From adult coloured men and women resident in Murraysburg, praying for the total prohibition of the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor, except medicinally or sacramentally, to any coloured person within the Union; and similar petitions from George, Ceres, De Aar, Albertina, Amalienstein and Zoar (district Ladismith), Sutherland, and Oudtshoorn.

From W. Pescod and 36 others, residents in Kimberley, 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.

moved, as an unopposed motion: That Order of the Day No. II.—Adjourned Debate on motion for introduction of General Pass and Squatters Bill—be discharged, and set down for Wednesday, the 2nd April.

Agreed to.

Report by Government Research Bacteriologist (Leprosy) on the necessity of segregation in relation to leprosy, etc., and the suitability of Robben Island as a place of detention.

Further correspondence relating to the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and the Portuguese Government.

in moving the second reading of the Appropriation (Part) Bill, said that, as he explained on a previous occasion, the sum on account that was asked for now was in respect of both revenue and loan accounts. The amount, although it appeared large, would not provide for more than two months’ expenditure—that was, April and May. The loan expenditure for the year would be almost six and a half millions. If the money were not taken now there was every likelihood that there would have to be second Supplementary Estimates.

said he could not vote for the second reading as the amount was much larger than was the case last year. The estimated expenditure had been put down at half a million per month, which was very much in excess of what had’ been voted in previous years.

expressed surprise that so large an amount was being asked for. The average expenditure, he said, for last year was £500,000 per month. As a matter of fact, £3,000,000 would be ample for all requirements. If the hon. Minister would reduce it to that figure the Bill would go through without delay.

moved an amendment to delete the word “now” and add: “When the Government has laid before this House a satisfactory plan for providing work at standard wages for the large number of citizens who are at present unable to obtain employment.” He and those with him, he said, were driven to move this amendment in order to draw the attention of the House and the country generally to the increase of non-employment amongst the white population. They would be accused of unworthy motives in bringing forward the amendment, but was it not a question of sufficient importance to demand their attention? He was not making a wild statement when he said that unemployment was on the increase. The hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours had stated that 706 applications for unskilled labour, 163 applications for skilled, and 7,735 applications from others for work were received on the 1st March. Of these only something like 460 were engaged. If they studied the figures of the Union Labour Bureau they would find a considerable increase in the number applying for situations. They had to remember, too, that for every one who applied for work there were three or four that did not. Some would be ready to say that these were ne’er-do-wells, that they probably drank. That might be so, but these people were as much to be pitied as blamed. A member had said that no one need starve. Of course he need not if he chose to avail himself of all the avenues which were open to obtain bread. The member for Victoria West had spoken of the Rand as a university of crime. He (Mr. Andrews) ventured to say that one of the contributory causes was the lack of employment. It was very interesting to himself and his friends to hear the lion. Minister of Justice, and other hon. members, make the statement from time to time that this country is enjoying a period of unprecedented prosperity. One of the evidences assigned was that the number of motor cars imported showed a large increase. Well, they knew what kind of people used motor cars. It was certainly not a man who earned his 3s. 6d. per day. He also wished to draw attention to a statement uttered by the Minister of Railways arid Harbours, with much gusto and glee, that the Railway authorities were doing their duty in finding employment for an increased number of whites. There were, the Minister said, 1,575 more white employees on the South African Railways than was the case 12 months ago. But the House would not be forgetful of the fact that a considerable increase of mileage had taken place during the past year, and therefore a corresponding percentage of hands was employed. What they wanted to know was how many coloured men were employed, then it would be possible to tell whether there had been a genuine increase of white labour.

drew the hon. member’s attention that his remarks were not being addressed to the subject of the Bill.

said he thought that he was keeping within the limits of the amendment, but he would bow to the ruling of Mr. Speaker.

said that he had not seen the amendment. The hon. member ought to know that he could not anticipate a motion that was under discussion. There could not be two debates on the same question. Such an amendment would be out of order.

said there was no reference to white labour in the amendment.

said that the hon. member was anticipating a debate that stood adjourned,

I would submit—

I am discussing this matter with the hon. member for Georgetown. Continuing, he said that the motion he referred to had been discussed on three or four occasions and stood on the order paper that day.

