from J. H. Louwrens, of Humansdorp, formerly Senior Sheep Inspector, who has served continuously under the Governments of the Cape of Good Hope and the Union for over 25 years, praying that on his retirement he may be granted a pension, or for other relief.

from Frances M. Willmott, Bessie Gibbon, and N. Eastwood, of Durban, who have been engaged in teaching in Government-aided schools in Natal since 1900, 1906, and 1903 respectively, but who have forfeited their pension rights through having failed to register their names in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1910 Natal), praying for consideration and relief.

brought up the report of Committee of Ways and Means on the proposed increase of Excise and Customs duties.

It was agreed to consider the recommendations (which will be found in the report of yesterday’s debate).

moved the adoption of the report.

seconded.

asked whether he would be in order in moving an amendment to clause 3, as he desired to raise the question of the manufacture of acetic acid?

The hon. member must see that this is the adoption stage which is being taken now, and that no notice has been given of an amendment.

said he would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he had looked into the letter which he (Sir David) handed to him the other day, setting forth certain difficulty.

said he had looked into the subject-matter of the letter, but he was sorry he was unable to do anything.

The report was adopted.

Papers relating to grants of land (Nos. 65 to 73).

These were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Report of Postmaster-General, 1912.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether it is a fact that under the new Police Regulations only a few chief constables have been appointed as sub-inspectors, and the majority have been appointed first or second-class head-constables; (2) whether under the old regulations chief constables were messengers of the magistrates’ courts and received all civil fees incidental to the serving of civil process in the magistrates’ courts; (3) whether under the new regulations, as from April 1, 1913, these fees are now collected on behalf of the Government, and are lost to the above officials; (4) whether the Minister is aware of the statement made by his predecessor in office, and reported on pages 2,784 and 2,785 of the Hansard for 1912, to the effect that where chief constables had been commissioned officers, they would be entitled to be retained as commissioned officers under the heading nearest to the rank of chief constable, namely, sub-inspector or inspector, and that in any case the men would not be made to suffer in their status or in any other way under the reorganisation; and (5) whether the Minister is prepared to institute enquiries with a view to ascertaining whether the assurances given by his predecessor in office have been carried into effect?

replied: (1) Yes. (2) Yes, in most cases in the Cape Province. (3) Yes, but the pay of head-constables who were formerly chief-constables in receipt of civil fees was determined on re-grading, after due consideration of the amount of civil fees formerly drawn by them, and in the majority of cases the result was an increase in emoluments. (4) Yes. (5) I have made enquiries into the matter, and have ascertained that the assurances given by my predecessor in office have been carried into effect.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) In which of the Provinces are Acts dealing with the adulteration of foods in force; (2) have any prosecutions taken place under these Acts since Union, if so; (a) what was the nature: of them, and (b) what was the result in each case; and (3) whether the Government will, during next session, introduce a uniform Bill for the whole of the Union?

replied: I should have thought that the hon. member would have known himself what the Acts were: (1) The following are the Acts in force in the Provinces with regard to the adulteration of foodstuffs: In the Cape, Act 5 of 1890; in the Transvaal, Act 29 of 1896 and Act 6 of 1898; in the Free State, Ordinance 32 of 1906; in Natal, Act 45 of 1901. (2) The information available shows that during the years 1910 and 1911 the following cases have been dealt with in the various Provinces of the Union: In 1910, 93 males and eight females were convicted and 18 were discharged. There were also eight withdrawals. Distributed among the Provinces, Natal had six cases, four males and five females being convicted and two discharged. The Cape had 123 cases, 89 males and three females were convicted and 16 discharged. There were also eight withdrawals. There were no cases in the Transvaal or Free State during that year. In 1911 the total of cases for the Union was 119, comprising the conviction of 87 males and nine females. There were also 25 discharges and seven withdrawals. Distributed as to the Provinces in the Cape there were 103 cases, in which 75 males and two females were convicted, and there were 23 discharges and five withdrawals. In Natal there were 11 cases, in which eight males and three females were convicted and one discharged. In the Transvaal there were five cases, in which four males and four females were convicted, one discharged, and two withdrawn. In the Free State there were no cases. The furnishing of the further information would necessitate a return being called for from all the Magistrates in the Union. (3) As at present advised, the Government does not contemplate legislating on this matter during the coming session.

asked the Minister of Justice: Whether he will take into favourable consideration the question of providing for the sitting of a periodical Magistrate’s Court at Strydenburg?

replied that there was a special Justice of the Peace at the place referred to, and it was not customary to have a Periodical Court at places where a special Justice of the Peace had been appointed. If the hon. member would inform him which would be more useful, a special Justice of the Peace or a periodical Court, he (the Minister) would look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been called to the alleged illicit traffic in liquor carried on by natives between the East London district and Kentani, and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to stopping a business so fraught with danger to the native population ?

replied: My attention has been drawn by the Commissioner of Police to the illicit traffic in liquor carried on by natives and others between the East London district and Kentani, and the necessary instructions have been given with a view to minimising the nefarious trade.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether at Germiston and other Transvaal depots the shed fitters are held responsible for all failures of Mallet engines whilst on the road; (2) whether as a result of examination numerous cracked coupling rods and other defects were discovered, in consequence of which the engines were stopped and accidents prevented, thus saving considerable sums and probably preventing loss of life; (3) whether there is any diminution of the number of failures during the period the fitters have been responsible; and, if so, (4) what consideration has been given them by the Administration for the extra responsibility placed on them and their vigilance in the performance of their important duties?

replied: (1) The answer to this question is in the negative. (2) The carrying out of all necessary repairs to, and the detection of defects on, all classes of locomotives form part of the ordinary duties of shed fitters, who have, from time to time, discovered defects not reported by drivers. This, however, does not apply to any one shed or to any class of engine in particular. Defects detected on Mallet engines at Germiston are not regarded as such as would have been likely to endanger human life. (3) There has been a decrease in the number of failures of engines of all classes at Germiston, attributable to closer supervision of the repair work. (4) No special monetary consideration is given to shed fitters at Germiston and elsewhere, as it is part of their ordinary duties to detect and remedy defects, and generally see that the engines are maintained in good and proper running condition. Men who show exceptional zeal and ability in this work are, however, noted for promotion.

asked the Minister of Justice whether he has any information to give to the House on the subject of the rates of pay and the accruing pensionable rights of warders in “A” district?

replied: Under the reorganisation which took place simultaneously with the police reorganisation, the pay fixed for a full warder is 6s a day, rising by 4d. to 8s. The head warder’s pay rises to £200 per annum, and the chief warder’s to £282. To this is added in “A” districts, which comprise Pretoria, Johannesburg, Boksburg, Germiston, and Krugersdorp, an additional amount of 2s. a day as a local allowance, and where no quarters are provided, a further allowance of 1s. a day for single men and 2s. 6d. a day for married men. Warders in the Transvaal were on twelve monthly engagements, and were not on scale. All accrued rights have been preserved, either in the form of pay or past service allowance. Head warders and chief warders were on scales, and if their old scales are more advantageous to them than the Union scale, they are allowed to continue on their old scale until they reach the top. The effect of the re-grading is that no officer loses any of his pensionable or non-pensionable emoluments. The following privileges are also conceded: Free uniform, free medical attendance, free light in Government single quarters, messrooms, libraries, recreation rooms, and kitchens. Warders messing in are provided with sufficient fuel to cook their food, and prison labour to cook and serve it. A reasonable amount of prison labour is allowed for cleaning out single officers’ quarters and mess-rooms. Ordinary furniture is supplied in Government single quarters free, as also bedding. Water and sanitary services are supplied, and rendered free of charge in Government quarters, both for married and single officers. Laundry work is also done free, in respect of articles which are Government property.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made in the Press on the authority of a letter from Jobo Moshesh, of the district of Matatiele, in the Transkeian Territories, that “ many farms have become canteens that natives, including women and children, on going to country shops return home drunk and that numerous deaths have occurred through drink ”; and (2) whether the Government will investigate the correctness or otherwise of the statement, and, if found correct, whether he will take steps to put a stop to such a condition of things?

replied: (1) My attention has been drawn to the statement mentioned. (2) The matter had previously come to my notice, and it was in this connection that the Chief Magistrate, after consulting me, refused to renew a trading licence in this neighbourhood. Inquiries are being made, and the Government will take such steps as may be possible to put a stop to this evil.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether his attention has been directed to a statement by the Press that five employees were summarily dismissed by the manager of the New Kleinfontein Gold Mining Company because these men declined to accept an alteration in their working conditions, of which alteration one month’s notice had not been given as required by the Industrial Disputes Prevention Act of the Transvaal, such dismissal causing the cessation of work by 400 men on that mine; and (2) whether the said statement is correct, and, if so, whether he will cause steps to be taken to prosecute the manager responsible for dismissing these men?

