others, workmen employed in the Pretoria Locomotive Workshops of the South African Railways, in opposition to the introduction of piecework in the Railway Workshops, Pretoria, and praying for the appointment of a Commission to investigate matters relating thereto, or for other relief.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that Order of the Day No. I. for Wednesday, the 26th instant, adjourned debate on motion on enfranchisement of women, to be resumed, be discharged and set down for Wednesday, the 5th March.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Agreement entered into between His Majesty’s Government and the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, with regard to the establishment of wireless stations in various parts of the British Empire.

in moving the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Appeal Board Bill, said he did not think he would be misinterpreting the feelings of hon. members when he said it was the desire of the House to get rid, once for all, of the interminable discussion in Parliament of the grievances and affairs of the railwaymen. He had every reason to believe that a Bill of that kind was the best means to remove these troublesome matters from the purview of the House.

Where is the Minister of Railways and Harbours?

The Prime Minister is in charge of this matter.

continuing, said he would have the greatest confidence in appealing to the Prime Minister on this question. The situation now was quite different from what it was last year, because then it was proposed to the House in two different forms. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. p. Duncan) and himself putting amendments before the House. Now the House was invited to go into committee on the general principle and make what alteration it thought fit in the Bill. He did not ask the House to commit itself in any way except to the general principle that there should be a Board to deal with these matters Last year the Minister of Justice, who was then Minister of Railways and Harbours, particularly objected to the security of tenure he (Mr. Fremantle) proposed to confer on the members of the Appeal Board. He had thought over what the Minister said, and had seen the force of his argument, and had altered that. Now he proposed that the members of the Appeal Board should have the same security that was given to the Civil Service Commissioners. It was necessary in a matter of this kind to give a certain amount of security of tenure to the members of the Board, so that they should be independent of the operations of the Government.

He was asking the House to affirm the principle that in these complaints with regard to the administration of the Railway Department that the men should be allowed a hearing before a Board on which they were represented. That was the sole principle the House was asked to affirm on this occasion. As far as public utterances went, everyone, as far as he knew, was in favour of that proposal. The Minister of Native Affairs spoke last session in favour of that principle. The Bill suggested means to guard against frivolous complaints, and the men were quite prepared to accept that. A fine not exceeding one week’s pay might be imposed on anyone bringing frivolous complaints. The measure proposed to leave the final power in the hands of the Minister and the Railway Board. (Mr. MADELEY: “Shame.”) The position of the Railway Board was not interfered with at all, except if it should reverse a decision of the Appeal Board it should report the matter to the House. A final decision— subject to the House—would rest with the Railway Board, and not the Appeal Board. Several hundred cases had been brought before the Railway Grievances Commission, and nearly half of them were found to be genuine cases. If the House wished to deal fairly with the men it was called upon to create a Board to deal with the question. A considerable amount of difficulty had been experienced with regard to Dutch-speaking railwaymen who had English-speaking foremen over them, who did not understand their language. In consequence of this, grievances resulted, and many Dutch-speaking men did not get fair treatment.

These matters were really occurring at the present time Not long ago a question came up of railwaymen being placed on the fixed establishment during a period of ten years. During that period their service had been broken, because during the war they had been asked to join the defence force and had refused, and they had thereupon been dismissed. The Government went into the question, and decided that it was not right that these men should be dismissed. For all that, they lost a number of years’ service, all of which counted for pension. It was found at the same time that men had left the service during the war, and had gone to the front and broken their service. Those breaks were condoned. He was sure that every member of this House must feel that if it were condoned in one case it should be condoned in the other. These were matters which none of them would desire to bring before the House if it could be avoided. Unfortunately there were other cases. He felt bound to bring before the House a case which showed the necessity of a board of this kind. The hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) mentioned a case the other day. These cases were constantly arising. He did not know that it would be fair to blame the administration. Very much against his will, he would mention the case of a man, not in his constituency, who was dismissed, it was alleged, for theft. The man came to him and said that he had been dismissed for theft, and had been given no opportunity of defending himself. He (Mr. Fremantle) inquired from the Railway Department, and he was informed that this man had been dismissed because he was guilty of theft, and, that the matter had been inquired into. He asked whether the man had been given an opportunity of defending himself, and he then received an answer from the railway officials that the man had not been dismissed for theft, but because of abolition of office. The office which had been abolished was that of an engine-driver, and another man had been put in his place It appeared to him (the hon. member) that the railways, having first told him that the man had been dismissed for theft, had then found that there was some reason for not wishing to give him an opportunity of meeting the charge against him, and had then said that he had been dismissed for abolition of office. That was a wholly untenable and unjust proposition which, he was sure, the Minister of Railways could not support. He then carried the matter further, and was informed that this man was dismissed because it was in the interests of the department that he should be dismissed, and he was given a gratuity. There should, he claimed, be an inquiry into the matter. He believed that the railwaymen of South Africa understood from a speech made by the then Minister of Railways, now Minister of Justice, that he was in favour of the creation of some board of this kind. Continuing, he said that this method had been found desirable in the industrial world of the present day. He simply wanted a tribunal to give the men an opportunity of having their cases heard, examined, and sifted. Even Mr. Carnegie, though a hard man, found that such a scheme was necessary. He claimed that the Prime Minister’s utterance, addressed to British working-men when he visited England as Prime Minister of the Transvaal, was germane to the present state of affairs. He then said that the position of the working-man in the Transvaal would receive his earnest consideration. Later on, some men seemed disinclined to accept the word of the Prime Minister; but be (Mr. Fremantle) had told them that the Prime Minister would certainly not go back. It was for this reason that he claimed the support of the Prime Minister for the measure which he had ventured to place before the House.