submitted that the motion to which Mr. Speaker referred called for the appointment of a Commission to inquire as to the direction in which the field of white labour could be extended. There was nothing therein drawing the attention of the House and the country to the need for the Government taking immediate steps to relieve the large amount of unemployment that existed in the country.

pointed out that there were amendments to the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, which covered the amendment that had been brought forward by the hon. member for Georgetown.

said one would have thought that on a Money Bill it was always in order to draw attention to the grievances of the people, and if there was one grievance more than another that called for immediate action on the part of the Government it was the grievance of white men who were unable to live in this country by the results of their own industry.

said he was bound to point out that the hon. member for Jeppe had taken another course. When the debate on white labour was in progress it would be the appropriate time for raising this question. The other motion must be disposed of first.

said that he rose with very great reluctance for the ruling which Mr. Speaker had given was very far-reaching. He had no sympathy with the amendment, but at the same time this was an important point. He thought it was a cardinal rule of their parliamentary system that before money was granted to the Crown one had the right to discuss the grievances of the people in any possible way, and though he did not intend to take part in the discussion, or wish to prolong the discussion, he thought that this was a privilege which belonged to a member of Parliament. He hoped they would excuse him for interfering, but this was a very serious matter. Mr. Speaker and he over and over again in an adjoining chamber had stood up and fought for this privilege to discuss the grievances of the people.

said there were certain formalities that must be observed, and when a substantative motion was before the House, that must be disposed of before an amendment touching that motion could be discussed.

called attention to the terms of the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, and the terms of the amendments upon that motion. No reference was made in any of these to the existing state of affairs in regard to unemployment. The amendment of his hon. friend insisted that the Government should lay before Parliament a scheme for relieving the present unemployment before money was granted He submitted, with the utmost respect for the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that this was a separate question to the one that had been raised by the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, and succeeding amendments.

said he thought that it was his duty to point out to the hon. member for Georgetown that he was following on the lines of speeches made on a motion which had already been debated in part. Such a speech would be appropriate on the occasion of the discussion of the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, East.

said that he was sorry they had not the support of the right hon. member for Victoria West, and added that he had come to that House in spite of the efforts of hon. members on both sides of the House. They did not expect any sympathy. They did not want it. They wanted justice. They were there to demand justice, and the time would come when they would achieve justice for the people whom they represented. They represented people who had not a friend in the country—the despised stiff, the man who was out of employment. Continuing, he said that hon. members who represented the working-class, and did not bring up these matters before the House, were remiss in their duty. They had heard about remission of taxation, and they had heard of savings on this rate and on that. This accounted to a large extent for the unemployment to which he referred.

Will the hon. member bring up the amendment?

seconded the amendment. He said he was not surprised at the cold silence that had followed the amendment moved by the hon. member for Georgetown.

A question had been put to the Minister of Railways as to how many men had applied for employment on the railways up to March 1 this year. The reply was over 8,000. It was most astounding and most appalling, being nothing more or less than a national scandal. To think that members of that House would sit silently by when a question of this description came up, and that not one man would raise his voice with a view of having something done to meet the situation. The view had been held for many years that if a man were down and could not get work, there was something radically wrong with him. That old-fashioned idea was being rapidly exploded. Under our present methods of production, many men must be thrown out of employment. The Minister of Railways and Harbours said that there were over 8,000 men who had made written application for employment on the railways. Did they not think this was a disgrace to this country, and that something ought to be done? What could the Government do? The Government were laying down a policy, as far as the railways were concerned, which was going to increase unemployment. They were establishing the piecework system on the railways, which, as Mr. Beatty recorded only last year, meant that sooner or later 25 per cent. of the men would be retrenched! What could the Government, do to decrease the number of unemployed? They could work men less hours than they did now. Men were being employed in some cases 12, 14, and 16 hours a day instead of eight. Why had the Government not taken steps to open up and work some of the mines at their disposal? Unless the Government were prepared to make a statement, there was going to be considerable opposition set up on those benches, until the Government did make a statement and lay down some policy. The questions which now seemed to engage attention between the two sides of the House seemed to be designed to make the rich men richer and ignored the poor. He would ask the Government if they had no responsibility towards these poor men, and if they were the guardians of the rich men only?

said he was one of those who resented these attacks made upon members of that House to the effect that they were callous and indifferent to the difficulties of the working classes.

