from Anna M. Harris, a teacher in the Gymnasium (boys’) High School, Paarl, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

from A. Molefe, formerly a clerk in the Native Affairs Department, who entered the Cape Civil Service in 1873 as acting constable and interpreter, Praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

from the Rev. J. Harper, missionary of the London Missionary Society and minister of the Congregational Union of South Africa, Brownlee Station, King William’s Town, praying for the grant of a title in favour of the London Missionary Society to a site on which the Mission School Room, Masingata, stands, or for other relief.

entered the House, and took the chair.

brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

The first report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities was as follows:

Your committee, having considered the various petitions referred to, begs to report:

1. I. That it recommends: (1) That, subject to the consent of Joan Russell and to the production of a satisfactory medical certificate, her widow’s pension of £10 11s. per annum be regarded as being of the value of £10 per annum in order that it may be commuted by the payment of a capital sum of money in terms of sections 66 and 67 of Act No. 32 of 1895 (Cape). (2) That the break in the service of D. Plekker, teacher, from 1st January, 1907, to 31st March. 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (3) That the break in the service of M. H. H. Greenway, teacher, from 1st January, 1908, to 31st March, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service. (4) That the breaks in the service of G. T. Hosking, teacher, from 1st January, 1878, to 31st March, 1884, and from 1st July, 1902, to 31st December, 1907, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (5) That the breaks in the service of T. A. Jones, teacher, from 1st June, 1900, to 30th September, 1901, and from 1st April, 1905, to 30th June, 1906, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (6) That the breaks in the service of K. A. H. Houghton teacher, from 1st July, 1903, to 31st July, 1906, and from 1st April, 1908, to 31st December, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (7) That the break in the service of H. Cressy, teacher, from 1st January, 1909, to 31st December, 1911, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service. (8) That the petitions of E. S. Theunissen and F. H. Brutus, teachers, be referred to the Government with a view to the condonation of the breaks in petitioners’ service by the Education Department (Cape).
2. II. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained: (1) M. S. Maurice; (2) M. A. Darling; (3) A. L. Roos; (4) W. H. Whitney; (5) A. M. Bengtson; (6) B. D. Greyling; (7) A. D. Kropf; (8) J. Little. (9) With reference to the petitions of C. T. Simpson and H. R. L. Smith, your Committee is of opinion that the applications for relief should be deferred until such time as petitioners retire. (10) With reference to the petition of H. J. Saunders, your Committee is unable to make any recommendation thereon, as the subject-matter of the petition is one to be dealt with departmentally. (11) With reference to the petition of S. K. Hauptfleisch, your Committee is unable to make any recommendation thereon, as the subject-matter of the petition appears to be one to be dealt with by the Provincial Administration. (12) With reference to the papers and documents relating to the retirement of Charles Currie from the Public Service of the Union and to the grant of a pension to him, your Committee is unable to make any recommendation thereon.

The report was set down for consideration on the 13th inst.

Government Notice No. 299 of 1913, having reference to the amendment of the Kopjes Irrigation Regulations under Act 31 of 1909 (Orange Free State).

said that, in deference to hon. members who desired to come to the next Order, he would not keep the House for a very long time. (Hear, hear.) It had been suggested that because women could not take up arms in defence of the State, they should not have votes, but as that could not be called argument, it might be brushed aside. The real question was whether there was to be a representative Government in the true sense of the word, or whether to keep the power in the hands of a few. He quite agreed with the statement of the hon. member for Turffontein that no person should have the vote unless it was for the good of the country. Those who were looking for the extension of the franchise to women took precisely that position. It was not a question whether a few or many asked for it, but whether it was for the good of the country or not. The question arose: were women as capable of exercising the vote as men? He wanted to know in what sense men were superior to women, socially or intellectually. There are those who objected to women having the vote, because they said it would be dangerous to the State, and others said it would be dangerous to the party. As an instance of the reformatory work exercised in politics by women, the hon. member referred to the case of the New South Wales Legislature, which had become quite a model since the enfranchisement of women. A democracy that excluded women excluded one-half of the people—in fact, it was nothing better than a farce. Another reason why this concession should be made was that they were pretending to be laying the foundations of a new nation, and surely, if ever there was a time when they should have a proper Constitution and a proper franchise, it was now. There were many questions that women could solve as well as men, and there were some questions that women alone could solve. Everything that had been adopted in that House had been adopted upon the lines of political syndicalism, and if they wanted anything in South Africa, they wanted a true nationalism. It had been said that they must not give women the vote in South Africa because the Dutch women and Dutch ideals would predominate. He did not believe that. Women desired the franchise for the public good of the country. The home had been split up by economic circumstances. What moral right had they to take into it their own power to say: “It belongs to us alone.” This was not class legislation, and women were justified in asking for the vote owing to the terms of the South Africa Act. It was science, not the sword, that ruled now; not the man who slaved, but the man who built. Women asked for what was their right as members of civilised society. The only objection was that if it was granted the Dutch women would swamp the British. He said shame to those who urged that objection. He asked hon. members on the other side to “take their moral courage in their hands,” and support a motion which was just. The vote was coming just as surely as the sun rose. They wanted to build up a nation; why therefore, should they be as ships at anchor. Because they wanted effective government, because they wanted reforms in this country, and because they wanted women in their public life, he asked hon. members to vote for the motion.