replied: My information with reference to the question asked by the hon. member is as follows: The management, in contravention of section (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Prevention Act, proposed to alter the hours of work of a certain number of mechanics who were employed underground. These mechanics were originally nine in number, but two appear to have been dismissed by the new management as being supernumerary, two were placed on surface work, and five remained underground, and to these five the new hours of work were to apply. As a result of the proposed alteration of hours the miners decided by a majority of 119 to 32 to strike without further notice, thus contravening section 6 (1) (b) of the Act. I have referred the matter of the action of the management to the Attorney-General, who has given an opinion that, although the manager did not give the notice required under section 5 (1) (a), and although section 6 (1) (a) renders the employer criminally responsible for bringing about a lock-out (which includes the refusal of an employer to continue to employ employees when such refusal is to compel his employees to accept specific terms of employment), as there can be no dispute under the Act affecting less than ten persons, and there was not this number affected, there is no case against the manager. I consider, however, that the management was in the first instance morally responsible for the present dispute, and I have informed the company to that effect, with the result that the company has retreated from the position and has now withdrawn its intention to alter the hours of the men concerned, and has agreed to reinstate the men who were dismissed. The present position therefore, as far as the company is concerned, is that the status quo ante has been restored. This position has been pointed out to the leaders of the men, but they continue to remain on strike, and it is understood now make a demand for an eight hour day from bank to bank, in contravention of section 5 (1) (b) of the Act and of section 6 (1) (b). I still hope that the two parties may be induced to discuss the matter and come to terms, and very serious responsibility rests on those who continue to incite the men to continue their contravention of the Industrial Disputes Prevention Act.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention has been called to an article in the “South African Spectator” for May, headed “ The White Peril ”; (2) whether he will cause enquiries to be made with a view to ascertaining whether the facts as set forth therein arc correct; and, if so (3) whether he is prepared to retain the constable therein referred to in the Government service?

replied: My attention has been drawn to the article in question. The matter was enquired into by me on representations made by another honourable member some time ago. I then found, on enquiry from the Commissioner of Police, that the constable in question was found not guilty of rape by the Assistant Magistrate of Hopefield. Instructions were given that he should be transferred from Hopefield.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that advice has been received by the Chamber of Commerce, Umtata, from the Divisional Superintendent of Railways at East London, to the effect that from the time the line is open to Idutywa the train service will be curtailed between Amabele and Idutywa to three trains weekly; (2) whether the action of the Divisional Superintendent has received the approval of the General Manager and the Minister, and, if so, on what grounds; (3) whether the Minister is aware (a) that there has been a daily post between Amabele and Umtata for fifteen years; (b) that the mails are larger and heavier than ever, and (c) that there is a very large passenger and agricultural parcel traffic dependent on the daily postal service; and (4) whether the Government will re-consider the matter in the interest of the people of Umtata and other adjoining districts?

replied: (1) There will be no curtailment of the train service between Amabele and Butterworth as result of the opening for traffic of the section of line Butterworth to Idutywa. Since the 21st February last, construction trains have been running at irregular intervals as required by the Administration between Butterworth and Idutywa, but when the line is formally opened for traffic there will be a regular service of three trains weekly in each direction between Butterworth and Idutywa. (2) The train service proposed between Butterworth and Idutywa has been approved by the General Manager on the recommendation of the local officers after the matter had been thoroughly discussed at a trains’ meeting held at Bloemfontein, at which local officers from East London were present; but matters of this nature are not ordinarily referred to the Minister for decision, and no departure was made from the general rule in this case. (3) Proposed service will in no way interfere with daily post service, as arrangements have been made by the postal authorities for the post-cart to continue to run between Butterworth and Idutywa on the days on which there are no trains. (4) It is considered that three trains weekly in each direction will meet the requirements of the Butterworth-Idutywa section, but if, after a trial, it is found that the traffic to be dealt with justifies an increased service, arrangements will be made for additional trains to be run. It is not usual when opening branch lines to provide a daily train service at the outset, but the results of working are carefully watched, and the service is extended if development follows and the traffic offering warrants such a course.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether the public roads, trekpaths and servitudes were indicated on the plans or pointed out to the owners when the commonage of Embokotwa, in the district of Elliot, was surveyed; and, if not, (2) whether he will take the necessary steps to have such public roads, trekpaths and servitudes indicated or made known to the owners?

The object of the hon. member’s question is not quite understood, and it is, therefore, somewhat difficult to reply thereto. I may mention that the plan of the Embokotwa Commonage has not yet been received, and I am consequently not yet in a position to say what it actually contains. I am, however, informed that the surveyor has surveyed every road within the commonage, as he is called upon to do in the regulations promulgated for the guidance of surveyors. In addition to this, the surveyor went over all the roads with the magistrate, who is also chairman of the Village Management Board, taking with him a map of the Xalanga and Elliot districts, specially prepared by a road commissioner, Mr. A. G. de Smidt, who was sent there in 1897 by Government to report on the matter of public roads in these districts. It is understood that every road shown on Mr. de Smidt’s plan is in existence on the ground, and will thus be properly represented on the plan. With regard to other servitudes at Embokotwa, it is understood that there are none except one or two water furrows which have been taken out of the river and are led across the commonage. These will be accurately represented on the surveyor’s plan. There are no trekpaths traversing the commonage.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he will during the recess instruct the Railway Board to inquire into the question of the construction of the Belmont-Douglas railway?

replied: I have already requested the Railway Commissioners to make an inspection of the locality during the recess.

asked the Minister of Lands what were the reasons for the non-payment by the local authorities in the following places of the cost incurred by the Irrigation Department of the Union in advising them on local water schemes, viz.: Napier, £51 10s.; Wellington, £10 10s.; Stamford, £29 10s.; and Villiersdorp, £14?

replied: In reply to the hon. member’s question, the reasons for the non-payment by the local bodies specified of the cost incurred by the Irrigation Department in connection with certain investigations are as follows: The investigations in connection with Wellington and Stamford are commitments which came over on the date of Union from the Cape Public Health Department with many others, and which had to be worked off irrespective of the system under which advice is ordinarily given to public bodies by the Irrigation Department. The case of Napier was submitted to the Irrigation Department about the time of Union from the Provincial Authorities in connection with an outbreak of typhoid for investigation for reasons of public health, and apart from the fact that Napier is too small a community to bear the commercial cost of a service of this kind, the investigation in question was submitted prior to the system of charges being instituted, and is more in the nature of a departmental inquiry than one of advice to a local body. With regard to Villiersdorp, the amount of £14 is outstanding, and will be recovered in due course.

moved that the following be a Standing Order for the remainder of the session: “That on and after Friday, the 6th inst., the House at its rising every Friday stand adjourned until Saturday, at 10 o’clock a.m., that Government business have precedence on Saturdays, and that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, do suspend business at 1 o’clock p.m. until a quarter past 2 o’clock p.m. on such days.

seconded.

asked whether it was the intention to sit on Saturday afternoons?

replied that he was very anxious that Parliament should finish its business by the end of next week. It was difficult at the present juncture to say whether they would require Saturday afternoon, but, naturally, if they sat on Saturday afternoon as well, it would help them to get through by the end of next week. Hon. members should recollect that the Bills passed by this House must also be passed through another place.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That on Tuesday, the 10th inst., Government business have precedence, such precedence to have effect after the three notices of questions, already placed on the Order Paper for that day, have been disposed of.

seconded.

moved as an amendment that the words, “ the three notices of ” and the words “already placed,” be omitted.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to, viz.: That on Tuesday, the 10th instant, Government business have precedence, such precedence to have effect after Questions on the Older Paper for that day have been disposed of.

moved that the petition from S. C. J. van Niekerk and 104 others, praying that the district of Elliot may be declared a separate fiscal1 division, presented to this House on the 26th May, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that leave of absence be granted to Colonel Sir Aubrey Woolls-Sampson, member for Braamfontein, for the present session.

seconded.

said he was obliged to oppose the motion. He was one of those in the constituency when the hon. member was elected. Last session the hon. member attended for about a week; this session he had not appeared. No good reason had been shown why the hon. member should be granted leave. He considered that this kind of thing should not be encouraged.

said he would like to know from the mover whether he had moved at the request of the hon. member himself. Had the hon. member communicated with his friend. Absence of this kind should not be condoned except in a case of sickness.

also opposed the motion, pointing out that no matter where the hon. member was he could have made a point of being present here for a day or two. He was seldom or never present.

said that unless a satisfactory explanation was given he would also vote against the motion. He (Mr. Van Niekerk) was not only speaking from the point of view of the Braamfontein constituency but he thought it was not showing the proper respect to this House to treat them in this manner. The hon. member had not been present for a single day.

said that the hon. member had hoped to take his seat in the House, but had found it impossible to do so. The hon. member’s business carried him away into the centre of Africa, and he was not always able to get to the House. The hon. member had asked him to move in this direction.

said that the business reason was, in his opinion, a most impertinent excuse. What business was more important to a man who represented a constituency than the making of laws for this country? Was it not a fact that the hon. member for Braamfontein wished to resign his seat last year, and, as a matter of fact, did not wish to attend Parliament? That was common knowledge, but his hon. friends were intent on keeping the seat warm. They were afraid to risk a by-election. The hon. member for Braamfontein was disgusted last year—disgusted with his own party— and that was the underlying reason why the hon. member for Braamfontein was not in his place that afternoon.

put the question, and declared the “Ayes” had it

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

Ayes—77.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Barry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Blaine, George.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Leuchars, George

Long, Basil Kellett

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James.

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.,

Van der Riet. Frederick John Werndly

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden. Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

J. Hewat and C. Joel Krige, tellers.

Noes—10.