Show something different.

said he wanted to bring it home to the hon. members on the cross-benches that there was a way of getting things through the House of Assembly and a way of blocking things in the House, and until those gentlemen who sat on the cross-benches learnt how to conduct business in this House, the probability was that they would not receive that attention which perhaps the importance of the question demanded. What he complained of was that advantage was taken of a Partial Appropriation Bill to bring forward a question which, they said, was of the utmost importance, and a question that could only be dealt with on the production of statistics, but, instead of putting the House in possession of information upon this question, they sprang on the House a motion of this kind. Not content with that, they attacked every member of the House for being indifferent to the interests of the working classes. He hoped that the members on the cross-benches would take thought and mend their ways a little, and understand that hon. members on those benches were not to be dragooned into listening to speeches or being influenced by them.

said that this question was apparently a new question to the hon. member for Queen’s Town, and if the hon. member had addressed remarks to hon. members on those benches, he might take note of the speeches coming from his own benches. The proper way to bring up a matter like this was on the Appropriation Bill. (Labour cheers.) He was surprised at the silence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on this point.

They were quite aware that probably no vital decision would be come to on the motion for extending the field for white employment. They knew perfectly well that the motion by the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was one of those kites sent up merely to shelve the question.

You are blocking discussion.

The only desire of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was to see some Commissions appointed. The hon. member was proceeding to address the House in indignant terms, when

“ Not even when I started you on the Village Main Reef? ”

Ye Gods. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, has the most vivid imagination of any man in the country.

You asked for my assistance. I have some letters now.

I asked for your assistance! The hon. member’s assistance was a most dangerous thing, as anyone will tell you. His assistance is available when what you are attempting is fashionable, and is withdrawn when trouble comes. If the hon. member has my letters, I hope he will remember the disgraceful procedure of quoting from them garbled extracts which he strung together. He should at all events have followed the course of a man of honour and let me see whether he was quoting correctly.

Did you publish the Tarbutt letter? Yes; after he was dead.

That is an absolute falsehood. The hon. member is too fond of these falsehoods.

The hon. member is not entitled to say that any member of this House is fond of falsehoods. (Laughter.)

I will withdraw that. Am I entitled to say that any hon. member in this House has a vivid imagination who says that when I quoted from that letter the writer was dead. I say that statement is a falsehood.

A private letter.

The hon. member is a pricked bubble. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said there was an idea in certain quarters that it was to the benefit of the country that there should be a reservoir of unemployed. The Government, by its actions, was creating a state of things which is increasing the amount of unemployment. Had the Minister of Mines done anything to bring pressure on those mining companies which were not working their properties? Unemployment would be increased by the deferred payment of the wages of mine boys on the Rand from the Mozambique Province. If the House did not think the matter worth discussing, the Labour Party at any rate quitted itself of its duty.

The amendment was negatived.

called for a division.

put the question: That the word “now,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

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

declared the amendment negatived.

The original motion was then agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage to-morrow.

stated that when this debate was adjourned the question before the House was a motion by Sir Percy Fitzpatrick: That in the opinion of this House the Government should take into consideration the desirability of appointing a Commission to inquire in what direction and spheres of labour and by what means the field of employment for Europeans can be extended throughout the Union. Upon which the following amendments had been moved, viz.:

By Mr. Creswell: To omit all the words after “this House,” and to substitute: “(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 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.”

By Mr. Merriman: 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.”

By Mr. Haggar, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell: 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.”

By Mr. Hull: To omit all 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.”

By Mr. Clayton: To omit all the words after “House,” and to substitute: “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.”