said he sincerely hoped the House would not accept the measure; for if they accepted such a principle as had been laid before them by the hon. member, they might as well do away with the administration of railways set up in this country. This measure would involve a considerable amount of expenditure, and he would point out that the Bill made no provision for remuneration for the members of this Appeal Board. The Government did not desire the House to think that it was unsympathetic and was opposed to fair, reasonable, and impartial investigations of cases submitted. When they proposed to go over the organisation that had already been established, then they would be tackling a proposition that was not only impracticable but crude. For two years they studied the question of these railway matters, and now they had an Act on their Statute-book. The regulations which came into force on January 1 last specifically provided machinery for such cases as quoted by the hon. member. For the first time in the history of the railways of this country, everything had been set down in black and white. The Railways and Harbours Service Act made it clear that a man could follow up his case right up to the General Manager, and if that did not suit him, then he could go to the Railway Board. Every provision was made for any man, however humble he might be, to go where the hon. member had stated he should go. Why should they not go to the Railway Board? He considered that the measure that had been laid before them was neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. He considered that it would not be workable, and that in a few years they would have as many complaints levelled against this organisation as were being levelled against the Railway Board at the present time The Act that was passed last year also made provision for cases where bodies of men were concerned, and wished to have grievances righted. Provision was made for an impartial Board in a case of that sort. In passing, he regretted that men did not see their way clear to make complaints straight to him or to the Railway Board, instead of getting members to bring them forward in that, House.

They would get the sack.

said that the Railways and Harbours Service Act made provision for all the machinery that was required.

No chance whatever had been given to see whether the machinery devised last year was satisfactory or not. No opportunity had been given to the Administration or the Government to put this new machinery into operation. At once there was fired off a principle which, he said, entirely overlaid the arrangements made by the House last session, and introduced something quite new. The Railways employed 50,000 men. The men had to be appointed in all grades and descriptions of employment. They had people appointed for their administration, who were supposed to understand their business. Under this scheme of the hon. member the appointment of technical men for technical work was to be supervised over against the Railway Department by this Board appointed from outside and presided over by the Resident Magistrate. One had only just to state the case to show how perfectly ridiculous the whole thing was. He wondered how any man who controlled any large business would like the suggestion to be made, with regard to the control and management of his affairs, that somebody from outside should be imposed upon him to judge how he should appoint his men, whether A should be appointed or B, and whether the appointment was right or wrong. They should give them all the safeguards they could, and which, he said, were already given in their legislation, if it were carried out. He saw his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) was shaking his head. He would shake his head to eternity about railway matters. (Laughter.) It was said, why did they have all this unrest in the railway service, while no such state of things was to be found among the employees in the other large concerns in the country? The principal reason, he thought, was because the employees of other concerns were not so freely canvassed for their grievances as the railway and harbour employees, and their grievances were not so freely advertised. The hon. member’s enthusiasm in these matters was very ill-advised.

The tendency of this measure, like the tendency of a good many things done in that House at present, was to inspire the railway servants of this country with suspicion and distrust, and lack of confidence in their own superiors. The idea was given to them that everyone over them was an unjust man and a wrongdoer. (Hear, hear.) He sincerely hoped that the House would not be misled by any mistaken feeling of sympathy for just grievances which might exist. It would be a marvellous thing if a huge concern employing 50,000 men could be carried on without grievances arising from time to time. These grievances did arise time after time, but he said this was not the way to deal with them, but rather the way which had already been adopted by this House, and at all events he could say this, that he was sure it was the intention of the officers who were placed under him, and it was certainly his own intention, that reasonable and full operation should be given to the opportunities granted to the men in respect of their grievances. The hon. member had quoted the General Manager of Railways in support of this Bill. The General Manager had expressed to him (Mr. Burton) the view that he was not in favour of this Bill, nor was he in favour of anything in the nature of the principle of this Bill. He was strongly opposed to it, and so was the Railway Board, so was he (Mr. Burton), and so was the Government. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the case of the engine-driver mentioned by the hon. member, what was done was that his office was abolished. The man was not put on his trial. It was not to be supposed that the Administration could only act where they could secure a conviction against a man in a court of law. Time after time men were dismissed and their services dispensed with because the information the Government had got was ample. This man was dealt with, not as he might have been, but very leniently. His services were dispensed with with a gratuity, when, if circumstances had been strained against him, he might have been dealt with very differently. With regard to the Dutch-speaking members of the service, he would only say that he could not conceive how this body whom the hon. member proposed to establish under this Bill was going to help these people. He could not see how it was going to operate. It had been the endeavour of his predecessor and of himself, and the endeavour of the Administration, to see that justice was done. The employment of men who were able to speak both Dutch and English in the South African Railways was constantly increasing, as a result of the action taken by the Administration. The last figures showed that out of a, number of appointments made in the railway service recently, he believed that something like 60 per cent. were bilingual. (Hear, hear.) The men who refused to join the Town Guard had been reinstated. It was quite true that, in spite of their reinstatement there was some trouble about their getting on to the fixed establishment, but since this matter was brought to his notice, he gave instructions that it should be thoroughly investigated, and all these men either were now, or soon would be, on the fixed establishment. And he had referred the matter to the legal advisers of the Government and asked them to inform him whether their pension rights could be assured. If they could not suggest a method, then he would try to devise a way in which it could be done. The measure which the hon. member had brought before the House was one which he thought was going to divorce completely responsibility from authority in the railway service. The officials were to be responsible, but they were to have no authority in the matter. It seemed to him to be premature and entirely unnecessary. (Hear, hear.)