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

W. H. Andrews and C. A. van Niekerk, tellers.

The motion was therefore agreed to.

had given notice to move: That the petition from Hojee Hofiz Hoosen and Mahomed Bodot, representing the Mohammedan community of Natal, praying that some fit and proper person may be appointed as a marriage officer in the Province of Natal for the solemnisation of marriages of persons professing the Mohammedan faith, and that such marriages shall in all respects be governed by Mohammedan law as set forth in the Koran, presented to this House on the 7th of May, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion dropped.

moved: That those Railway and Harbour servants whose individual oases were heard and reported upon by the Grievances Commission be notified of the Commission’s recommendation and also be informed whether it is the intention of the Government to carry into effect such recommendation. The mover said he did not want to take up the time of the House with a motion of this description, not because it was not a very important motion, but it seemed to him that it was a matter that essentially concerned the Railway Administration, which he thought had neglected its duty in this respect. They were compelled to take up this line of action. He would just like to point out the position in connection with the recommendations of the Grievances Commission. The Minister of Railways and Harbours knew this Commission was appointed some 2½ years ago. They made a thorough and exhaustive enquiry into 770 grievances, and 612 of these cases were personal ones. The Grievances Commission issued three reports in order that the recommendations that they made to the Government might be put into effect as soon as possible. The first report was issued as long ago as February, 1912, nearly 15 months ago. The second report was issued on the 20th May, and the third report on November 4th last year. What he would like to inform the Minister of Railways and Harbours was that no information had been given yet to the men. What happened was this, they waited until the final report was issued a couple of months ago. When that fourth and final report was issued, all these 612 men whose cases had been reported upon some 12 months previously, accordingly bought up this report to find out what recommendations had been made. What they did find was this, that the recommendations in their case were made in reports Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as the case might be. They made enquiries as to how they could get these reports, and they were told that the only place where these reports were to be seen was at the House of Assembly, and they would have to seek the good offices of some kind friend in the House in order to find out exactly where they stood. Letters had been coming in to him almost like hailstones. He had to get the Clerk of the Papers to dive down into underground cellars to get these, particular reports, write out a copy, and send it to the men. And in a great many cases he had been successful in getting the General Manager of Railways to put into effect the favourable recommendations. Surely these men should not have to depend upon the good will of a stray member of Parliament to get this information or justice which was essentially theirs. Some of the recommendations had been put into force, but, whether the Minister did or did not know, it was a fact that most of these cases had up to now been entirely ignored.

Surely it was a very degrading position when the railway servants throughout the country had got to write to private members in order to find out information of this description. The Grievances Commission anticipated something of this kind, because on page 17 they referred to the great interest which must naturally be felt by all members of the staff in regard to the personal and general grievances brought before the Commission, and they expressed the opinion that facilities should be provided to enable the staff to obtain a full statement of the recommendations, etc. He had no doubt that the Minister had given instructions in a haphazard way that some of these men should be informed, but the case was probably similar to that of the increments of clerks. When he put a question to the Minister as to increments being held back, he was told that such was not the case. He had evidence from these men that since he had repeatedly put the question to the Minister the latter had evidently taken the trouble to go into the matter, because all the increments had been granted which were due. He thought it must be the same with regard to the recommendations of the Grievances Commission. He hoped the Minister would give instructions that wherever possible these recommendations should be carried into effect.

seconded the motion.

said that he wished to support the motion, although at the same time he recognised the sympathetic attitude not only of the late, but also of the present Minister, and the Administration from the General Manager downwards in dealing with these cases. A great delay had occurred, it was true, and the men had naturally complained about it. He thought it ought to be recognised that the Administration from top to bottom had shown, as far as he had been able to ascertain, the very greatest sympathy with the men, and they desired to deal very fairly with all cases brought under their notice. On the whole, he thought that few Administrations, so far as his experience went, had shown more willingness to meet the men fairly and justly than the Railway Administration. He was of opinion that these men should not be kept in suspense month after month.

said he did not think there would be any trouble about this motion at all. He was quite prepared to accept it, because it was entirely in conformity with the practice which had been followed by the Railway Administration ever since these individual cases came up from the Grievances Commission. The hon. member had put a question to him in regard to the cases which came before him (the Minister) from the Grievances Commission, and he then gave him a very comprehensive reply as to the various classes of cases and what had been done with them. He thought he said then that he had given instructions that the result of the Grievances Commission’s inquiry and the decision of the Administration upon its reports should be communicated to the men concerned. It might be that in some of the cases that had not been done, but he supposed that that might happen where the grievance had been obviously removed prior to that time, but in the majority of cases he was told—and, if it were not a fact now, he would see that it was made a fact—the men had already been advised of the recommendations of the Grievances Commission and the decision of the Administration upon those recommendations. A number of these recommendations were still under consideration, and as soon as a decision was arrived at, the same course would be adopted. It seemed to him to be a perfectly sound and reasonable request to make, and he proposed to act entirely in the sense of the motion now proposed by the hon. member.

said he appreciated the Minister’s reply, and he would just like to add that he was not referring so much to the general grievances as to the personal grievances which were dealt with in the documents filed in the House.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from J. B. Voortman and 200 others, inhabitants of the town and district of Zastron, praying that Zastron may be declared the seat of a magistracy, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 30th May, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that in the opinion of this House legislation is urgently required limiting the hours of labour underground in mines to eight hours, bank to bank. He said that this matter had been before the House on previous occasions, and hon. members might be of opinion that at this late time of the session it might be a comparative waste of time to introduce such a motion. He thought, however, that he would not be doing his duty to the many men in his constituency who were working under the Mining Regulations, and also outside his constituency, right along the Reef, if he did not draw the attention of the House to the disabilities under which they were labouring in regard to their working hours under the present regulations. A kind of an eight hours regulation was made, by which it had been claimed that something, had been done in the direction of instituting an eight hours’ day. He had said before, and he said again, that this eight hours’ day, so-called, for underground work on the Rand was, to put it mildly, a delusion and a snare. What the men had always maintained, and maintained to-day —and he quite agreed with them—was that, if they were to have an eight hours day or a 48 hours week, it should be from the time they left the surface until they reached the surface again. At the present time the law said “face to face,” which hon. members knew meant that time was taken from the time a man reached his working place until the time he left his working place. The result was that very often a man had to spend nearer ten hours than eight hours a day on the mine. This caused an extreme difficulty, not to say impossibility, in checking the period when a man was at the working place. It showed the hopelessness of any attempt to check the hours that miners had to work. It would be a simple matter to take the time when a man entered the cage and when he reached the surface again.

It might be contended that the men were anxious to work longer hours. Very often the mine management and the men themselves had a more or less secret understanding that they should break the law by working beyond the legal hours, but if a man were working on day wages he would not be anxious to exceed the hours for which he was paid. The point of view of health should not be overlooked, and it was agreed by all authorities that the fewer hours a man worked underground the less likelihood there was of his contracting miners’ phthisis. If the Government accepted the motion it would lead to different regulations being drafted when the House met next session, and they were not asking the Government to legislate this year, everybody being anxious to get back to their farms and other forms of money making. It had been said that the men did not want an eight hours bank to bank day, but the best answer to that was that some hundreds of men had voluntarily left their work and were staying out at considerable loss and inconvenience, and probably suffering to their wives and families, in support of the principle. The great mass of the men demanded the Government to legislate in the direction of an eight hour bank to bank day. So far the Government had refused, and to that extent it was responsible for the present situation. What more natural than men—finding they could not get Parliament to legislate in the direction they desired—take other steps not so pleasant to them or their employers in order to force the hands of the latter. Our social system was responsible for this, but under our present conditions those in authority were only concerned with getting as much profit as they possibly could at as little cost as possible. Either Government would have to force this on the mining authorities or the men would have to fight until they could bring sufficient pressure on their employers to obtain shorter hours. The best and easiest method to do this was by an alteration of the regulations rather than leave it to the men to adopt the brutal course of a strike. No one knew what might happen on the Rand in the next week or two. There was a large mass of men with their blood up, and they were convinced that they were not getting a fair deal. Hon. members should not blame the workers on the Rand if something happened which would, perhaps, wake up Parliament and the whole of South Africa. He hoped serious consideration would be given the motion by Government.

in seconding the motion, said this was about the most extraordinary situation that had occurred in the House this session. A motion dealing with a department of State had been moved in a temperate fashion, and yet the Minister responsible treated it in such a contemptuous fashion that he had left the House.