said the idea was prevalent that his intention was to obstruct the passage of the Bill. He could assure the House that this was not so. There was, he was afraid, some danger that the number of amendments on the paper might cause the main issue to be lost sight of. That issue was to find out by what means the sphere of European labour could be increased. They who were in favour of increasing the volume of white labour in this country could not expect to get much sympathy from the hon. member for Tembuland, because he and others with him were interested in supplying another class of labour. They had been accused by the member for Tembuland of being enemies to the native, but he would like to make it perfectly clear, if it was really necessary to do so, that their point of view was not only likely to benefit the white workers, but also the natives. They had always been opposed to the principle and policy of breaking up the native reserves. They held that the native was safer, happier, and better off if left to himself and his own institutions instead of being turned adrift and becoming acquainted with the vices of the white man. The hon. member for Germiston also agreed, to the extent that he wanted to find suitable employment for white labour which was quite different from the point of view taken by the honourable Minister of Justice, who said that until the white worker was prepared to accept mere subsistence wage, or words to that effect, there was no hope of him doing the work of this country. He (the hon. Minister) then went on to state that if this was brought about, the general employment of white men would increase the burdens of the ratepayer. They were always hearing about the ratepayer. If anything was wanted for the farmer the taxpayer was always brought up as having to be considered. It was the same when mining matters were being discussed, and if anything was wanted for the workmen they were still told that it would affect the position of the taxpayer. He (Mr. Andrews) supposed every person was more or less a taxpayer, but he thought that if anyone had to bear the burden of taxation more than another it was the working classes. The member for Germiston also stated that the mines would employ white labour if it was satisfactory. He (Mr. Andrews) supposed what was meant by that was, that the white man was not so cheap and docile as the native, and that he was apt to join those wicked labour organisations. (Laughter.) It was for these reasons that the native was such an unsatisfactory factor in the labour market of this country. They (the Labour Party) had no love or sympathy for such so-called satisfactory workmen It had been stated that the white man is no better at unskilled work than the native, but he had a letter from a working man who knew what underground work was, stating that he was prepared to * submit to a test that he could do more work than the average Kafir could do. It would be replied to this that if one white man could do the work of three Kafirs he would only be payed their wages, which would amount to about £6 per month. Anyone who had seen gangs of white men and gangs of Kafirs at work knew that it required more of the latter to lift a steel rail than the former. Mr. Andrews then went on to remark that it was not the working classes that ran the two political parties in this country. They knew in South Africa, and it was just the same in the British Isles, public opinion was manufactured. The Press of this country was run by the capitalists, and its politics were written to order. It was small wonder, seeing what happened, that public opinion took such a wrong view on the question. He thought that the hon. member for Fordsburg had a mental reservation when he spoke of public opinion. Although the progress of truth was extremely slow it was gradually— he might say rapidly—spreading. The hon. member for Langlaagte had a solution for the whole business, but he did not think that that hon. member had studied the economic conditions of the country.

He is honest.

I do not doubt that. Continuing, he said that the Minister of Justice raised the old bogey when the hon. member for Jeppe brought (forward his amendment. The Press suggested that the Labour Party wanted a revolutionary change in the system of labour in this country on a certain date. Nobody wanted anything of this sort.

in replying on the debate, said that it was now six weeks since the motion was introduced, and there was that much less time for them to do anything. He would point out at the outset that the reason why he asked for a Commission, instead of a Select Committee, was that he wanted something done. They were now up against the Easter vacation of the House, with the House on the point of going into Committee of Supply on the Estimates, and there was very little prospect of a long session or much time. He wondered whether it was worth while him making a detailed reply on the debate. He did not know that the matter had been taken seriously, and hon. members had showed so much determination to head it off that he did not think that they would get anything done. At any rate, he would do his best. The hon. member for Barberton (said the speaker), dealing with the amendments that had been placed before the House, had seized upon a statement made by the Minister of Native Affairs, in which the Minister clearly indicated that it was the policy of the Government to put a definite stop to the importation of labour from outside the Union. The hon. member for Barberton wanted to bind the Government down to that. But, since then, the Prime Minister had given a revised version of the Government’s policy, so that he (the speaker) really did not know where he was. Then the hon. member for Zululand had introduced an amendment, which had the merit of being of a most comprehensive character. But that hon. member’s proposal widened the field, and he was afraid that if it were carried into effect, the main object of the motion which he had placed before the House would be lost sight of. He did not go so far as to say that the Government should deal with the needs of every industry in South Africa. It was a very good proposal, but it lost sight of the object in view. He was afraid that he would not be able to accept such a, wide proposal.