moved the previous question.

seconded.

put the question to the House.

thought that the position might be explained.

pointed out that an amendment appeared in the Votes and Proceedings.

said that that amendment was not seconded.

said he supposed that there was nothing to prevent an hon. member addressing himself, to the whole question in speaking at that point.

No; the whole question is before the House.

supported the motion because he thought that justice should be done to women. Why not let them realise that the time would most surely come and set the foundation immediately. There were women on Hospital and School Boards, and the time would come when they must have the vote.

said some hon. members had based their arguments on false premises. One was that the male sex had a monopoly of intelligence and, further, that the granting of votes to women would be conferring a favour on them. Not so many years ago in Great Britain only landowners were allowed to vote, but the great Reform Act placed many thousands of men on the voters’ roll. Subsequently the franchise was extended to lodgers, it being pointed out that the latter had a human interest in the State which should be recognised in Parliament. It had been said that women were not fit to exercise the vote, but that argument could be used against many male electors. (Hear, hear.) Large numbers of men did not vote at all and others did so in a very careless haphazard sort of way, as was shown by the small number of Labour members. (Hear, hear.) Another argument was that owing to the action of certain women in putting forward their demands rather vigorously, women as a class should not have the vote; but that was only clouding the issue. Future generations would admire the courage and self-sacrifice of many of the suffragettes.

said he agreed that there ought to be reform in this matter. Ladies who had the necessary qualifications should be able to vote in the same way as men did. A great many ladies did not want the vote at all, but others did. He hoped that when the time came for that House to enfranchise women it would do so unanimously and without regard to parties. No woman, he believed, ought to be debarred from equal rights in the franchise.

said he thought most of the arguments against the enfranchisement of women were trivial. The hon. member for Turffontein had stated that his speech was a dirty speech, all he would say was this, that the truth was always unpleasant, and he would probably have to listen to a great many other dirty speeches of a similar nature. The only real criticism had come from the Prime Minister, whose sole excuse for not accepting the motion was that the time was not ripe, and besides the women had not demanded the vote in large numbers. As against that statement he had received a telegram from the Women’s Enfranchisement League, of Johannesburg, which repudiated the statement that the women of South Africa did not want the vote. There were 17 affiliated societies of the league in the Union, and a petition of nearly 12,000 was presented to the House last year. The telegram most emphatically denied that women did not want the vote and proved for a recognition of their demands for women’s suffrage. The hon. member said he left the resolution in the hands of the House. There had been no argument needed. If members voted according to their consciences, this motion would be carried, if they voted from any other motives it would probably be lost.

put the previous question, namely, that the original motion be not now put, and declared that the ayes had it.

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

Ayes—70.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henwood, Charlie

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

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Phillipus

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

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

Noes—30.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Hull, Henry Charles

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hunter, David

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Orr, Thomas

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Whitaker, George

J. Hewat, and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the original motion dropped.

To omit all the words after “this House,” and substitute the following: “(1) the importation of native labourers from outside the Union greatly diminishes the opportunities of employment for Europeans, lowers the rate of wages obtainable by large numbers of the European population, obstructs the extension of the field of the European employment, and is detrimental to the interests of the Union; and (2) the Government should take immediate steps to curtail such importation and to arrange for its ultimate abolition.”

To omit all the Words after “that,” and to substitute “the question of the extension throughout the Union of the field of employment for Europeans, and the circumstances surrounding labour conditions in South Africa, be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.”

To add at the end, “(3) the Government be requested to take into consideration, at an early date, the advisability of establishing agricultural co-operative village settlements under Government supervision and control.”