He is in the Senate.

said that when the Mines Regulations Bill was before the House the Labour members hammered away at this very matter. When it was proposed by the Government, a proposal that was most heartily supported by Opposition members, that the period of work down below should be eight hours face to face, the Labour members pointed out that if the object was to bring about a shortening of the hours spent underground no such result could accrue therefrom. The Minister, however, honestly believed that the men were not working much more than eight hours a day. He wanted to tell the Minister that men were working from 10 to 14, and sometimes 16, hours a day, in spite of their eight-hour day. When the Minister wanted a question answered, he sent an official to interview the manager of the mine, but the book did not disclose everything. Miners sometimes waited an hour to an hour and a half for their jumpers. Sometimes it was because they could not get their jumpers, sometimes because they did not get sufficient jumpers, and sometimes the air supplied was insufficient in quantity and pressure. If the mine-owners would only reorganise, all the work required to be done would be done. These men were working excessive hours, and as it was admitted that this state of affairs led to miners’ phthisis, he hoped the Government would take some action.

said that the hon. gentleman had made an attack on the Minister of Mines, who was engaged in the Senate. He had also made allegations that to him seemed very serious, and in these circumstances, he thought it best to adjourn the debate, in order to enable the responsible Minister to take part in the discussion. He moved the adjournment.

asked the Minister to withdraw, because it was perfectly obvious that it would mean the shelving of the question until next session. He appealed to the Prime Minister on the question. His right hon. friend did not adopt the same attitude when it was a question affecting some of his supporters.

also appealed to the Minister. He thought that a sympathetic reply would have gone a long way towards saving the situation, so far as the strike was concerned. This was a most unsympathetic attitude to adopt, and the men would come to the conclusion that it was no use looking to Parliament for help.

said he thought it only reasonable that the Government should give some assurance that the matter would be discussed before the end of the session.

said it was difficult to say anything definite at this stage. The session only had a very short while to go, but if there was an opportunity, the further discussion would be allowed, although he wished to emphasise that he could make no promise.

said that, while he could not agree with the motion, he agreed with the demand that this very important matter should be thrashed out before the close of the session. The matter had been put off and put off, and it was only through gross bad management that the matter was only reached at this late stage of the session. He hoped that the Minister would either withdraw the motion or give an assurance that the question would be debated before the session came to a close. He considered that this was one of the most important questions that had come before the House.

with the leave of the House, withdrew his motion.

traced the history of the demand for an eight-hours’ day from its inception in the Transvaal Parliament some four or five years ago. The consensus of opinion was then that, had it been confined to the mining industry, most of the arguments raised would have been withdrawn. It was said at the time that too many trades were mixed up, but that a case had been made out in respect of the mining industry. There had been a general request for legislation of this character. Proceeding, he referred to the ravages of phthisis among the miners, and pointed out that they were treated with scorn when they advanced the statement that the average life of a mine worker was seven years, but this statement had been borne out, unfortunately, by the reports of commissions that had investigated the matter. Two years ago they passed legislation, but if they went along the reef they would hardly find a man who would agree that the bank-to-bank regulation was being carried out. The whole matter, as it stood, was a travesty, because it did not regulate the hours of labour. It would have been better to have had a nine-hours’ day from bank to bank.

If they allowed a regulation of this sort to be got round in this way, they were making a laughing stock of Parliament. The time would come when some definite promise should be given by the Government to put this matter right. In England they had an eight hours day from bank to bank, in such well regulated and healthy mines as coal mines. In Australia they had an eight hours day for five days in the week, and five hours on Saturdays. It was not only miners that were concerned in this matter. There were many engaged in other trades. These men were looking to Parliament to do something in the future with regard to shortening these hours of labour. Surely a very good case had been made out for an eight hours day from bank to bank. He would ask the Minister to support the motion which had been moved by his hon. friend the member for Georgetown.

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

called for a division.

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

declared the motion negatived.

moved that the petition from J. H. B. Moreland, of Natal, who, in 1907, petitioned the Legislative Assembly of Natal for an inquiry into his claim against the Natal Government in respect of certain trust moneys due to his father’s estate, but obtained no relief, praying that the House may appoint a Select Committee to consider his case, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 27th May, 1913, be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report. The mover said that this was a petition of an old and respected Natal Colonist. If the House knew, as he knew, the whole of the circumstances, that this was an aged person who thought that he might not live to see another year, then they would understand that he was not making a motion from motives that were blameworthy. Mr. Moreland was a man considerably over 81 years of age, his health was failing, and under the circumstances he (Mr. Fawcus) certainly felt justified in taking the course which he did. This grievance was of long standing. It was a claim derived from petitioner’s father’s estate for moneys held by the Natal Government in a fiduciary manner on behalf of the heirs of the estate. The claim against the Natal Government was for a fairly large sum of money. In the petition Mr. Moreland referred to the legal and fiduciary obligations of the Government with regard to certain survey fees-Petitioner’s claim was for money due to his father’s estate. The amount of money which he laid claim to and which had been paid into the Treasury was £537 13s. l1d. This matter had been repeatedly before the Natal Parliament and a Select Committee had been appointed to deal with it. Mr. Moreland was the oldest living Natal Colonist to-day. He had been a colonist for the past 61 years. He (Mr. Fawcus) would leave it to the good feeling of the House to say whether a Select Committee should be appointed.

said he hoped that the Government would be able to give its favourable consideration to the petition.

said that he desired to second the motion. He knew that Mr. Moreland was suffering under a grave sense of injustice. He thought that the petition could be quickly adjudicated upon by a Select Committee.

said he would like to say a word or two on the other side. The petitioner’s father came to this country in 1849, and did some survey work for Mr. Byrne, who had a large land settlement scheme in hand. Mr. Byrne, unfortunately, went insolvent, but the Government of the day, who were desirous of promoting a land settlement scheme, encouraged Mr. Moreland to go on with the survey. In the course of time he had a claim against the Government in 1855 for survey work performed, and a Commission was appointed to inquire into this claim. After receiving the report of the Commission, the Government of the day offered Mr. Moreland a thousand pounds in cash and a grant of land. At first he refused to accept this offer, but ultimately he did accept it, reserving to himself any claim he might have against third parties. He afterwards conceived that he had a claim against the Government in consequence of this reservation, and he sued the Government, but lost his case. He also went insolvent, and about 39 years afterwards his son, the present petitioner, purchased from the trustee of his father’s insolvent estate this speculative claim, and he (Sir T. Watt) believed, started another law suit against the Government. But this failed in the same way as his father’s suit had failed. He was not quite certain about the second lawsuit, but if there was one, it was unsuccessful. Then the matter came before the Natal Parliament on several occasions by petition for inquiry. In 1905 a petition was presented, and again in 1907 another petition was presented. A Select Committee was appointed, and reported in favour of the claim, but Parliament rejected the finding of the Committee, and there the matter ended until 1910, when Mr. Moreland, the present petitioner, again petitioned the Natal Parliament, not to reopen the case, as was now sought to be done, but for leave to be heard at the Bar, in order to rebut some statements made by the Attorney-General in his remarks in 1907. In moving that Mr. Moreland’s petition to be heard at the Bar should be granted by the Natal House of Assembly, the member of the House who presented the petition was reported to have said that the petitioner wished it to be understood that, in asking to be heard at the Bar, he did not wish in any way to re-open the question of any money or compensation coming to him through the estate of his father. He accepted the decision of the House in 1907 (which was adverse to him), but what he did take exception to was the speech delivered in the House by the then Minister of Justice and Public Works, in which certain allegations were made against him personally, to which it was impossible for him to make any reply. The Natal House of Assembly by 24 votes to 6 negatived the request. It was, added Sir Thomas, surely too much now to ask the Union Parliament to rake up a matter which was 60 years old, which had been gone into very fully, and decided not only by the Courts, but also by the Natal Parliament. He hoped that the House would reject this motion.

The motion was negatived.

moved that the proposed rules relating to the appointment, office and duties of joint Parliamentary draftsman, printed on pages 878-9 of the Votes and Proceedings, be amended, as follows: In Rule No. 4, line 2, after “cross-reference,” to insert “that their English and Dutch versions are identical in meaning. ”

The motion was agreed to.

The rules, as amended, were also adopted.

said he presumed that the House would now be prepared to take further amendments.

Has notice been given?

No.

I have ruled under the Rules that notice must be given, unless the whole House unanimously does not object.

I would like to point out that this Order was only put on the paper this morning. I only got it at 11 o’clock, and there was no opportunity of putting an amendment on the paper.

I must point out to the hon. member that it is by an order of the House that these amendments were set down for consideration to-day.

Am I in order in moving that the further consideration of these amendments be adjourned?

There is nothing before the House except the third reading.

Have you considered the amendments?

They have been adopted.

Before you put that, it has always been understood that an Act of Parliament can do anything but turn a man into a woman. (Laughter.) When you put the second schedule, you will find—

The hon. member is out of order.

You will find, Sir—

The hon. member is out of order.

If I give notice of amendments can I put them down for the third reading.

The hon. member must know the Rules.

I call this very hurried legislation. Here we have—

The hon. member cannot now debate the Rules. The House adopted the Rules last year. No amendment can be taken on the third reading.

said he would like to move that the third reading be taken now.

No.

It was agreed that the Bill should be set down for third reading to-morrow. (Hear, hear.)

moved in the definition of “Certified Institutions ” to omit “ adjacent ” and substitute “pertaining.”

said he had no objection.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved to delete “an” before “infant” and to put “infant” in inverted commas.

Agreed to.

moved to omit the definition of “legal guardian”, lines 30 to 33; and in line 51, after “child” to insert “ and shall include any premises established or maintained as such by the Governor-General under the authority of this Act ”.

The amendments were agreed to.

thought it was absurd to call a person of sixteen years of age a child.

We have passed that definition.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 3, Punishment for cruelty to and neglect of children.

moved to delete the words “over the age of sixteen.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved the omission of the word “Magistrate’s” and to add “instead of the offence charged and instead of the common law crime of assault” also to omit “over the age of sixteen years ” in line 18.

The amendment was agreed to.

said it seemed to him that this clause was ultra vires. (Laughter.) In this clause they told the jury that if it were satisfied that the accused was guilty of an offence it should find the accused guilty of an offence. He moved the deletion of the clause.

said there was a meaning attached to the words which the hon. member had not apprehended. Under the Transvaal law if a man were charged with culpable homicide and the jury were satisfied that he was not guilty on that count it could find him guilty of assault, although the latter offence had not been charged against him. In the present case if the jury was satisfied that an accused person were guilty under the section, although he might not have been so charged, the jury could find him guilty of an offence under the Bill.

moved the deletion of “ an ” and the substitution of “a lesser.”