Sir Percy went on to say that, in the first place, he would like to correct one statement. He had never said that this was a constructive measure. What he said was that it was a motion with a constructive intention and aim. They proposed to find out some way of substituting or extending the field of employment for white labour by opening up new fields, and not by cutting off the supply of imported native labour. The right hon. the member for Victoria West said that if they wanted to put this matter off for a couple of years, they should have a Commission. He said that the pigeon-holes were full of information. But the argument as adduced against the appointment of a Commission was just as strong as against the appointment of a Select Committee. If all this information was available in pigeon-holes, why had nothing been done? Reference had been made by two Ministers to what they were pleased to call the origin of this motion. But suppose this did originate at the Unionist Congress at Johannesburg a few months ago, was that anything against it? He would like to say about this Congress that it was held with open doors. That was why they knew what had taken place. In the Nationalist Congress they bad no opportunity of knowing what took place. The Minister of Native Affairs said that what was wanted was education— not a Commission. He (Sir Percy) agreed that education was wanted, but he thought it ill became the Minister of Native Affairs, sitting where he did, to fling that gibe across the House at them. Why should he have imported the reference to Dreadnoughts, except deliberately to cause ill feeling? Where was the evidence of sincerity in these things? It seemed to him that there was no real desire to settle this question at all

Hear, hear.

said that he did not feel very hopeful about it. With the exception of two speakers, nobody had referred to the field for the employment of women in this country. Was it not serious? He had forgotten to mention that in the town of Bethlehem they had made an attempt in educating women and providing honourable and useful employment for them, where they could earn their own living. They had had a small contribution from the member for Smithfield. He confessed that when, in introducing this motion, he made reference to segregation, he did so deliberately, in the hope that the member for Smithfield would get up and make his contribution to this question seriously. What they got was merely this, solemnly given to them, “You must settle the native question first.” Did they ever see anybody moving in a circle like that? If the hon. member had a solution, he should give it to the House. They had got nothing. Then they had the Prime Minister dealing with the question of native labour supply from the East Coast. He disposed of it in this way: that, in order to improve their labour position, they were going, first of all, to turn out the native labourers from the East Coast. As far as he (Sir Percy) saw, that was imperfect. They had the right hon. member for Victoria West giving notice of the constitution of a Select Committee before even consulting the mover of the original motion. As a matter of courtesy, when one proposed an amendment of that sort one went to the mover and said, “I am going to propose this.” The proposal might not have been intended to cause a breakdown, but was it not calculated to do so? It would have been much more reasonable to have talked things over with the original mover and to endeavour to get people’s assistance. The fact of the matter was that there was no solution to be found that way at all.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Van der Riet) had pointed out that this was not a Rand question. He (Sir Percy) had endeavoured to keep it within the right proportions so that he should not be charged with viewing South Africa from the top of the Stock Exchange. (Hear, hear.) He knew that the Rand was not South Africa, but some people argued that it was, and that did harm to South Africa and a lot of undeserved harm to the Rand, for there were people there just as capable of taking a proper view of the matter as any other people in South Africa. The warning given by the hon. member for Albany with regard to poor whites might well be pondered over. The hon. members for Jansenville, Oudtshoorn, and Calvinia had also uttered warnings. Did the House really hope for anything like a serious contribution to the solution of the question from a Select Committee in the time now at their disposal and under the circumstances under which they operated? Everybody knew’ it was impossible. Do not let them make a farce of the thing. Let the thing stand over, but do not let it go to a Select Committee and make a farce of it. Someone had mentioned the name of the Rev. Mr. Marchand as an example of the kind of man who might be on this Commission, and the hon. member for Victoria West had stated that the Government pigeon holes were filled with reports on this subject by Mr. Marchand. The people who came from other parts of South Africa were not familiar with everything that had been done at the Cape, and they were prepared to contribute their intelligence and patriotism towards a solution of the question. Would it not be of advantage to have one or two other Commissioners comparing notes and bringing forward a practical proposal?