had listened to the Minister with great interest; also to the quibble he made in his opening sentences in regard to his reasons for opposing the Bill. He congratulated the hon. Minister in dealing with the cases which had been brought forward by the hon. member for Uitenhage on their merits; but he fell into the same trap, unfortunately, that so many hon. members fell into, when dealing with subjects directly affecting the working classes. He went out of his way to make an attack upon the hon. members who sat on the cross benches by saying that they tried to inspire the greatest suspicion in the minds of the railway employees regarding their superiors. The audacity of the hon. Minister was of the eighteen carat order. Ever since the regulations he had spoken of were put before the men there had been nothing but discontent. Meetings had been held and petitions had been sent in. He ventured to say that the hon. Minister’s office was full of petitions and the minutes of interviews that had been held since these regulations were gazetted. The men had been trying their utmost during the last seven weeks to get some measure of justice from the Government. They (hon. members on the cross benches) did not make grievances. All they did was to try and lay before the House the present position regarding the men and to endeavour to get the Government to see that no further injustice was done. He thought they were indebted to the hon. member for Uitenhage for the Bill he had brought forward which sought to give the railwaymen an Appeal Board from which they could expect justice. The Minister referred them to the machinery already established. They had 50,000 railway servants on the one hand. On the other hand they had the Railway Administration. They entered into a contract with each other. The Railway Administration had all the power of the law behind them to see that the servants carried out their contracts. If they did not they did not remain in the service long. But what power had the men to see that the Administration carried out their part of the contract? Their Court of Appeal was composed of the very people against whom he was appealing. A man could appeal to the departmental heads and to the General Manager, and if he was not satisfied he could ultimately appeal to the Railway Board, the very people, according to the Minister, who drew up these regulations. He took it the reason why the hon. member had brought forward his proposal for an Appeal Board was so that the men would have something more satisfactory. But he would like to point out to the hon. member that in clause 3 he nullified the whole power of the Bill, because, after establishing the machinery for the hearing of appeals, he provided that the report shall be binding on both sides except in the case of it not being approved by the Railway Board. The members on the cross benches would support the second reading of the Bill, believing that’ it would provide a means of obtaining justice for the men. At the same time, however, they would oppose clause 3 in committee, because they believed that it meant that the men would be in no better position than they were now.

said that with all due respect to the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours, he hoped the House would not find the Bill so very ridiculous as he seemed to (Hear, hear,) His very first objection was a question of money. He (the hon. member) would say, most emphatically, that in a matter of this kind when they had 50,000 servants, who, of all the servants in the employ of the country were the least able to help themselves in the ordinary course, it was very little to say that they were met in regard to grievances such as this Bill contemplated. Reports which had been made on previous occasions—he need only refer to the report of the Truter Commission—showed really what grievances there were amongst that body of people, and showed how incapable they were, because of the situation in which they were placed, of having recourse to the ordinary methods of getting their rights.

The Minister had said that if the Government had brought the Bill forward proper machinery would have been provided. Why did not the Government introduce a Bill? This was not the first time the matter had been brought to the notice of the Minister of Railways. He had been addressed time and again. Why had he not taken steps? He (the speaker) could find defects in the Bill, but he supposed that the Government would see a good many more. But having adopted the principle why could not they introduce the necessary machinery when the measure was in committee? That would be the proper course for the Minister to pursue if he were really sincere on this question. They could make required alterations in committee, but be certainly thought that they should found this body to which the men could look with confidence. The Minister had said that he had the assurance of Mr. Hoy that no such institution was required, but he would like to refer the House to the memorandum drawn up by Mr. Hoy on March 12, 1912. In passing he would like to point out that the Railways and Harbours Service Act only provided for a commission when a body of men brought forward a matter regarding the conditions of employment. Surely the hon. member for Uitenhage and the railway servants desired something more. Mr. Hoy, in that memorandum, dealt solely with individual’ cases, and said that the system that obtained at that time was cumbersome and slow, and the men did not think they got the impartial review that they required. The Truter Report showed what actually happened in large departments like that of the rail way. Nothing in the Bill showed that the mover contemplated taking matters out of the hands of the railway authorities. It desired to supply the administration with an additional body of men that would have the confidence of the 50,000 employees, who, at the present time, were the most helpless servants in the service of the Union. He pointed out that the men in the railway service, or at least many of them, were not on the same plane and did not possess the same qualifications as those employed in other departments, and were, therefore, unable to pursue the most effective course in attempting to have wrongs redressed. Surely it would not cost too much money to provide a court of three, to which a man could refer his grievance without delay, and to which a man could look with confidence for justice. He did hope that the Minister would accept the principle embodied in the Bill.