The amendment was negatived.

said the clause laid down a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment and a fine not exceeding £100 for such offences as blinding, deafening or breaking a child’s limbs. That would not be adequate punishment. Was it made perfectly clear that this did not prevent further punishment of the guilty person?

reply was inaudible.

The clause as amended was agreed to. On clause 4, Suffocation of infants,

said the offence was not a very common one in this country. He moved the deletion of the clause.

said that he entirely supported the deletion.

hoped the committee would not agree to the amendment, for the overlaying of children should be made a punishable offence. He moved in line 14 to insert after “ age ” the words “ and that that other person was at the time of going to bed under the influence of drink.”

said he hoped the hon. member would not press the amendment. The hon. member’s own experience was enough to show that it was not a matter which was common in South Africa. It was, in his opinion, undesirable to create new offences, and it did not seem to be a matter which urgently required attention in South Africa.

expressed the hope that the hon. member would press his amendment, for although, according to the hon. member for Fords-burg, the experience of the mover showed that there had only been one case in that part of the country referred to, there were other parts of the country where extreme poverty existed, and it was quite possible they might have a number of cases. He did not want to condone overlaying, but the particular class of people who were likely to have such misfortunes were people in poor circumstances, who could not afford separate cots. He wanted to support the inclusion of the words which it was suggested should be put in.

supported the deletion of the clause which included that where a death was caused by suffocation, that other person should be deemed to have neglected the infant in a manner sufficient to have caused injury, etc. It appeared that they caused injury to the child by killing it.

referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Springs, said that, so far as Cape Town was concerned, from 31st July, 1909, to 27th December, 1912, a period of three and a half years, there had only been six cases.

said he wanted some further information with regard to the matter. He wanted to know how the law applied in England? The clause which it was proposed to delete had not worked at all well there.

The amendment of the hon. member for Boksburg was negatived.

Clause 4 was negatived.

New clause 5,

moved: that the following be a new clause to follow clause 4, viz.: 5. If any person gives or causes to be given to any infant any intoxicating liquor, except upon the order of a duly qualified medical practitioner or in case of sickness or other urgent cause, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or alternatively, or in default of payment, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding one month. He had seen, in the course of his practice, many evils arising out of the pernicious habit of mothers giving infants intoxicating liquor to induce the infants to go to sleep and allow the mothers themselves to have a comfortable time. In a Bill which they hoped to become the Children’s Charter of South Africa such a pernicious practice should be put down.

supported the amendment.

said he was opposed to it.

said that while he was anxious to restrict the use of intoxicating liquor, he thought they should go very cautiously before adopting a measure of that sort. Many old Dutch remedies included a quantity of alcohol, and it was not always possible to get at a doctor, who might be hundreds of miles away. He hoped the hon. member would not press the amendment.

said that cases of sickness were exempt in his amendment.

thought that just killed the amendment.

was understood to say that he hoped the medical profession would adopt other methods of bringing to the notice of parents the harm that alcoholic liquor did to their children. They should leave them to learn what was best for their children in that respect without applying a penalty.

said that there was no definition in the Bill as to alcoholic liquor. Intoxicating liquor might be intoxicating to infants when it was not to other persons. Had the hon. member thought of that?

to meet that, moved, as an addition to his amendment, that for the purpose of that section alcoholic liquor was a liquor that did not contain more than 5 per cent. of alcohol.

The new clause was negatived.

On clause 5, Begging,

moved the insertion of the following proviso, which appeared in the Cape Act, “Provided that this section shall not apply to any collection made for or by any recognised charitable institution.” Mr. Alexander pointed out that if something of the sort were not inserted these collections might be barred.

What does “recognised” mean?

Hospitals, local charities and so on. There has been no difficulty in the past.

hoped that the House would not accept the proviso.

hoped that the Minister would agree to the proviso. He did not see any harm in allowing children to collect for charitable institutions, provided they were authorised to do so.

hoped the proviso would be accepted. It was a common principle.

A very bad one.

said they might guard against any danger by making the period from sunrise to sunset.

said he hoped the Minister would not accept the proviso. This habit of employing children to collect money was a most pernicious system.

said they must be careful to see that they did not tie themselves up too tightly. He thought it was a good thing that children should be encouraged to save up their pennies and take an interest in philanthropic institutions. He thought it would be hard if these collections were stopped, and he did hope that the Minister would devise some means whereby these collections would not be prevented.

was understood to support the insertion of the proviso.

said that while he did not see any harm in accepting the proviso, he would point out that he did not think the clause would apply to cases of that kind.

thought it would be as well if the clause were allowed to remain as it stood. There was a big difference between begging and collecting.

questioned whether the clause would prohibit these collections Personally he knew of a good many reasons why small children should not go about the streets collecting money. It was a different thing to encourage children to collect their pennies for philanthropic institutions.

said he thought the clause would debar these collections.

hoped the Minister would assure the House that he would have the clause looked into from a legal point of view. Many good works would suffer if these collections were prohibited.

pointed out that the proviso was moved in when the Bill came before the Cape House. Why prohibit an existing practice that had worked well?

said he was opposed to children begging at street corners, no matter what the object was,

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had stated that no dire effect had taken place from allowing children to collect for charities. What authority has he for making that statement? Did the hon. member know what prevailed on the Rand? Did he know it was the rule for little girls to go round the mine with petitions containing all sorts of things written upon them? This was a most disgraceful state of affairs. If they wanted charity, let the charitable people put their hands in their pockets and go round collecting. They did not want to listen to this cant. If they were to have hospitals, let the hospitals be supported out of the public purse. (Hear, hear.)

said he was opposed to the suggestion that children should be prevented from collecting for charitable purposes. He wanted his children to be taught to do something for a good cause from an early age. Children should not be allowed to beg. He approved of the amendment.

referred to the danger of young children being sent on the streets for the purpose of collecting money. Especially in a town like Johannesburg, such enterprise was full of risks for the children. Children should not be exposed to such temptation, and there were quite enough adults to do that sort of work. He was not opposed to collecting, but young children ran serious risks of losing their innocence and of being made acquainted with certain forms of begging.

said that the hon. member for Vrededorp stated that they on the cross benches did not want children to go round collecting for Sunday-schools. He was quite right. They did not want children to collect for anything at all. The position was this: that they on the cross benches were representing those people whom the hon. member ought to represent. They were representing the poor people. The people who wanted the Sunday-schools were the Church people. Let them go round and collect for them. Children were too young to understand the position. The hon. member for Vrededorp was quite willing to allow children to go round collecting for Sunday-schools or hospitals, but if a mother sent her child, who had lost its father, round to beg to keep the family from starving, the hon. member was prepared to put the mother into gaol or impose a fine which she could not pay.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, was negatived.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 7, Allowing children to be in brothels,

moved to delete in line 54 the word “ sixteen ” for the purpose of substituting the word “eighteen.” He thought the age “sixteen ” was much too young for a girl to know what she was doing.

said he hoped the amendment would not be accepted. He would like to see the age reduced to “ fourteen ” instead of increased to “eighteen.”

said that they had arrived at this age of sixteen after very careful consideration, and they had come to the conclusion that it would meet the case.

said he could not agree with the Minister of Justice’s statement that the age of sixteen was the proper age. He certainly appealed to the Minister to raise the age to eighteen years.

pointed out that this was not a clause dealing with the age of consent, but it might be imposing a great hardship to penalise the father or guardian of a girl, who might have no control at all over a girl of 16 years of age.

explained that this Act was to protect children who could not protect themselves. This was not an Immorality Bill at all. It was simply to protect children. If they made the age 18, they were not dealing any longer with children.

pointed out that the definition of a child was any person under the age of 16 years.

withdrew his amendment.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 8, Punishment of person causing or encouraging seduction, abduction, or prostitution of young girl,

moved that, instead of the age of the girl under the clause being 16 years, it should be raised to 18. The hon. member argued that a girl below 18 years of age must still be regarded as a child. It was an easy matter for various persons to mislead girls of 16. Such persons would remain out of danger, whilst the girls themselves would suffer heavily.

moved to delete the words “girl under the age of 16 years,” and to substitute for it the word “child.” The Minister explained that elsewhere in the Bill “child” was defined as a person under 16 years of age.

He also moved, in line 3, to omit “ girl he” and substitute “child or the commission by such child of immoral acts, such person.”

said he did not agree with the omission of the words “girl under the age of 16 years.” He agreed with the hon. member for Ermelo, who was inclined to raise the age to 18. He moved to omit “16,” for the purpose of inserting “18.”

said he hoped that the Bill would remain as it was, because his hon. friends, who were zealous in a good cause, seemed to forget the fact that there were always two sides to this question. A clause of this sort opened the door to one of the most difficult things in the world to disprove, and that was blackmail, if they were going to raise the age. This was a Children’s Protection Bill, and if they raised the age from 16 to 18, they were not dealing with an infant, in any sense of the word.

said that the Minister, in making the alteration in this section, seemed to have overlooked a curious complication which would arise in the second part. He understood that the Minister had moved an amendment to the second part of the clause.