To omit the words after “that,” and to substitute: “In the opinion of this House (1) the field of employment for Europeans should be extended throughout the Union, and that in order to ascertain in what directions and spheres and by what means such employment can be extended a Select Committee be appointed to collate the evidence and reports of the various Commissions which have from time to time inquired into the labour question in South Africa and to report thereon, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers; and (2) the Government should take into consideration what steps should be taken to curtail the importation of native labourers from outside the Union with a view to its ultimate abolition.”

who resumed the debate, said that the mover of the motion did not attempt to solve the difficult question, but urged that it was one of national importance. It was a most convincing speech, and yet some hon. members had talked with the object of shelving the matter. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, wanted an independent Commission, and if the motion was adopted it would lie at the door of the Government to appoint a fit and proper Commission. The only course open was to appoint such a Commission, and deal with the subject in a satisfactory way. The hon. member for Jeppe could see only one way, and he posed as the educator of all parties and all sections of the community. That hon. member seemed to want the highest wages for workmen in return for the least amount of work. That hon. member then moved an amendment dealing with the importation of natives. Was that the way of dealing with a matter of national importance? He (the speaker) was disappointed at the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Victoria West. If this was a matter of national importance then surely a Commission and not a committee must deal with it. It was apparent that a committee could not deal with a great matter of this sort. They were dealing with the industrial settlement on the land with the object of giving these men useful occupations. That question would best be solved when that House had before it proper evidence and a report supplied by an independent Commission. Gentlemen like the Rev. Mr. Marchand should sit on the Commission, but to refer the matter to a Select Committee would be to shelve it. As to the gibes at the Unionist Congress, if that Congress had done nothing but bring the subject before Parliament it had done something of which it could be proud. (Opposition cheers.) The only way in which the matter could be dealt with was by a Commission. The House should not botch the matter, for if it did it would throw the solution back very many years, and the condition of the country would be hopelessly impossible, and a large number of poor whites would go to the dogs. He urged the House not to think of expense in the matter, and to set aside the idea that it was a political or a party move. The longer the solution was delayed the more difficult it would become. A large sum of money had been spent on the Black Peril Commission, but now the question of expense was urged as a reason for not appointing a Commission to deal with this important subject.

said he rose to correct the idea that he or the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had any intention of shelving this matter by suggesting that it should be referred to a Select Committee. A Commission could not report before next year, and usually after the reports of Commissions had been translated and printed they died. A more able report than the one on education was never presented to that Legislature, but no notice was taken of it. The hon. member opposite had a touching faith in Commissions, but after he had been forty-four years in Parliament, he would not have so much faith in them. (Laughter.) The Indigency Report was a valuable one, but it had led to nothing. The advantage of a Select Committee over a Commission was that its report, not being very long, it was read through by members, and it might make some effect on them which might be translated into legislation. If, however, the majority of the House wished to adopt the principle of signing a bill, and saying, “Thank God, it is paid”—(laughter)— they would be following a course which had been adopted before, but which had led to nothing. Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said that assistance might be rendered to denominational and sectarian schools which were now educating white girls. The Select Committee might find out what was being done at Kakamas, and also at Knysna, in regard to the woodcutters. It might find out from the police officers at Johannesburg what was the condition of that town, and what the police recommended should be done with the poor whites there. What was done with some of them they knew, for about l,500 of them were in gaol. It was impossible to read the reports of these cases without being ashamed to read of white people herding with Kafirs and making a living out of trading on their vices. Could anything be lower than that? The House should take some action in the matter. Legislation by itself would do very little. We had legislation—it filled our gaols—but what we wanted was something to lift the people out of their present state of degradation. But if they wished to put the matter off for a couple of years, let them appoint a Commission. It would be a good thing if we could find men who would devote their energies to the task without pay, like the members of the Congested Districts Board in Ireland. That was the practical way of getting some solution of this matter. If they had no information before them, and if it had been a new thing, it might have been necessary to go round the country and get that information. But they had this information, and there was very little being done.

said the question seemed to be whether a Commission or a Select Committee should be appointed. In all the speeches he had listened to, the only redeeming feature to be found was that there was a disposition in the House to take a serious view of this matter. There was an amount of information in Blue-books that had been brought together by the expenditure of large sums of money and time, which was invaluable. Why did not the Government take action? If the Government paid the slightest attention to the Indigency Commission report, a start might be made, but nothing had been done. It was all very well to say, “Egg on the Government,” but why did not his right hon. friend egg on the Government? (Mr. MERRIMAN: I do.) Well, it did not show much for the right hon. gentleman’s influence. (Mr. MERRIMAN: Quite true.) Five or six months they had been there, and they had been marking time like sailors on a ship. He was keenly interested in this white labour cause, but he was tired of the inactivity that had been displayed. What they wanted was some constructive policy. Here they were at the beginning of a new nation, and what were they doing? There was no building going on; they were simply loafing. (Hear, hear.) For his own part, he believed that it was a waste of time to come down there at all. What was the good of getting up and proposing anything, when the Government was incapable or was unwilling to do anything? He did not know whether members of the Government were jealous of each other or not, but he hoped that the House would not vote for a Select Committee, because he did not think it would do any good. He appreciated his hon. friend’s forty-four years’ work of this sort. He was astounded that he could have stood it so long, and felt that he could go down on his knees to him. (Laughter.) Let them see that some constructive work was done, and show the country that they were alive. It was all talk, talk, and nothing would be done until the people of the country rose and said that something must be done.