said he agreed with the principle that such a board should be established. It would be a body to which the railway servants of the country could look with confidence. He went on to refer to the case of a railway employee who had taken home a used typewriter ribbon. The sub-inspector had placed the man under arrest, and when brought before the Court two days later, the Magistrate deprecated such a charge being made without efficient investigation. The man returned the ribbon when he was asked if he had seen it, and was acquitted, and he (the speaker) had known this man since boyhood, and considered that the explanation which he gave was perfectly genuine. A few days later the man was re-engaged by the Railway Department, but he had been treated most harshly, for the break in his service had not been condoned, and he, therefore, lost his ten years’ previous service. Men in the railway specialised in different branches of work, and it was essential, owing to the difficulties they found in obtaining employment outside, that cases should be carefully investigated before men were dismissed. He supported the general principles of the Bill.

said he supported the principles of the Bill, and pointed out that since the regulations had come into force many complaints had been lodged by the men. Although he did not think that the Minister or the department wanted to treat the men unjustly, he also knew that there were a great many obstacles placed in the way of the men getting their grievances properly considered, and practically, justice and fairness were denied to the men, and that was what they complained of. The complaints were universal, and although the Minister of Railways and Harbours might not have practical experience of them, and therefore, might not be aware of those feelings, they were not groundless, and there was a sound substratum behind these complaints. If the men had an opportunity of expressing their feelings they might bring cases before him which would show that there was much to be said for their want of confidence in the administration in that respect. He believed that the General Manager and the Minister of Railways and Harbours were most desirous that no obstacle should be placed in the way of the men placing their views before them, and he felt perfectly sure that the General Manager and the, Minister would do justice to the men, but the difficulty was that at present the men were, practically, denied their rights. Even if that Bill did not pass, the administration should take great care that, no ground for dissatisfaction should be allowed to remain. The railwaymen were so dissatisfied that it would take very little for them to take a step which might cause the country difficulty and great loss. There was a feeling of unrest in their minds, and the whole thing had not been settled by the passing of the Railway Bill of the previous year, and, therefore, they ought to support and vote for the present Bill. (Hear, hear.)

said that he would not have spoken but for the reply which the Minister had given; and from that reply he took it that they were to infer that the Government were opposed to the constitution of any body of appeal as indicated in that Bill. He did not know why the Minister had tried to terrify the House as he had done as to the effects which a Bill of that kind would have. As a matter of fact, the Bill went a little further in effect, but not in principle, than the provisions actually put in the Railway Bill of the previous year by the Government, and carried. The hon. member went on to refer to section 15 of the Bill in question, and said that he would like to ask the Minister what there was revolutionary in the Bill now before the House. (Hear, hear.) Where the difference came in was that the application of the principle of appeal was going to be widened if that Bill were carried into force. When the previous Bill had been before the House some of them had pointed out, including the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), that the method of appeal contained in section 15 was so cumbersome as to be practically useless. (Hear, hear.) It was one of the first principles of a Bill in a matter of that kind, where they dealt with an enormous service like the railway service, that the method of appeal should be short, speedy, and final—(hear, hear)— and that the men should not have to pursue their appeal by going from one officer to another. It was difficult to ask an officer to reverse a decision of an officer immediately below him. The hon. member went on to describe the methods of appeal as contained in the Act of the previous year, and said that after all this, there was the appeal again to the Railway Board Anything more cumbrous and more irritating it was hard to imagine. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Railways and Harbours had admitted that it was bad, and proposed that some alternative propositions should be made, but nothing had been accepted, and the Government having no time, and everyone being in a hurry to get home, they had rushed it through, and no amendment had been accepted. It did seem to him that in a large department such as the Railway Department they did want some outside bodies to consider complaints before they went to the final body. It was a far more business-like arrangement that that should be at the disposal of the Railway Board, which was the final: body, than the General Manager, who was not the final court of appeal at all. There was nothing new in having these boards of complaint, anti it seemed to him that they in South Africa were in a sort of backwash; and things adopted long ago in other parts of the world were treated here as if they would turn the whole world upside down. (Laughter and cheers.) These things had been adopted long ago in the industrial world elsewhere, and they had even been adopted in a conservative country like England. In the industrial concerns in America these boards were found to dispose of grievances in the most effective manner. (Hear, hear.) He quite agreed with the Minister that it was undesirable to encourage the idea in the men that they were not treated fairly by their superiors, and he (the hon. member) would be the last to encourage that; but they did get instances of men exercising subordinate authority who did not use that authority in the most judicious manner, which acted frequently with great hardship on the men; and unless the men could have the decisions of these officers reviewed, they would be gathering amass of dissatisfaction. They had had these boards in other parts of the world, and why could they not have the same here? (Hear, hear.)