Oh, no.

pointed out that the children in the outlying parts of the country were not as early developed as in other parts, because their surroundings were quite different to those in the towns. Children of 16 years were still children, and if hon. members knew of the misery caused by seduction and that kind of offence they would support the amendment., which represented the views of people in the country parts.

supported the amendment, and held that it was the wish of the rural population to have the age limit fixed at 18 years. After all, children between 14 and 18 years were the greatest sufferers and should be protected. Girls of 16 were not, as a rule, able to judge such things.

held that it was between 16 and 18 years of age that girls most required protection. The whole country would be grateful to the hon. member for Ermelo for his amendment. No one could say that girls of 16 or 17 should be held responsible. He would heartily support the amendment.

said he did not think this clause went far enough. It purported only to deal with persons who had the charge of others. He thought it should punish everybody, whether he had got the custody, care or charge of a child.

That is dealt with under the immorality law.

said that the immorality law was not general, and he hoped the Minister would in his spare time introduce a general law to deal with immorality. He trusted that this clause would be amended by the substitution of “18” for “16.” He thought there must have been 40 or 50 petitions presented to that House in favour of raising the age of consent.

said that the age of consent was an absolutely different thing from what they were now dealing with. They were now dealing with procuring and abduction. He did not see how the question of blackmail came in in connection with this matter.

said he could not conceive of any worse crime than the one referred to in the clause, and persons guilty of it were brutes and should be treated as such. (Hear, hear.) The House of Commons last year passed an Act awarding lashes for this class of crime, and this had been found to be a real deterrent. He moved as an amendment to add to the end of the sub-section “ and to lashes not exceeding fifteen in number.”

said the House was confusing the care and custody of children with immorality. The latter was provided for under a different set of laws, under which lashes could be inflicted. (Hear, hear.) The ordinary law which gave children additional protection would not be repealed by this measure.

hoped that members would not allow their sentiments to run away with their common sense. After all, girls of 18 years of age were no longer children. He hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment.

appealed to members not to make unimportant amendments, because if they did not get the Bill through now there was very great danger of it being shipwrecked altogether. Let them try to get the Bill on the Statute Book this session, although it might be imperfect in some of its details.

said the Bill did not deal with the age of consent. It was a Bill for the protection of children under 16.

withdrew his amendment.

The amendment of General T. Smuts was negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of Justice was carried.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 9, Power to bind over person having custody of young girl to exercise proper care,

moved to insert, in line 15, the words “or without. ”

The amendment was adopted.

moved, in line 17, after “may,” to insert “if it thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances. ”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was adopted.

On clause 11,

on clause 11, moved, in line 66. to omit “ of the offences ” and to substitute “ offence ”; and on page 10, after line 14, to insert the following new sub-section (4): “ The Governor-General may establish and maintain places of safety for the purposes of this Act.”

The amendments were agreed to and the clause, as amended, was passed.

On clause, 12.

on clause 12, moved, in line 33, to omit “in the case of a male child ”; in lines 34 and 35, to omit “ and in the case of a female child, until she attains the age of twenty-one years ”; in lines 40 and 42, to omit “legal.”

The amendments were agreed to and the clause, as amended, was passed.

On clause 13,

on clause 13, which dealt with the maintenance of a child or young person when committed to the care of any person under order of Court, moved, in lines 42, 44, and 46, to omit, before “income,” the words “pension or,” and in line 48, to omit, before “income,” “pension or other.”

said the penalties under the clause seemed, to his mind, to be out of all proportion. A fine not exceeding £50 or an alternative of six months’ imprisonment with or without hard labour, or to such imprisonment without the option of a fine, or to both fine and imprisonment for harbouring an escaped child or preventing the return of a child was out of proportion to the nature of the crime. A much lighter penalty would suffice, and that could be extended where a child was treated negligently. He would move to omit £50 and insert £1, substitute one week for six months.

The amendment was negatived.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Justice was agreed to and the clause, as amended, was passed.

On clause 14,

on clause 14, moved, in line 59, to omit “if possible ”; and on page 14, line 1, to omit “ or who has not given such undertaking as aforesaid.”

The amendments were agreed to and the clause, as amended, was passed.

On clause 16,

moved, in line 16, to omit “by distress or imprisonment.”

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 17,

moved: To insert at the commencement the following new sub-sections, viz.: (1) A local education authority may direct its medical officer or any duly qualified medical practitioner appointed by such authority for the purpose, to examine in any public elementary school controlled by the authority, or elsewhere, the person and clothing of any child attending the school, and if on examination the medical officer or medical practitioner appointed as aforesaid is of opinion that the person or clothing of any such child is infected with Vermin or is in a foul or filthy condition, or is the subject of any contagious disease, the local education authority may give notice in writing to the parent or guardian of, or other person liable to maintain, the child requiring him to cleanse properly the person and clothing of the child within twenty-four hours after the receipt of such notice, save in the case of a child suffering from any contagious disease, when a reasonable time shall be given for the cleansing of such child, such time to be fixed by the education authority. (2) If the person to whom such notice is given fails within the time fixed to comply therewith, the medical officer or medical practitioner appointed as aforesaid may cause the person and clothing of the child referred to in the notice to be properly cleansed in suitable premises and with suitable appliances, and may, if necessary for the purpose, convey without any warrant other than this section to such premises and there detain the child until the cleansing is effected, or may direct suitable medical treatment to be carried into effect.

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 18,

moved: That the following be a new clause to follow clause 17, viz.: 18. (1) The Minister may cause any institution for the reception of poor children to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose. (2) Any person so appointed shall have power to enter the institution and any person who obstructs him in the execution of his duties shall foe liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and a refusal to allow any person so appointed to enter the institution shall for the purpose of the provisions in this chapter relating to search warrants foe deemed to be a reasonable cause to suspect that an offence under this chapter is being committed in respect of a child in the institution, i(3) Where any such institution is for the reception of girls only the Minister may appoint a woman to visit and inspect the institution, (4) Any appointment made under this section may at any time foe revoked by the Minister.

Agreed to.

On clause 19, which dealt with the evidence of husband or wife of accused person, and provided that, in proceedings against any person for an offence under this chapter, the wife or husband of the person charged shall be competent and compellable to give evidence either for the prosecution or defence, and without the consent of the person charged,

was understood to object to the principle of husband and wife being compelled to give evidence against each other. He moved the omission of the words “ and compellable,” and also the omission of all the words after “prosecution” to the end of the clause.

said he hoped the hon. Minister would not accept the amendment, for in many cases of cruelty to children by a husband, the wife was the only witness they had in support. He thought it was reasonable, if a child was ill-treated by one of its parents, that the other should be allowed to act as witness.

could not see how it should be necessary to call a wife or husband for the defence, as was provided for in the clause.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he thought the hon. member for Kroonstad would achieve his object if he deleted the word “compellable.”

pointed out the danger of compelling husbands or wives to give evidence against one another. If the clause were adopted as it stood it would simply mean that they would get one of the spouses to come to Court simply to tell lies, for husband or wife would not come willingly under compulsion, and the result would be that they would get false evidence. He hoped, therefore, that the clause would not make the giving of evidence by one spouse against another compulsory.

said the clause went too far in compelling the husband to give evidence against his wife.

said that no doubt there was a lot in what the hon. member for Smithfield said. He thought that in this class of case an exception might also be made, because where one or other of the parents was charged with cruelty one or other might very likely be the only possible witness.

said he quite sympathised with the hon. member for Fordsburg. His only objection to the clause were the words “and be compelled.” He would far rather see it stated that such and such a person “ shall be entitled” to give evidence, but to compel a person would be simply forcing that person to commit perjury.

The second part of the amendment moved by Mr. Serfontein was withdrawn.

I beg to move that progress be reported. The Government wish to make progress with the Estimates.

said he hoped the Committee would not accept the motion. They had made considerable progress with the Bill, and if progress were reported they would be throwing away a whole afternoon’s work. He hoped the Minister would not press the motion, because they could get through the Bill in another three-quarters of an hour.

also appealed to the Minister to withdraw.

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

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

Ayes—44.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—17,

Andrews, William Henry

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page.

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

E. Nathan and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

The motion was accordingly agreed to.

Progress was thereupon reported and leave granted to sit again next Tuesday.

moved that order No. 3 stand over till order No. 4 be disposed of.

The motion was agreed to, and the House resumed in Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

moved that the sub-heads be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

Sub-head A, Administration, £28,556,

in reply to a question put by Mr. J. W. Jagger (Cape Town, Central), with regard to the expenditure for increased clerical assistance, pointed out that this was a very large department. Defence included now, besides the ordinary forces, a large portion of the Police Force. His hon. friend must recognise that about 2,000 of the Police Force had been taken over by Defence. He could assure his hon. friend that they could not work with a smaller staff than they were working with now.

did not think that the Defence Department was worked nearly as economically as it should be. He therefore moved that the salary of £1,100 paid to the Under Secretary be reduced by £150. He recollected that the Minister of Defence stated that the amount for defence would be something under £1,000,000 sterling. As far as he could see the defence scheme altogether was going to cost £1 per head of the white population in the country. If they had begun in a small way, and gradually increased as time warranted, it would have been very different. Had they expended this large amount in land settlement or irrigation, the progress of the country would have been greatly enhanced. Now the next thing they were going to treat them to. he noticed, was aviation. Who were they going to fight—locusts? (Laughter.)

thought the Minister ought to explain if these 2,000 police taken over by the Defence Force were still doing police work, and if they were still under the control of the Police Department? Another matter upon which he would like information was with regard to the sale of liquor in the training camps. More than one petition with regard to this had been received.

said that no intoxicating liquors would be sold in the training camps of the Defence Force. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis, this was particularly ungracious, because this was the only Department of State that employed an Under Secretary and not a Secretary. They were running the department on the cheap.