said the present system was one of topsy-turveydom. On the one hand we prevented people entering the Union to work, and now it was suggested that people here who did not want to work should be forced to do so. He was not afraid of European immigration, but the people already here should first be regarded. If the poor whites could be employed on the mines, then the question would disappear. It was only energetic and resourceful men—resourceful in mind and pocket—who could live on the land in South Africa. A large number of people had lost their land because they were not resourceful enough, and if they were put back on the land they would lose it again. (Cheers.) Every man was not adapted for work on the land, and he had tested it. The poor whites gave more trouble to their employers than coloured people did. We should never be able to make a success of South Africa with coloured labour alone. If we wanted to maintain the white dominancy in this country it must be done by white people.

was pleased that the motion had been brought forward, and said it was encouraging to see that all the speakers were in favour of the aims of the hon. member for Pretoria, East. Yet there was a difference, especially in the aims of the Labour members. This question was especially important in view of the large coloured population of this country. In the past they had made the mistake of trying to put matters straight at once. Consequently no commencement had been made in any direction. Even if a small start was made it was essential to do something, so that gradually the whole question would be solved. Despite statements to the contrary. The Government had already done much, but owing to the size of the country it was very difficult to deal with the whole question, and consequently much bad had to be left to private institutions. He referred to various ecclesiastical institutions for poor children in the different parts of the country and pointed to the successes achieved by these institutions. At Uitenhage they had 50 to 60 pupils, and had done successful work for 15 years. It was impossible for the Government to establish such institutions, but no one would object to Government assistance being given. The speaker also paid a tribute of praise to the admirable educative work performed at Stellenbosch, Langlaagte, and elsewhere. As regarded the various proposals before the House, he urged the appointment of one person to stand between the Government and these institutions. He mentioned the names of several persons who were, he thought, suitable for such a position. Such a person would have to devote all his time to this question and would be able to do more than any Commission. The hon. member went on to refer to the work done by the Rev. Mr. Luckhoff. This gentleman had resigned owing, it was said, to lack of sympathy on the part of the Education Department. Such sympathy, he urged, was essential. If they went in the direction indicated much good would result.

congratulated the hon. member for Pretoria, East (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) for having raised this question. He thought the hon. member meant well and intended doing something, but regretted that the motion had been used by some members for the purpose of attacking the Government. As regarded the arguments of the Labour members, they always referred to the working-men on the Rand. The speaker did not know those men, as they were foreigners—though he did not mean anything bad by that. He held that it would be impossible to put the poor whites of the Rand on the land, as they would all be ruined in no time. Mr. Kuhn went on to refer to the Land Settlement Act, and urged the Government to put the provision of this Act into operation. Referring to the Kakamas institution, the hon. member said that the people there were progressing favourably, and about 800 children attended the school. Good work was being done there, but he asked what was going to happen to these people in the future. Their children were growing up and it was impossible for all of them to stay there. People were looking to the Government to do something, especially as a law had been passed under which the whole position could be dealt with. In the North-western districts there were millions of morgen of ground available, and the Select Committee of 1908 had recommended that the ground be split up and allocated. Nothing was done. As regarded the scarcity of labour, the hon. member held that the white labourer should be used more. Farmers were very short of labour, and although the former Minister of Railways and Harbours had done a good deal to alter matters, the position was not yet as it should be. He held that the native locations were full of idle natives. If a law was passed making it compulsory for these people to do something for their existence, or to leave the locations, much good would be done. At Gordonia and other places they found coloured people living on Government ground. White men were forbidden to hunt, as it was a game reserve, but the coloured people were not prevented from doing so, and lived well on it. There would be more labour available if these people were prevented from living on Crown lands. Dealing with the motion before the House, the hon. member thought sufficient information was before the House, and he could not agree with the proposal that the matter should be referred to a Commission. Reference to a Select Committee would, he thought, be better.

said they had had Commissions times without number. Nothing could be done in the matter this session, but let them have a Commission of experts and let labour be represented on the Commission. The hon. member did not attach any importance to the reports drafted by men who galavanted through the country and brought up misleading reports. Little reliance could be placed on reports of inexperienced men who went round the country with, however, the best of intention. He would willingly support the motion, but there was a lot of sense in the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), for unless they had expert advice they would go on session after session and no progress would be made.

held that it was the duty of this House to see to it that the poor whites were helped up. They should be enabled to be placed on the same basis as the other white people of this country; but that could not be done by the appointment of a Commission. Education, he urged, was essential, and a wage of 2s. 6d. or 3s. was not enough. They should start with the children and establish industrial schools so that the children might be taught good trades. If they appointed a Commission it would simply mean more delay and more poor whites and, like the lepers on Robben Island, these people would be kept wanting. The root of the evil was lack of education.