said that he rose to support the second reading of that Bill, not that he approved entirely of the details of it, and as to how many boards should be constituted, but he did think that for one reason the Bill was entitled to his support—he considered that the Railway Board, as constituted at present, had already as much hay on their fork as they could possibly deal with. The hon. member, having touched on the work of the board, said that since reading the report of the Railway Board on new construction proposals he had absolutely lost all faith in them and their methods of dealing with that work.

in supporting the Bill, said he had long realised the necessity of having some board to which the railwaymen could appeal. He wished that the ex-Minister of Justice had made the remarks he had made that afternoon, before. Why did not the hon. member make those remarks when he was a member of the Cabinet, when he would have been in a position to do something. (Hear, hear.) Anyone who represented railway employees must realise the necessity of having some Board to which the men could state their grievances. Not a week passed but he had cases brought to his notice which demanded attention. At the present time the men could not get at the head of the Railway Department. The Minister was not approachable by them—in fact, the Minister was not approachable sometimes by members of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, Dr. Hewat said he had gone very carefully through the Bill, and he felt certain, if the House passed it, it would do justice to the railway men, facilitate the work of the administrative heads, and give general contentment throughout the whole service. (Hear, hear.)

said that, while he agreed with the principle of the Bill, he hoped that it would not emerge from the House in its present form, for it would require alteration in committee. Everybody desired to see the railway men’s grievances remedied, but when the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) told the House that the railway men were worse off than were the Civil Servants he was mistaken, for the railway men were the only Government employees who could appeal to a Board. Proceeding, Mr. Nathan said that the men on the proposed Appeal Board would be prejudiced, and must be swayed by the fact that they were paid by the railway employees. The hon. member who had introduced the measure would be well advised if he could get the Government to pay the men.

You try and persuade them.

said private members should not be encouraged to bring forward these little Bills—(hear, hear)— which were very dangerous. He would like to bring forward one or two little matters himself.

said he had risen because it was more or less expected that anyone who had railway men among his constituents should speak on the Bill. He wished to give some reason why the Bill should not be adopted. Last session they had before them a Railway and Harbours Service Bill, and the subject of an Appeal Board was discussed, although not at any great length. The House then adopted a scheme, which had not yet had a fair trial. They had in that Act machinery laid down for appeals step by step to the General Manager, from which he had to appoint an Appeal Board, and there was again a right of appeal to the Railway Board. In the matter of greater grievances, there was ample provision for the appointment by the Governor-General of a Commission. Was this House, within a few months of passing the Railway Service Act to be asked to accept a motion, made by a private member, for the constitution of a new form of Appeal Board, to which every kind of imaginable grievance which any man suffered under might be referred? What was the difference between the present Railways and Harbours. Act and the proposal in the Bill of the hon. member? In regard to the ordinary grievances, there would be a committee of five, instead of a committee with a chairman and two men on it. A sufficient case had not been made out for an alteration in this direction. He was glad to see that during the past few days the men had decided to make use of the machinery provided under the Bill for an appeal to the Administration.

said that, although he might be subjected to misrepresentation on the part of hon. members on the cross-benches, and although he had a considerable number of railway men in his constituency, he intended to oppose the second reading. He entirely agreed with the hon. member who had just sat down. He was not prepared to have it constantly ventilated in that House that he was not a fir representative of railway men because he did not happen to be a manual worker. Let them examine the provisions of the Bill, and see what its effect was going to be. It seemed to him that the effect would be simply to set up what they might call a precis-writing body for the Railway Board. What possible good could that do to the railway men, who had at present an appeal to the General Manager and then the Railway Board, which the hon. member was attempting even to obstruct by the provisions of this Bill? He quite agreed that there were many grievances, and were bound to be many grievances, between the employees of the railway service and the Administration. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Woodstock when he said that in many cases it was extremely difficult to get these grievances properly represented to the Administration. It was one of the essential needs of the whole management of the railways that some machinery should be devised by which there should be an effective representation on the part of individual men to the heads and responsible men of the Administration The task of that House, it seemed to him, was to provide machinery by which it would be possible for the individual employee to get a decision direct from the head responsible man, and not to have his case prejudiced by the desire of that responsible man to back up his subordinate official. He thought this Bill went in the other direction, and set up simply a kind of body which was going to make a summary of complaints so that they could be sent on to the Railway Board. He contended that the solution of this matter was that which had been recommended by the General Manager himself. The hon. members for Uitenhage and Smithfield seemed to have totally misunderstood the solution which the General Manager himself had suggested to the Government in regard to this matter. What it appeared to him the General Manager had suggested was that there should be a Board constituted by the men themselves, not one big Board for the whole service, but, if necessary, subordinate boards for each shop and each district elected among the men themselves, to whom the men should be able to go with their grievances, who should be recognised by the Department, and who should then say to the men whether they had or had not a grievance worth bringing to the attention of the Administration.