He could not understand how a Minister could say, as the Minister of Native Affairs had said, that we knew everything on this question. He could not understand how the Prime Minister could listen to that, when only last night the Prime Minister let out an appalling statement of Government policy, or rather want of policy. Was it not possible that a Commission going impartially into the subject, might find out something rotten at the root of things? Might the Commission not ask why South Africa did not supply land to settlers? The answer was that they could not get land from private owners because they wanted £30 a morgen for it. Yet we went on drifting, and it was perfectly true that the white population was not developing in such proportion as it ought, even only to maintain the position it occupied to-day. (Hear, hear.) The most important proposal submitted among the amendments was the one which stipulated for the cessation of imported labour from the East (’oast. That had been dealt with many times over. It was dealt with by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin, from the practical point of view. The proposal to stop the importation of labour from the East Coast meant that they were prepared to cut off a certainty and to chance getting a substitute.

The hon. member (continuing) said the finding of the Commission on this subject would be very difficult for all of us—(hear, hear)—in every position of life someone would find something very salt to swallow. But the longer we put off trying to find a solution, the worse and the more unpleasant the solution would be for all of us, and perhaps we might not be able to find the solution at all.

Continuing, Sir Percy said the argument was used that by shortening the supply of native labour there would be a demand for more white labour. But what class of white labour? Because the new workers would require to be single men, who would be compelled to work under conditions that would not assist in building up the manhood of a country. (Hear, hear.) He would again ask hon. members who talked about this kind of labour being done by white men in other countries, to remember that there was no coloured labour there. Men took up that class of work as a rule because they had to do something at once, and could not afford to wait until something more agreeable presented itself. “The native is here, and we have to deal with him, and that is why large numbers of European labourers will not come out to this country of their own accord,” said Sir Percy. They would have to import what white labour was wanted. (An HON. MEMBER: No; there are thousands here now.) They had tried this white labour question on the Village Main Reef, and the average time made was 21 days, and the reason alleged for the failure was the shortage of men. He did not think the thing was impossible at some future period, perhaps, but the conditions to-day were much more against it than they were some time ago. A great deal of emphasis was laid on the fact that if they could transfer their mines to California by balloon they could be made to pay with white labour. “ Of course they could be made to pay if there were balloons big enough to take them,” said the speaker, amid laughter. He did not think it was necessary to go further into the question, because, as he had said before, he did not want to regard it as a Witwatersrand mine question. It was not the first time they had heard it was possible to work mines solely by white labour. He was in the House of Commons when Mr. Winston Churchill announced that a new era was dawning in South Africa—that Chinese labour was to be ousted and white labour take its place. Mr. J. B. Robinson, continued Mr. Churchill, had said it was possible, and he was going to run one of his mines in order to show the public that it could be done exclusively by white men. Further, that he (Mr. Robinson) had engaged the services of Mr. F. H. P. Creswell to control the mine. “In justice to the hon. member for Jeppe, I don’t believe he ever had the offer, or that there was the slightest intention that he should,” said the speaker. But somebody was playing a nice game when they could get Mr. J. B. Robinson to make a statement like that. (Laughter.) The gentleman was not Sir J. B. Robinson then, but he was a fortnight later. (Loud laughter.) He believed the Government had been trying the experiment at Cyphergat under favourable conditions. Had they succeeded? Then again they had to remember they were dealing with a question which embraced not one mine only but all the mines, and in addition the agricultural labour problem. He believed that the movement was going to be a slow process, and that was why they should seriously consider what they were about to do. He believed that in the extension of the field of employment for white men there would have to be a considerable change in the policy of the Government with regard to the acquirement of working land for the people, the Minister of Lands had said that his difficulty was to get suitable land. It was true that in one case they had been able to secure a narrow belt which was watered, and on this a very limited number of people had been placed. But it was of very little use to secure land for a small number of people, and it was clearly the duty of the Government to make what land it possessed cultivable wherever possible by means of irrigation. If the Government owned it, it would go for a hundred miles along the bank, and 50 miles inland as well. Most earnestly and seriously he asked hon. members to consider the question on its merits, and to decide to give an answer in favour of the appointment of this Commission. Taking the holiday into consideration, April and a portion of May, he supposed, would be the only time they were going to have. That time would be given up practically entirely to the business of the Government. The Railway Committee which was appointed a short time ago had not yet met, and could not meet. A Select Committee was going to be appointed, if the motion was carried, and with all respect he hoped to be excused from sitting on it, because he did not want to take a hand in a farce; nothing could be done, and nothing was intended to be done. They should appoint the Commission; let them be conscientious men who would get through the work as quickly as they could, with a view to getting a solution of that very difficult question, men who would give a report which would be of some value for the money. They in that House were very largely represented by men with good prospects, many of whom were land-owners. Hon. members were supposed to be above the average in intelligence and in patriotism, they certainly have a great deal more responsibility than the people whom they were there to represent. Something should be done for those who had no land or good prospects, and when they had dealt with the men they should do something for the women. That was a matter which had been overlooked. The Commission would deal with the question particularly from the point of view of the women. He hoped the hon. members would support the Commission so that they could have something of practical value.