said it seemed to him that the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Pretoria, East, had been contracted in the minds of a considerable number of the members of that House more than was intended by the mover, and instead of dealing with the great question of white labour it had been narrowed down to a discussion on the question of the poor whites. That had been especially the case with the right hon. member for Victoria West. He (Mr. Clayton) did not understand the hon. member for Pretoria, East, to mean that when he moved the motion, but expected that the whole question of labour throughout the Union upon the very widest possible basis would have been discussed. It was upon that basis that he wished to address the House. Many questions had been before the House that were described as of more importance than previous ones, but that question was undoubtedly an important one. The whole of the going forward, standing still, or even going backward of the great industries of the country, agricultural or otherwise, in the Union were dependent upon the amount of labour which could be brought forward for their development. He specially appealed to members engaged in farming to give attention while he pointed out how this matter was going to affect their interests. When one member talked about the introduction of white labour and another about doing away with a hundred thousand labourers engaged in a particular industry, who were to be replaced by 25,000 others to do their work, they had to remember that these labourers would no longer be available for service in the Union, and a greater demand was going to commence for the labour which the farmers employed. It was hard enough at the present time for them to maintain the supply, short as it was. They should take a very broad view of the question.

It did seem to him that they should not confine themselves solely to the question of the poor whites or as to whether they could induce a certain amount of white labour to come into this country. What they should do was to look into and examine the whole of the labour conditions of this country. It was rather absurd, he thought, that hon. members should tell them that it was quite safe to get rid of the labour that was being imported at the present time for the biggest industry in the country. He thought that they should be careful before they took any such step He thought that before they took such a step as was suggested by the hon. member for Jeppe they should inquire not only into the circumstances of the mining industry of the country, but the circumstances of all the industries that depended on coloured unskilled labour. From all over the Union there came complaints of a shortage of labour. Now the hon. member for Roodepoort suggested that white labour should be used in the sugar industry in Natal. That was a very different attitude to the one which he took up on the Natal Commission of which he (the speaker) was chairman. He (Mr. Haggar) was one of those who reported to the Natal Government that he could not recommend the abolition of Indian indentured labour.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say—

The hon. member is not in order.

On a point of explanation.

An explanation is not a point of order.

said that that Commission reported that it could not recommend the discontinuance of the supply of Indian indentured labour. The Indian Government had stopped the supply on its own initiative, and the result was that at the present time the industries on the coast and elsewhere in Natal were languishing. He would point out that at the present time the labour question was a very burning question in Natal. He did claim that when this question was opened out, as it had been opened out by the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, they, in the other Provinces, had the right to claim that the interests of industries in which they were concerned should be taken into consideration just as well as the mining industry on the Rand. He wanted to associate himself with those hon. members who had expressed the opinion that the appointment of a Select Committee to go into the matter was not sufficient.

What could a Select Committee do in the limited time at its disposal? The hon. member for Barberton had said that all the information that was required was available. Would the committee have any information as to what was happening in Natal at the present time? The right hon. the member for Victoria West also said that they had all the information at their disposal. They might have all the information that was required regarding the poor whites that were in the country. But it was not a question of the poor whites alone; it was a question that concerned the whole of the industries of the country. What was the use of a Select Committee dealing with such a great question and one of such national importance? Both the right hon. the member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Pretoria, East—and both of those hon. members had had a great deal of experience— had risen in their places and frankly owned that they could not supply the remedy. Were they going to appoint some Heaven-inspired Select Committee to advise the House? The Select Committee would be useless so far as the poor whites were concerned, and it would be worse than useless on the larger question. He could not associate himself with the remarks that had been made by the hon. member for Barberton. That hon. member took it for granted that all the members of that House were pledged to the abolition of coloured unskilled labour from outside the Union. He, for one, was against any of the industries of the country being disturbed before they had arrived at a solution of the big problem that confronted them. He did not wish to burke any of the points that had been brought forward by hon. members in the course of their speeches. He wanted the whole subject taken into consideration and all information obtained. When they had got that information, then they would be able to decide upon some sound and stable policy. He moved to omit all the words after “House” in the original motion for the purpose of inserting the following: “It is desirable that the Government should take into consideration the desirability of appointing a Commission to consider and report upon the labour conditions of the Union in respect of (a) the requirements of the various industries; (b) how those requirements can best be met; (c) the widening of the spheres of employment for Europeans; and (d) the advisability or otherwise of limiting the importation of coloured unskilled labour.”

seconded.