said that the hon. member who had just sat down appeared to be labouring under a very great fear that something might be said by hon. members on that bench in regard to his views. He could not understand what the hon. member’s insinuation was. It was not because he was not a manual worker that they considered him not to be a fit representative of railwaymen. The whole question was the attitude with which these questions were regarded. The hon. member held the view that the final arbiters in these questions should be some agent of the Administration. Why they (the Labour members) were supporting this Bill, was because it introduced what they believed to be essential for securing real justice in the Administration. What they wanted to see was a tribunal in which they would have a complete outside point of view.

said that one of the speakers had described the railway servants as a downtrodden race of people. (Laughter, and cries of dissent.) Well, helpless class of men. He utterly repudiated such a suggestion, for after many years of service with them he could say that they were a highly respectable and a highly self-respecting class of people, who were very well able to take care of themselves. He proceeded to touch upon the deliberations of the Select Committee, which considered the Railway and Harbours Service Act for two successive years. A feature of the deliberations of that body were the attempts to give relief and protection to the men, and there was so much elaboration about the way this was done that he was almost led to protest in the Committee room. He considered that if all these suggestions were carried out the railways would become unworkable. Everything could be settled between the men and the management if there were no outside influences at work. That had been his experience in dealing with railway servants for a good many years. He considered that no cause had been shown for the creation of an additional Board, and he considered that the wants of railway servants were thoroughly provided for in the Act that was passed last year. In passing he wished to say that in referring to the Railway Board created by the Act of Union on a previous occasion he had had no desire to cast any reflection on members of the Board or the Minister. He and his colleagues on that side of the House when in the Committee room had attempted to have the Board introduced into the Act as an authoritative body. They failed. Until the Board was brought into closer relationship with the staff he did not think that they would get any further. The best thing to do, if no better could be done, was to define the powers and duties of the Railway Board by a declaratory law. He thought that if the Railway Board was placed in closer relation to the servants a better state of affairs would exist.

asked the last speaker what outside influences were at work in Natal in 1903 and 1905, and whether the management made any attempt to right the wrongs of the men. He said that the Administration allowed things to drift on until the men were forced to take the action they did. At the present time the Minister, like trade unions, had an ideal which he found impossible to realise. The hon. member for Uitenhage did not merely want an Appeal Board, but wanted a Board that would be mentally and morally efficient. He (the speaker) said that that was an impossibility at the present time.

The hon. the Minister thought that the railwaymen should go directly to him, or directly to some of the heads of the department. If he (Mr. Haggar) was a railwayman he would certainly go to these head men, because he knew them and he knew they would do all that was possible to remedy a grievance, but unfortunately the railwaymen could not get there. In the Natal Parliament they had proved again and again that their communications addressed to the general manager never reached him. He did not say that they would have met with success if they had. The point was that they never did reach the general manager. The secretary of the Railwaymen’s Association was claimed to be on the most intimate and friendly terms with the Railway Administration; he would like to read half a dozen lines from the railwaymen’s paper on this very gentleman’s interview with the Minister. He writes: “We regret to state, however, that after personal investigation in practically every large railway centre the conditions are deplorable, and we do not hesitate to accuse the Government of the country in general, and the Railway Administration in particular, of neglect.” That is a statement of one of the Minister’s friends and one of his intimates. The reason the railwaymen did not go to the heads of the railway more frequently was because they had absolutely no confidence. Last season he brought up cases, with evidence to back him up, and not a single case had been looked into, or if looked into had not been remedied. They had an Appeal Board in Natal. In all, five cases were presented. The Chief Magistrate of Durban was the chairman, and there never had been a complaint as to the personnel of the Board, but not one of the five cases was remedied, and each man got “shunted” in a short time. The men were so dragooned that they dare not give evidence. So that past experience was not at all flattering. The present was the condition of improbability. They had to talk very plainly or else they were not understood. Fancy any “humble individual”— that was the Minister’s phrase—going to the members of the Railway Board; they were altogether too big. He did want to compliment the hon. member for Liesbeek, who said that all that was required was that the Government should recognise a body of men who would receive the grievances and report. He (Mr. Haggar) was astounded. When the first society was formed in Natal, that was their own proposal, and when their grievances came up the society did examine them and in many instances attention was paid, but it was eventually tabooed. In the House last year he protested that the society should be recognised by means of its representatives in this case, but the whole thing was tabooed. Every member of the House wanted justice to be done, but under existing circumstances the men had no hope of that, and he himself believed it was impossible. It would not be a question of money if such a Board was established; if necessary the workmen would be prepared to pay their representatives, if the Government did not.

said he was in a dilemma in this matter, because he had not heard whether there had been any appeal cases brought under the machinery established by the Act which was passed last year. He had not heard that any cases had broken down. He would like to congratulate the hon. member who had moved the second reading for his eloquence and consistency, but the hon. member for Smithfield voted against a similar proposal last year. Now he was out of the Cabinet he had apparently changed his views, and as a private member he asked them to give support to the Bill. He did not think the Act had had a proper trial, and he did not feel disposed to vote for the second reading until he had heard what the hon. Minister had to say on the subject.