said the question before the House was the motion moved by the hon. member for Pretoria, East; certain amendments had been moved, and it was moved to consider the amendments of Mr. Creswell. Mr. Hull, and Mr. Clayton, that all the words after “House” in the original motion be omitted for the purpose of adding other words. He put the question, that all the words after “House,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion; He declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, with the following result:

intimated his desire to withdraw his motion.

That withdrawal was agreed to.

put the substitution of the words proposed by the hon. member for Jeppe, and declared the “Noes” had it.

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

then put the substitution of the words proposed by the hon. member for Barberton, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

then put Mr. Clayton’s amendment, which was negatived.

then put the question: That the remaining words after “That,” in the original motion, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, which was negatived, and the words were accordingly omitted.

then put the substitution of the words proposed by Mr. Merriman in lieu thereof, and the “Ayes” were declared to have it.

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

asked the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) if he now desired to move the following contingent notice of motion standing in his name: If the motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on European employment and labour conditions in South Africa be agreed to that the committee consist of Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, Messrs. Oosthuisen, Alberts, Fichardt, Fawcus, Wessels. Sir Lionel Phillips, Mr. Creswell, and the Minister of Native Affairs, the mover to be specially exempted from service thereon.

said that he desired to move the motion with this alteration, that the latter portion, “the mover to be specially exempted from service thereon,” be omitted, and the words, “and the mover” be substituted.

said it would be necessary for the hon. member to give notice of the alteration. He would now put the question that the number of the committee be nine.

seconded.

moved that it be ten.

seconded.

Do I understand that the hon. member moves that the number of the committee be ten, the names of whom are on the paper?

I am coming to the names presently. We are dealing now with the number.

moved that the number of the committee be eleven.

seconded.

Mr. Meyler’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Currey’s amendment was carried.

said that before the motion was put he would like to refer to the extraordinary action of the right hon. member for Victoria West in proposing hon. members as members of Select Committees long before he had asked their permission. The procedure adopted in this matter by the right hon. member who was supposed to be a leader on such subjects, was an extraordinary one. In the first place, with an important motion on the paper, the right hon. gentleman prejudiced the position and tried to prejudice the debate by a notice in anticipation, stating that if such a course was adopted he would propose that certain names should be brought under review. Such an action was an extraordinary one.

It is done every day.

Hear, hear.

asked if he was to understand from Mr. Speaker that it was an every-day practice for an hon. member to give notice regarding the appointment of a Select Committee without adopting the ordinary course of asking hon. members if they were prepared to serve on it. It was because he took such strong exception to that practice that he desired to draw attention to it. He would call attention to rule 220, which stated that every member intending to move the appointment of a Select Committee should endeavour to ascertain previously whether each member he proposed to serve on the committee would give his attendance thereto. He did not think any number had a right to depart from the rules laid down— (Opposition cheers)—and he protested in the strongest possible manner against the attitude adopted in this matter by one to whom the House should look for guidance.

said he was sorry the hon. member should have made himself slightly ridiculous, because his own lieutenant had adopted a precisely similar course in regard to the appointment of a Select Committee to report upon the present methods of segregation for leprosy. He (Mr. Merriman) hardly knew of a committee being moved for without the names being put on the paper. He was sorry that he omitted to consult the hon. member for Pretoria, East, but the fact was that the hon. member was not always in the House.

If any hon. member has not been asked, it is quite competent for him to ask to be excused from serving on the committee.

said the right hon. gentleman stated that he did not ask him to serve, because he was not always in the House. As a matter of fact, he (Sir Percy) had not been absent from start to finish of the session, except on the opening day. He was never consulted, and with all respect he begged to ask that he be excused from serving on the committee.

explained that each hon. member whose name was mentioned in the Select Committee that he proposed to move for, had been asked if he would serve on it.

said he wanted to know if it were competent for any hon. member to depart from rule 220. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, had stated that he was never asked to serve on the committee, yet rule 220 said that he should be asked before his name was put on the paper. Under those circumstances was the motion in order?