said that he had listened with the greatest interest to the speeches which had been made, but he must confess himself very disappointed at the various suggestions and sentiments that had been expressed. The motion which was now before the House was one of the utmost importance, and he thought that they should remember that this was a child born in the Congress held by his friends of the Opposition in Johannesburg. (Laughter) He did not know whether they should call it a legitimate or an illegitimate child. (Laughter.) The Unionist Party at their Congress in Johannesburg had tried to come to a decision on this subject, but so far as he had followed the discussion which had appeared in the newspapers, it appeared to him that there had not been that unanimity on the subject which there should have been, and that there were two decidedly divergent views at that Congress. They all knew that one could not possibly submit this question to any party without there being considerable divergence of opinion on it. As a matter of fact it was an extremely complicated question, and it was quite clear that it was not a party question. There were so many sides to it that it was absolutely impossible to expect unanimity on it. The position they were faced with in Parliament was equally difficult. He had noticed from some of the speeches that some hon. members would like at once to do away with the hundred thousand natives who were to-day imported into the Union from elsewhere. He could not possibly understand how anyone expected him to vote for such a suggestion. Of course to him it was clear that no matter where they went all the industries and interests in South Africa asked for more labour.

Hear, hear.

continuing, said that now they were asked by some people even to decrease that labour. That rather reminded him of the man who finding his blanket too short cut it at the top so as to make it longer at the bottom. (Laughter.) This, of course, would be a wrong policy for them to pursue. It was quite true that in South Africa they had depended to a great extent on the labour of the natives, but they must not forget that the country had been going on like that for a few hundred years, and that consequently it must take time to create a different state of affairs.

His short experience in the Government had taught him a few things and he would just like to refer to a few facts. Hon. members would remember that immediately after the war there had been a great scarcity of labour. The result had been that the first decision taken to solve the question had been to introduce 50,000 to 60,000 Chinese into the country. That was simply done because, as was said, there was not sufficient labour here and people did not want to close the mines because by doing so the whole development of the country would have been stopped. A good many people had been against that importation of Chinese, but they had argued “sooner let us introduce these people than stop development.” Today they heard speeches in which people said, “You have sent away the Chinese; now you must keep away the natives.” That was wrong. He had not heard one argument to convert him or to make him come to a decision that they must not introduce labour from outside the Union. Nobody could give him a single agricultural district in South Africa where time after time he was not asked to give assistance so that more labour might be secured. Not only the mining industry was concerned. The agricultural industry required labour just as well. During a recent visit to Natal he had received many deputations asking him to allow the importation of natives from North Africa so as to allow the sugar industry to be properly developed. Personally, he was in favour of more employment being given to whites, but the circumstances of the country must be taken into consideration. They could go to England or to the Continent and they would see that conditions there were altogether different to those that were prevailing here. There they found older nations and they saw a large part of the people of these countries had become labourers and these people remained labourers. As a matter of fact, they would see that one nation was practically divided into two classes, the one class he might call the higher class and the other the labouring class. He had always tried to maintain different conditions in this country, and he held that they must not do anything now to draw a distinction between the two classes of the white population of South Africa. To-day it was true they had poor people here, and these poor people did all kinds of work.

Well, experience had taught them that these people often got on well and even got rich and became leaders of men and leaders of thought. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, they should be careful not to place any obstacles in the way of the progress of these people He wished to make it clear, however, that he did not object to see more white labour in this country, but he held that it was a question of education and time only if they wished to achieve that. He was a farmer himself and he knew the difficulties of the farming population in their attempts to make both ends meet. If circumstances had to be altered now and farmers had to pay white labourers 5s. or 7s. a day, which would be demanded by them, an impossible position would be created, and the farmers would become bankrupt. There was absolute equality on the farms, and that was a custom for which they should be grateful. Personally, he had tried to employ more white men on his farm, and the disappointments which he had been faced with had been many. Men had thrown up their work without notice and had gone away; all this was simply because these people were not labourers. To-day the position was that every district was asking for more labour, was clamouring for more labour: naturally they wanted to help these districts. What would happen if they said now “no more natives are to be imported from outside the Union?” They would simply be forced to lay it down that the mines would not longer be allowed to recruit for native labour anywhere within the Union.

They had two great industries here. The one was the mining industry and the other was the agricultural industry. The one was a permanent industry and the other a temporary industry. Yet they were “brothers” and had to work together. The one created markets for the other and helped to develop the other. (Opposition cheers.) The one, as a matter of fact, was dependent upon the other. If they stopped the importation of natives they would be faced with another position. These hundred thousand natives would go back to their country, but they would not sit still. Industries would spring up which would compete very seriously with the industries of the Union. (Hear hear.) To-day he had received a deputation of farmers asking him to stop the Germans from recruiting Cape coloured boys for German South-West Africa, as farmers themselves were rendered short of labour through that. He was in favour of the employment of white labour, but this was not a matter which they could settle by one stroke of the pen.