said it was impossible to see how such a board as had been referred to could be set up unless accompanied by a large expenditure. It was not the sort of thing that could be altered in committee, and from what had been said already the Ministry of the day were not going to support the Bill, and therefore were not going to provide the funds so that effect would be given to it. He could not say that he felt that a Bill of that kind was absolutely necessary. They had sat for two sessions devising means for settling those matters in the best way possible, and the House in its wisdom passed a very comprehensive measure last year by which grievances of that kind could be settled, as they should be settled. They had not given the Act a fair trial, and they had no evidence that the machinery of the Bill had broken down. They had not heard of any case that had been brought before the board which had been set up by the Act that had not received attention, and he did not think the hon. member for Uitenhage had studied the Bill in connection with the human nature there was in the railway service. To a railway servant a very small matter may be a serious grievance, but the Bill provided that if a grievance was brought to the Appeal Board, and found by the Board to be frivolous, the servant would be fined a week’s pay. Let members imagine what feeling would result under such circumstances. Hon. members could do a good deal in a quiet way to settle the grievances of these railwaymen. His experience was in that direction. He lived in a town where there were not a very large number of railwayment, but still there were a number, some 200 or 300, and in the course of the last 20 years a number of these men had come to him with their personal grievances. They had asked him whether they dare come to him, and he had always explained that there was not the slightest danger in their doing so. (A laugh.) He tried to find out what their particular grievances were, and in most instances had shown them that there were no grievances, and if they thought the matter out quietly for themselves they would see that they were in the wrong. If he found that they had a real grievance he had never had the slightest difficulty in getting a redress of that grievance from the Minister of the day or the General Manager. He thought if members did more in a quiet way like that they would effect more than by inciting the men. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, the hon. member said that he could not support the Bill. He had doubts whether the Board was necessary, and he felt sure that it would not achieve what the hon. member wished.

replying on the debate, said that they were not now asked to consider the details which had been discussed by an hon. member, but the main principle of the Bill. As to what the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben) and the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir W. B. Berry) had said, that the machinery created in the Act passed last year had not broken down, he would reply that the men had no confidence in the machinery, and the break-down of the machinery was shown by it not having worked at all. (Laughter.) He could hardly imagine anyone who had experience of the difficulties of railwaymen not feeling that it was a difficulty with large numbers of them (but not all of them) that they were not prepared to take the risks of coming forward and taking advantage of machinery of that kind. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had not read the report of the General Manager, and if he had, he would not have made the remark he made just now. What his hon. friend said he had been asked to put into working was a matter connected with the general conditions of service, and they were not now talking about these at all. The Minister did not understand the report of the General Manager—if he had read it. As regards the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long), he had evidently mistaken the minutes of the General Manager, and the hon. member had understood the General Manager to propose that there should be boards entirely composed of railwaymen, but that was not the case. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North (Mr. Orr) had voted for a proposal last session which had gone further, and now he would not even vote for the principle. What had happened in the interval? The hon. member had changed his seat from the other side of the House to that side. Had anything else happened? Were there expectations about to be received? (Laughter.) Were they going to vote on the merits or on a political question which had nothing to do with it? References had been made to the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) and to what he had said that afternoon, but he (the hon. member) wished that all Ministers could speak that day and vote as they really thought (laughter)—and he hoped the time might come when they would have speeches from them, in which they said what they thought, and he had no doubt that they would have more satisfactory votes than they had at the present time. Now, a Minister decided on a particular course of action, and his colleagues voted with him, right or wrong, unless they were prepared to have a division in the Cabinet. (Laughter.) But as a fact last session, when a proposal similar to that had been voted for, the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) had not voted at all, because he was not in the House at the time. The votes and proceedings showed that he had not voted. After all, continued the hon. member, the whole thing was the merits of the question. (Hear, hear.). The Minister had said that that thing had been provided for, but what was provided for was grievances in cases of misconduct; and in other-cases no provision had been made in the Act, except on general questions which was quite a different matter. Section 15 of that Act had been torn up publicly by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, because it provided, or was supposed to provide, for cases of misconduct. But the Minister had said that there were cases where they could not actually prove it; but, still, you had a sort of sense that the man was guilty. (Laughter.) Section 15 did not provide anything of the kind; it provided that a man should have a fair trial and a fair hearing, and if his hon. friend could not prove those charges, he should not be allowed to dismiss the railwayman. The Minister tried to make out that it was a sort of revolutionary proposal contained in the Bill, but they were not going to alter the fact that the men desired this Bill, and considered this a proper proposal, which was in force in the world at large, and would, sooner or later, come into effect in South Africa. The previous year hon. members had to vote for the proposal as it stood, or not at all. In the present case they were asked to affirm a principle, and they might alter it in committee. It would be very welcome indeed to the railwaymen of this country if the House passed the second reading of that Bill.

The motion, on being put, was declared to be negatived.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

Ayes—32.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller Wiltshire, Henry

J. A. Vosloo and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—71.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Blaine, George

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Cert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhays, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Hull, Henry Charles

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Long, Basil Kellett

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Egidius Benedictus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Whitaker, George

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

C. Joel Krige and M. W. Myburgh, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

asked the Minister of Finance how it would be possible for a Court in the United Kingdom to give judgment against the Union Government?