He estimated that the cost of the Defence scheme when in full working order would he half a million. The additional cost appearing on these Estimates was a little over £300,000, which would provide for the training of about 15,000 men, but owing to the large response made by the country they had to undertake the training of 25,000 men this year. (Hear, hear.) Provision would be made on the Additional Estimates for the extra 10,000 men, which would mean an additional vote of £100,000. Thus the cost of working the Defence Act would be £400,000, and they were still £100,000 within the mark of the estimate he made a year ago. It appeared that the Estimate he made then would be fairly accurate as far as could be judged. The additional cost of the new defence scheme would be half a million. For that we would get a force of three times the size of the one we had before the Act, and trained three times more efficiently. The South African Mounted Rifles had been dissevered from the police, having been incorporated in the Defence Force. The S.A. Mounted Rifles were being run on the same principles as the C.M.R., and they did police work under the Defence Force. The Border districts were allotted to South African Mounted Rifles.

said he wished to refer to the very unsatisfactory position under which the Minister of Defence acted as Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance was supposed to be keeper of the public purse, and yet this same hon. gentleman was himself at the head of the biggest spending department in the whole country. In many countries quarrels between the head of the military department and the head of the treasury had more than once caused a crisis. Only the other day there was such a crisis in Japan. It was impossible to reconcile the two offices, but in saying this he was not attacking the hon. member personally. He (Mr. Jagger) did not know any country where the Minister of Defence was at the same time the keeper of the public purse. Was there any intention to continue this unsatisfactory state of affairs? He was sorry the Prime Minister was not present. He hoped the hon. member (General Smuts) would remain as Minister of Defence, and let someone else take charge of the Treasury. The present position must lead to more money being spent than would otherwise be the case.

said that in the Estimates for 1912-13 £540,699 were put down for defence, but this year the sum was £1,345,041. Allowing £344,000 for police expenditure, this showed an increased expenditure for defence of £460,156. In other words, defence was costing the country to-day a million pounds. The hon. member added that he would withdraw his amendment.

said that if the hon. member (Mr. Nathan) had taken the trouble to read the explanatory memorandum attached to these Estimates, he would have seen that it was not simply a case of the transference of the Police Department, but a transference from other departments as well. He would have seen also from that memorandum that the net increase on the present Estimates, as compared with last year, was £304,000. To that would have to be added another £100,000 on the Supplementary Estimates, which would give the £404,000 increase to which he had already referred, which was still within the mark predicted last year. Proceeding, the Minister said that, no doubt, there was a great deal in the criticism in regard to the dual position which he held. But they had, however, this curious anomaly—that they had many more departments of State than they had Ministers. Under these circumstances, unless they wanted to make the expense of government in this country unduly heavy, Ministers must be prepared to run more than one department, and the Treasurer must take his share of the work too. In New Zealand, the Minister of Finance was also Minister of Defence and Minister of Education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Parliament also ran old-age pensions and vast schemes of social improvement which they in South Africa had never attempted yet, but which (General Smuts added jocularly) were not very far from the horizon of politics in this country. General Smuts went on to say that he had watched the development of the Defence Department very closely, and he did not think that any Minister dissevered from the Finance Department could have been more zealous to save expenditure to the country in the organisation of a large new service than he had been, and as long as he was permitted to occupy that dual position, which might not be so long, for all things were subject to change, he should be most careful to see that not too much of the country’s money was diverted into the unproductive channels of defence.

wished to know why the Under-Secretary of Defence was placed on the highest scale as regarded pay, and whether this official was bilingual.

replied that the official was bilingual, and the Minister added, amid laughter, “he speaks Dutch with a higher accent than I do.” As regarded the salary, the Government had considered it advisable to place this official on the highest scale in view of the tremendously arduous duties connected with the office.

hoped that the arrangement to which the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had referred would be of a very temporary nature, because a very important principle was at stake. If the Treasurer was not the head of a spending department, he could exercise on his colleagues a pressure for economy without any possible charge being made against him of showing favouritism, but if he were also a spending Minister, his colleagues could say to him: “You are spending so much yourself, why can’t you give me so much for education, public works, agriculture, and so on?” The principle itself should be maintained that the Minister for Finance should be entirely free from all work excepting that of watching the finance of the country. It could not be said that the finances of this country were not of sufficient magnitude to occupy the whole attention of a Minister.

said a reference had been made to the fact that that matter had been brought to the notice of the House on a previous occasion. That was perfectly true, and he himself ran some risk in supporting the proposal brought forward at that time of being misunderstood by low-minded people that he was after the job himself. That suspicion, in his mind, was confirmed when the hon. member for Yeoville gave expression to that opinion. It was a low-minded thing to do, and he (the speaker) had no hesitation in saying so. It was absolutely wrong that the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of a great spending department like Defence, should be united in one and the same person. He knew, when he urged that on the previous occasion, that he had laid himself open to the charge which the hon. member for Yeoville had given expression to.

suggested that the hon. member should withdraw the remark he made with reference to the hon. member for Yeoville.

said the hon. member should withdraw the expression.

I will withdraw anything.

said he was sorry that the hon. member was so thin skinned about that matter. He should take such things as they came. He (Mr. Jagger) was certain that the hon. member held the views that he had given expression to.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head (c), £707,499,

asked if the hon. Minister could throw some light on a matter regarding tenders for clothing. A great deal of dissatisfaction had been caused in connection with what had been considered to be hole and corner proceedings with respect to those tenders. He was informed that large contracts were given out for the clothing of the forces. He referred to a case of a contract for 11,000 hats in connection with which there was no opportunity given whatever to firms established in this country to tender, and he understood that the same criticism applied to other articles of clothing. He knew that with reference to those hats there was a distinct feeling in the minds of merchants established in the Union that they had not been given an opportunity to tender, and he would like the hon. member to explain the system that prevailed. He thought it was a reasonable request for the people here to expect that they should have the same opportunity as people in Europe, and he would like an assurance that everybody in South Africa would have the opportunity of tendering when these large contracts were given out.

supported the last speaker, and gave an instance regarding 5,000 saddles. They had a factory which used to employ roughly 1,000 hands close to Cape Town, and they got word about this contract for harness, and on making inquiries, found that tenders had never been asked for. Those 5,000 saddles were being manufactured in Great Britain. Even if it cost a little more to pay for the labour in this country than for the labour in the other countries he thought they should give this country the preference. In respect of articles of clothing which could be made in this country the people here should be given an opportunity to tender.

asked what the £32,000 was for, and why were all the natives required.

replying to the question, pointed out that the policing of the native territories fell under the Defence Act. The existing accommodation was not sufficient, so that many places had to be hired.

The system which prevailed at present, and which had been departed from in one urgent instance, was to call for tenders both in South Africa and abroad, and to give preference to the South African tenderer either of 5 per cent. or of 2½ per cent., according as to whether the materials used were South African or were manufactured in other places. There was one exception in connection with the South African rifles. That was a very urgent case, and it was necessary that no time should be lost, and the rule was departed from, but they would continue invariably to follow the system laid down, in which they would give preference to South African suppliers in respect to articles which could be made in South Africa He had mentioned numbers of cases where contracts had gone to South African suppliers. They would continue to follow that principle. It was the deliberate policy of the Government to prefer the South African supplier to those abroad.

asked a question regarding certain items which occurred under the head of special duty pay. There was provision made for Court Messengers, £900: Interpreters (Magistrates’ Courts). £50; Prosecutors and Issuers of Process (Magistrates’ Courts), £650; Prosecutors (Sub-Native Commissioners’ Courts), £50; and Customs Officers, £700. He would like to know how such items came to be connected with defence?

said there was no need to dilate on that matter. They had taken over the policing of the whole of the Transkeian areas, and the police were still performing those subsidiary duties. It took time to rearrange those services. Until the Law Department would become responsible for them, the police in those Territories would continue to render those services; but the arrangement would come to an end some day, and the sooner the better.

Is this merely a transfer of expenditure?

replied in the affirmative.

said they desired a little more practical sympathy from the Minister in regard to the giving out of these contracts. The saddlery and harness industry was a growing industry, and one that should be encouraged wherever it was possible.

said that, apart from the monetary point of view, it was important, from the military point of view, that the requirements of their military forces should be manufactured in this country. (Hear, hear.) In time of war there might be interruption by sea, and their ships might not arrive as speedily as they wished. He hoped that this country would never be involved in war, but the fact that they had organised a military force showed that there was an element of risk. In time of war they would not be able to get their supplies from oversea, and, therefore, he thought they should encourage these industries in time of peace, so that in time of war they would be able to supply all the requirements of the forces. (Hear, hear.)

thought that 5 per cent, preference was sufficient. He had no objection to South African firms getting the contracts, if the prices were the same; but he would object to paying a higher price for an article when it could be purchased cheaper. The Minister should always remember that he was the Treasurer-General.

asked for some information from the Minister with regard to the stationing of a squadron at Estcourt. After everything had been arranged, it was found that the premises in which it had been intended to house these men had been taken by the Prisons Department, and the result was that the squadron was sent down to Maritzburg.

said that the premises at Estcourt were found not to be available for the purpose of housing these men. As a matter of fact, it was only intended to station a very small force there—seven or eight men. It was found that Fort Durnford had been secured by the Law Department as a reformatory, and as he thought that that was a thing that was more required—(laughter)—he waived his claim.

said that great disappointment had been expressed at the disbandment of the Natal Royal Regiment. There were only a few regiments in the Empire that held this title, which was granted by His Majesty the King. When he asked a question of the Minister some time back he got a rather flippant reply, but the men did not treat it as a joke at all.

said that the hon. member was out of order; he must bring up the question at a later stage.

said he hoped that hon. members who had just spoken would be as keen in supporting the proposal which he was going to put forward. He asked the Minister whether he would give attention to the condition under which some of these articles were being manufactured, and pointed out that Kafirs were engaged in manufacturing boots.