Proceeding, General Botha asked hon. members why it was that they were not satisfied with the progress of the country. No matter which section of industry they looked at, they would see everywhere that within the last ten years great progress had been made. Diamonds, tin, coal, gold—in fact, every section had advanced considerably. Immediately after the war, conditions in regard to the agricultural industry had been very bad. Not a bag of corn could be had, and they had to import meat to a value of £500,000, whilst the farms were destroyed and the houses burnt down. But to-day they found an altogether different state of affairs; their exports were going ahead, and amounted to £4,000,000 in wool alone, and he maintained that in every sphere they were progressing and going in the right direction. (Hear, hear.) But there were other matters in regard to which they should get back to the conditions of pre-war days. In those days they saw that practically every farmer had a number of by owners on his farm, who lived there happily and contentedly. After the war, however, farmers were so poor that they could hardly support their own families, and the by owners had had to go. To-day the poor by owners of the past had drifted into the towns or on the railways, and were what was known as the poor white. Through no fault of their own, these people had been forced to leave the land. The war was responsible for their fall. It would be excellent if those people could be got back on the land, and farmers would do good work if they could take these men back. (Hear, hear.) Farming was becoming more and more scientific, and for that good labour was necessary. He quite agreed that they should encourage the employment of white labour in every sphere. Many difficulties were, however, connected with this. They had a good education system in this country—good, so far as it went. But he was convinced that their system did not go far enough. The children were taught up to Standards 4 or 6, and then they were finished. But, he asked, what did they know then? It was their duty to see to it that these children were taught something to help them along in the world, industrially or agriculturally. (Hear, hear.) That there was a lack in this respect was shown at Potchefstroom, where they found greybeards making the best of a chance to learn something. The economic conditions of the country required and demanded it that the children should be taught something to help them long in the walk of life they chose. The children should be able to look forward to larger salaries than 5s. a day, and should be taught good trades.

Many people were under the impression that on the mines every labourer could make his £1 per day. Naturally no farmer could pay his labourers at that rate, and probably did not earn it himself. This £1 per day was the attraction for many people; but on arriving on the mines a good many found that unskilled labourers could not command that price. There the men were then, often with their families. They had no money to get back with, and gradually circumstances forced them into the lower conditions. That state of affairs should be remedied. They had heard of young Afrikanders on the mines earning good pay, but it should be clear that not every man could make such a salary. Well, there were two things they required here; the first was labour and the second was capital. Every employer should be careful lest he put any obstacles in the way of these two essentials entering the country. He had no objection to the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull), but he certainly could not agree to the second part, because the principle of that second part was that no more natives should be imported. That was wrong. He thought the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West was more suitable. The report of the Select Committee could then be introduced in this House and be discussed on its merits. They had had many Commissions on this subject, and might have many more before it was settled. If they settled one part of the question some other would crop up. Above all, however, they must not add political colour to this problem. Hon. members on the cross benches took advantage of it to say: “You must get rid of the natives so that you can employ more whites.” Well, he only wished to say: “Take care. If only we go slowly and carefully we shall get the labour we require, but we must not go on party lines.” (Cheers.)

said all of them who had listened to this debate had felt, he thought, as he did, that they had had a most interesting discussion, but also a good deal of loose talk. It was rather refreshing to hear someone who had a sense of responsibility—as the Prime Minister had—talk a little sound common-sense. The question was one which must be undecided for a great many years to come. The reason he felt that the hon. member for Pretoria, East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) was on the right line when he suggested a Commission was this. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) had told them that a great many people had not read the voluminous reports of Commissions in the past. He (Sir L. Phillips) thought the right hon. gentleman was quite right. Therefore any Select Committee they might appoint, the members of which had not already the whole of these reports, would not be able to present the House with a report of any value during the present session. It would, therefore, be much wiser for Government to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, and have a small Commission, composed of the best men that could be got, not to galavant around the country, but to study the reports already framed, and to go into the question from every possible standpoint. He hoped that such a Commission would be able to lay before the House next session proposals which could probably be put into force next session. If the proposal of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, were accepted, it would advance us one stage in this important question. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. F. D. P. Chaplin) the other day made a most interesting speech from the standpoint of the mining industry, in the course of which he quoted certain figures. When he sat down, he was followed by another hon. member, who posed as an expert on this subject, and who lectured his hon. friend for having dealt with this question on an arithmetical formula. Having attacked the basis on which the hon. member for Germiston framed his belief that it was impossible to substitute white for black labour in the mines, the hon. member to whom he referred proceeded to quote figures to justify the doing away with black labour and replacing it by white. He (Sir L. Phillips) would read two short paragraphs upon the Minority Report of the Mining Industries Commission, of which the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) was a member. The paragraph (136) was as follows: “In the second place, I should like to point out that nearly all the evidence quoted in the Majority Report, in order to show that the costs of working with white labour would be no greater, or less, than those of working with coloured labour, is obtained by picking certain portions of the evidence of practical men, mine managers, and engineers, who had themselves come, on their whole experience, to exactly the opposite conclusion.” The second paragraph, taken from page 137 of the Majority Report, stated that Mr. Upton, the manager of the City and Suburban, said the stoking was done by six white men. A further passage of Mr. Upton’s evidence, which was not quoted, showed that, in addition to the six white men, he was employing thirty natives in the boiler-house. If they were to base their conclusions from such reports as to what they could do with the mining industry, it would be a sorry day for South Africa. He stood for the Commission proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria, East, not as a party question, but because there was a Congress in Johannesburg which discussed the whole question, and his reading of the newspaper led him to believe that that Congress dealt with the subject, not with the object of making party capital out of it, but with the idea of doing some service to the people of South Africa in the future. If they had a good Commission, not a large one, not a Commission going out into South Africa to seek evidence which would fit in with its own pet views, but one that would come to the House with suggestions, not for the settlement of the question, but with suggestions that would in certain specific directions enable more white men to be employed in the industries that existed to-day, they would be taking a really practical step. He could not find himself in agreement with the hon. member for Victoria West, who he thought upon that particular question would be well advised to follow the course suggested by the Premier.