The stock would be payable in Great Britain at some office there, and when it is payable there should be sufficient funds in the hands of the High Commissioner to meet the claim.

The Bill was reported with an amendment in the Dutch version which was considered and adopted.

The Bill was set down for third reading on Friday next.

moved, in line 13, after “Gazette,” to insert “on resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.” He said the object of the amendment was to prevent pressure being brought on the Administration to add a substance which had never been before the House. The old Cape Bill set out in detail substances which may not be put in wine, but in the present Bill the order was reversed.

said that the old Cape Act required that, before any alteration could be made in these substances, it must be approved by the Governor-General, but, the officer administering the Act must be consulted. He had no objection to the principle of the hon. member’s proposal, but he would suggest that they should take the present law of the Cape, and he would therefore move as an amendment to add that this alteration shall be made “ on the recommendation of the administering officer.”

said that before they went on with the Bill, he would like an assurance from the Minister that if it was passed, the measure would be administered. The law in the Cape Province had almost become a dead letter, because it had not been effectively administered. It was useless passing Bills and then finding that, owing to laxity of administration, they were not being carried out.

said that when he returned from Europe he heard that the Adulteration Act in the Cape was not being carried out. Immediately he got back to Pretoria he conferred with the chief of the department, and fold him what he had heard. Ho was assured that there was a misapprehension about the matter, but the chief promised to make enquiries. He (the Minister) had since found that a great deal had been done, though he discovered that those in charge of the department could not spare all the time required for analysis. He (the Minister) expressed the view that the officials should do as much as they possibly could. He also asked for the number of prosecutions.

How many?

A considerable number.

Where?

At the Cape. Continuing, he said that at a later stage he would inform the hon. member of the number of prosecutions and the period covered. He found that in the Transvaal and Natal—places of light and leading—no attempt was made to carry out the Adulteration Acts, but in the honest old Free State the officials there had done a little good work. He could assure the hon. member that if he was entrusted with the duty of carrying out the Act he would see that the provisions were strictly enforced.

said he would like to point out to the Minister that cane sugar did not have a deleterious effect on wine. Cane sugar could not be hurtful and they should not limit the market. In the opinion of many experts cane sugar was better than grape sugar itself. It was said that Cape wine was injurious and he suggested that in some cases that defect could be remedied by using cane sugar. It was certainly better to use cane sugar than to confine the market, and he would move a new sub-section to precede sub-section (a), namely, “(a) Cane sugar, not exceeding eight ounces per gallon, to be added in invert sugar form.”

referred humorously to an hon. member who, after making a speech, confessed that he did not know much of the subject he had been talking about, and he thought the mover of the amendment was not in a much better position.

said he would like to ask the hon. Minister, while a long list of adulterants was mentioned, about 30 in number, as appeared in section 7 of the old Cape Act, on which that Act was founded, there was no mention in the Bill of the foreign substances which might not be used; why had they been left out? To him it appeared that the Bill was a weakening of the old Cape Act. That had not been properly carried out, and if the present one was passed it would be even less carried out. In his opinion it would have been very much better if these foreign substances had been named.

pointed out that people who had a thorough understanding of the subject were of opinion that the omission would strengthen the Government case. The Bill laid it clearly down what could be used and no other.

emphasised the argument of the Minister, and said that supposing tomorrow another adulterant was discovered and it was not enumerated in the list as suggested by the hon. member for Tembuland, the whole machinery of Parliament would be required to be put in motion to get that single article mentioned.

said that under the Act it stated certain things that could be used and it was not necessary that articles which could not be used should be specified.

was not satisfied that there had been a good reason given why the adulterants which could not be used should be omitted from mention in the Act. The reason given by the member for Paarl would not hold water, for section 7 of the 1906 Cape Act provided that additions to the list of prohibited adulterants could be made by the Governor upon recommendation of the administering officer.

said they were delighted to see the anxiety of the hon. member to encourage the production of good wine, but he thought as the law stood under the Act they were discussing there was every possible protection. He expressed the opinion that if the hon. member for Langlaagte wanted to strike a blow at the legitimate wine industry his amendment was well calculated to do so. The one thing that was necessary to place the wine industry on a sound basis, and to improve the quality of the wine, was to lay down a law that nothing should be used that was not the product of the wine, and as the product was grape sugar there was no necessity to add cane sugar to the wine. There was no doubt that the putting in of cane sugar had given Cape wines such a bad name in the past.

said that all sugar in wine was detrimental, because naturally sweet wine was made sweet by fermentation. Wine was sweetened now to meet the needs of a particular class of customers, and much to their detriment generally. If wine had to be adulterated at all it should be by grape sugar. The objection he had to the Bill as drafted now was that it was all very well now—they were all agreed now— but there might be adulterants which might be very much pressed on the Government and pointed out to them as “entirely harmless.” There was no doubt that the worst adulterant one could put into wine was salicylic acid.

moved to report progress.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again on Monday next.