I beg to withdraw from the committee for the same reason as my hon. friend.

I believe my name was put down before I was actually consulted, but my dignity is not so tender. (Laughter.)

That will leave seven names. The right hon. gentleman will give notice of three more names.

The motion, as amended, was thereupon agreed to.

That Messrs. Oosthuisen, Alberts, Fichardt, Fawcus, Wessels, Creswell and the Minister of Native Affairs be members of the committee.

seconded.

Agreed to

stated that when this debate was adjourned the question before the House was a motion by Mr. Creswell: That in the opinion of this House the contract existing between the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and the Government of Mozambique for the payment in Mozambique of part of the wages of natives recruited in that territory is detrimental to the interest of the people of South Africa and should be vetoed by the Government. Upon which the following amendments had been moved, viz.:

By Mr. Mentz: In line 5, after “Africa,’ to insert “and in particular of the natives concerned.”

By Mr. Nathan: In line 4, after “territory,” to omit all the words to the end of the motion, and to substitute “and all matters incidental thereto be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for consideration and report. ”

said in view of the fact that motions of this kind concerned the whole country, it was his duty to say a few words on the matter, and warn the Government to be as careful as possible. He could not understand the attitude of hon. members on the cross benches. In the time of the Chinese, the Labour members co-operated with the Government to get rid of this form of labour. Subsequently other labour had naturally to be provided. What did hon. members now want? He could not see that there was anything wrong in the contract concluded by the mines. Why was it unfair that part of the natives’ wages should be paid in Portuguese territory? It was said to be unfair to the shopkeepers, but were the Government to take such drastic action as that proposed in the interests of a few persons? Many of the boy’s acquired miners’ phthisis, and it was not more than fair that a third of their wages should be paid in Mozambique. Before Union, the Cape Government had an agreement with the mines that part of the wages of the natives should be paid in the Cape. Why should the Portuguese not be allowed to protect its subjects? A number of the natives died on the mines, and surely it was only right that some provision was made for the dependents of the natives. The attitude of the labour members seemed to aim at stopping importation of natives to the mines; this was a policy in conflict with the best interests of the country, and if hon. members were acquainted with the conditions in regard to labour for agricultural purposes they would not talk as they had done. Instead of attempting to tamper with the importation of natives, it should be encouraged. Mr. Alberts went on to say that they had no reason to think that the Portuguese authorities would not deal honestly with the natives. He thought it was not so much the love for the natives which had made hon. members speak as they had done. He expressed regret at the amendments which had been moved by the Minister of Native Affairs. What could a Select Committee do in such a matter?

was pleased that this matter was to be referred to a Select Committee, and failed to understand the arguments of the last speaker. The dealers referred to by the hon. member for Standerton paid £60,000 a year to the Treasury. Why should they plead on behalf of the Government of Portugal?

here intervened, saying that the hon. member had already spoken on the main question and should now confine himself to the amendment.

went on to say that a very large number of people were concerned in this matter, and he held that the trade of Johannesburg would suffer very greatly if the terms of the contract were carried out. He had presented a petition signed by 10,600 people on the subject, which he hoped would also be sent to the Select Committee. What would happen if another contract providing for wages to be paid in another country was concluded? He hoped the Labour party would support the amendment.

said that after some reflection on the subject he had come to the conclusion that the contract was in the interest of the mine boys. As a rule, they wasted all their money on the mines, and that was wrong and ought to be prevented. Even in the case of Kafirs belonging to the Union the youths left their parents for years on end, and when they returned they were in most cases sick and without a penny in their pockets.

put the question that all the words after “ territory ” proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion, and declared that the “ Noes ” had it.

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

then put the words proposed by Mr. Nathan in lieu thereof, which were agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to, viz.: That in the opinion of this House the contract existing between the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and the Government of Mozambique for the payment in Mozambique of part of the wages of natives recruited in that territory and all matters incidental thereto be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for consideration and report.