said that in the course of his remarks the hon. member for Albany said that the Labour members wanted the biggest possible wages for the least possible work.

I said the House drew that conclusion.

said the hon. member evidently came to that conclusion from their attitude. If even the working men did take up that point of view, it could not be wondered at in face of the well known fact that it was the settled policy of employers to get the utmost possible fraction of work out of the employees for the least possible amount of wages. He charged the employers the world over with that so far as they were able to do it. It was only the resistance the workers were able to offer both industrially and politically that stopped them going further. In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Yeoville had given away the view from which the great majority in that House examined that question. The hon. member for Zululand had shown pretty clearly the attitude of the minds of nine-tenths, or even a larger proportion, of the members of that House on the question. When they approached a white labour or a black labour problem it was purely from the point of view of the employer. The hon. member for Zululand was extremely anxious for an investigation to take place in regard to the question of the supply of labour for the various industries of the country. He (Mr. Andrews) could quite understand that view, and that of other hon. members. It was from the point of view of dividends and profits. If hon. members had the right to examine these proposals from their own interests surely the Labour members had the same right. Of course they were members of Parliament at present, but in a few months, or a year or so, if they ceased to be members, unlike many other members in that House, they would have to go back to their trades. Therefore they claimed to speak in that House as wage-earners, and had the right on every opportunity to put forward their views. The hon. member for Victoria West said that the people who talked most about the dignity of labour had the least to do with it. The members of the cross benches could agree with him, for they knew too well what labour was, and when the hon. member made that statement he was convicted out of his own mouth. The hon. member for Tembuland constantly put forward the view before the House that the members sitting on the cross benches were always advocating prevention, or the gradual curtailment, of the importation of indentured Kafir labour into this country, because they wanted to take away the living from the natives. He always argued as if they (the Labour members) were enemies of the natives, and wanted to do them some injury, and he was always a friend of the natives, who by inducing them to come into the mines and elsewhere was doing so purely and simply for the interest of the natives themselves, so that they may be raised in the scale of civilisation, taught the doctrines of Christianity, and so on. That was what the hon. member would have the House believe, but the occupants of those benches who, advocating as they did, the stoppage of the importation of the natives from their own territories believed they were acting in the interests of the white men of South Africa, in the interests of the whole population of the Union, and also in the interests of the natives themselves.

The hon. Minister of Justice had told them what magnificent results had followed the attempt made by the Railway Department to employ white labour, and while he did not say the hon. Minister wished to mislead the House, one might have gathered from the remarks of the hon. Minister that the number of white labourers employed by the Railway Administration in South Africa was on the increase. But figures did not bear that out, for, according to the General Manager’s report, there were 146 fewer white labourers than there were a year before. There were 52 Indians fewer, and there was an increase of 1,466 in the number of natives employed on the railway. So much for the policy of the Railway Department in employing white men in the place of natives. In that they seemed to be going back rather than forward. Men were being recruited for the railways, not to work in unskilled capacities indefinitely, but simply in the ordinary course of the working of the railway administration; they would be taught certain trades or callings. From cleaners they would become firemen, and from firemen would develop into drivers. They were told that white men were being constantly recruited for the railways—

At this point the hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to.

The debate was adjourned until Wednesday, 19th inst.