Why not?

There is nothing wrong in it if decent wages are paid. Continuing, he pointed out that in the last Native Affairs Report it was stated that natives who had learned trades, such as saddlery, could only get employment at the wage which they would earn if they went out as labourers. He thought that the Minister should consider the question of establishing State factories for the manufacture of clothing, arms and ammunition. It had been done in Australia.

: At a fine cost, too!

Suppose it does cost us twice as much. Is it not better to pay wages to people who will spend the money in the country?

Certainly not.

said he would rather agree to spend twice the money than to put the money they were now paying into the pockets of a few private exploiters. He knew that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would agree to having everything made in the country, provided he made the stuff. (Laughter.)

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head (e), Citizen Force Head-quarters Staff, £5,904,

in reply to the hon. member for Weenen, said that not long ago he gave the hon. member a complete answer to the question which concerned the Natal Royal Regiment. It was a matter of fifty men, and the Defence Council, after very careful consideration, came to the conclusion that the force should be disbanded. This took place with the concurrence of the Governor-General, who was the representative of His Majesty the King in this country. The Commanding Officer was not satisfied with this, and made representations to certain quarters in England, and got the answer that he deserved. The customary course was pursued in regard to the disbandment of this regiment.

said they did not like being treated just the same as others, because they considered that they were entitled to better treatment. He could assure the Minister that they felt very much upon this matter.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On vote (h), Active Citizen Force,

£172,500,

deprecated the lack of detail in these votes, as it was impossible to follow the items freely from the grouping of the figures. He hoped the Minister would give more details next year.

said he saw from the papers that there was a great shortage of officers. He wanted to know what steps were being taken to remedy this?

said he believed there was some trouble locally, but he had not heard of trouble elsewhere. He had made a provision which was most salutory, and that was, that any person, before being appointed as an officer, should receive some training. He had made provision that any young man who wanted to become an officer should go for a few weeks to Bloemfontein. There would be no expense entailed upon the young man while there. Unless they saw to the training of their officers, the whole force would be simply a paper force, and would be useless.

asked what facilities were given to town boys to become competent riders? Country boys usually had their own horses.

said it was only a certain number of Volunteers who supplied their own horses.

The sub-head was agreed to.

Vote (j), Citizen Reserve Force, £20,250,

asked what the price of rifle ammunition was and how much ammunition would be supplied to members of the Citizen Force.

replied that the price of ammunition was £5,000 per million rounds. The amount of £11,000 on the Estimates was considered sufficient. Sufficient ammunition would be supplied free of charge to rifle clubs, while additional ammunition was supplied to the members at cost price.

asked what opportunity would be given to town boys to learn to ride.

said everyone had the same chance so long as they had their own horses.

asked whether the £1,000 for prizes was for all rifle associations.

asked what was the object of the £2.500 allowance to rifle associations.

said it was proposed to take £1,000 for prizes to be divided among fourteen military districts at Bisley meetings. Originally, it had been intended to have one central Bisley meeting for the whole of the Union, but representations had been made and as a result this scheme had been abandoned, and it was now proposed to allocate £2,500 to be divided among the various Provinces, for prizes to be competed for at the Provincial Bisleys. There would be £500 available at each Provincial competition.

said it seemed to him that the amount set down for Rifle Associations was absurdly low. In Natal they had these Associations throughout the country. They had trained a large number of men, and the natives knew that the white farmers were supplied with a large amount of ammunition. He was sorry to see that the Minister intended to do away with the old order. In the whole of South Africa they were only going to spend £6,500 for ammunition end £7,000 for arms and equipment. Under the old regime they got their rifles for £2. Proceeding, the hon. member referred also to the small amount to be spent on musketry prizes. Here in South Africa they would probably never have to fight in great companies, and the good marksman was a most useful asset to the country. Surely the Minister knew from his own experience the value of a good shot. In native warfare it was the good shot that counted. Not only the farmers in Natal, but the women also had trained themselves to the use of the rifle, because, surrounded as they were by thousands of natives, they had realised the necessity of being able to defend themselves. They could get up a nice little corps of good women shots in Natal. He hoped the Minister would not forget to give some thought to the value of these Rifle Associations.

said he was afraid the hon. member had placed too much reliance on the individual shot, but it was far better to have good average shooting. It was an excellent thing to encourage the Rifle Associations, and he thought the sum on the Estimates was quite sufficient for the purpose, as the public came forward very generously to supplement the Government grant. Although South African wars might not be conducted on a very large scale, the whole of the operations would not be carried on a sniping system. He thought people would be perfectly satisfied with a grant made to Rifle Associations. (Hear, hear.)

wished to know whether any facilities for obtaining ammunition would be granted to Rifle Clubs which did not come in under the Defence Act?

replied in the negative.

pleaded that consideration should be given to the old Rifle Clubs which had done good work.

said the matter was settled in the law.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head (1), Cadet Corps, £25,000,

asked why the Commandant’s salary was £1,200.

said it was the former salary, which was being continued.

asked if only Government schools were subsidised?

replied no, but in large schools, with sufficient boys, the department tried to make provision.

said boys had very few opportunities of learning to ride nowadays, and he suggested that a number of horses should be provided for instruction purposes. (Hear, hear.)

pointed out that accidents had occurred through quite young boys being allowed to fire at the ranges without previous instruction in the handling of rifles.

said that, under the new regulations, only the older boys would learn to shoot.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head (m), Military Schools, £12,582,

Does this include provision for an aviation corps?

There is no aviation corps yet.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head (n), Ordnance Department, £21,442,

asked if the Minister had come to a decision with regard to the Ordnance Fund, which it was suggested should be placed in the hands of trustees.

said he did not want to discuss the matter to night, as there would be a subsequent opportunity of considering the proposal, which had been made by the Public Accounts Committee.

asked what provision had been made for aviation. The CHAIRMAN: You should have raised that under Administration.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head (q), Contribution to His Majesty’s Navy, £85,000,

asked if it were not time that a little more information be given that would lead the House to believe that South Africa was going to bear that part of its naval burden which it was its duty to do.

My hon. friend knows that a statement of policy was made by the Prime Minister earlier in the session. He outlined a number of alternatives, and although he expressed a preference for one scheme, he did not bind himself to any, and said that this was a case for further consultation in view of our scanty knowledge of naval affairs in this country. Nothing has been done, and I am not very sanguine that anything will be done very soon, and under these circumstances I don’t think we need pursue the subject here beyond the assurance given by the Prime Minister.

The sub-head was agreed to.

moved that the sub-heads be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On sub-head A., Administration, £9,619,

called attention to what he considered was a very important matter, and wanted to know what was being done with regard to certain Government areas of well known mineral value which were being exploited by a small body of capitalists. The most important one of those areas had been leased to a corporation, and rumour had it that the particular mining house which successfully tendered for that lease had stood out of the combine, and had got the lease while the other thought they were on strike. That was a rumour, but what was true was that the Government several months ago published in the “ Gazette ” notices asking for tenders for the lease of two other areas, and had received no offer. It might be they were waiting the passing of a Bill dealing with bewaarplaatsen money. It was high time that in South Africa they should take the development of their mineral resources out of the hands of a little group of capitalist houses. The Government could open up and exploit an area of ground in a well-known and perfectly assured mineral district. No step which the Government would take would be more calculated to benefit South Africa than that of taking such action as would show that small body of capitalists that the mineral development of the country did not depend upon their goodwill. He suggested that there was no great risk—practically none at all—and if necessary they could let out underground areas to working miners, and that area would be transformed into what might be described as the poor man’s diggings. They had not heard, however, any hint that the Government recognised their duty in that respect. There was another point to which he wished to draw attention, that was the attitude of the Government with regard to the working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act. He thought they should take every opportunity of bringing that matter forward, and in the haste of hon. members to get home, he thought that next Wednesday, when the motion on the paper was to be dealt with, some hon. member might propose to report progress.

on a point of order, asked if the hon. member was in order in referring to a matter which was down on the order paper for another day.

urged that they had to pass certain matters in regard to miners’ phthisis on the Estimates, and urged that he was in order in discussing the point.

referring to the argument of the Minister of Mines, maintained that the Estimates represented an order of the House, and therefore the hon. member for Jeppe should be at liberty to discuss any order of the House.

also supported that view of the matter.

said it was not his intention to limit the discussion, but the hon. member for Jeppe had, in his remarks, ruled himself out of order by asking for information on a matter which was on the order paper for Wednesday next.

said the hon. member must keep away from the resolution and amendment which had been given notice of.

said he wanted to refer to the case of those men who were abroad. He had received two or three letters regarding a case which he was perfectly sure every member of the House would desire to see met. These men had gone away to their homes in other lands in a scrapheap condition, and being so far away, could not possibly return to Johannesburg to submit themselves to the officers of the Board; and there was no provision for their being examined by qualified men abroad, whose certificates would enable them to get compensation. Then there was the case of a man, which was typical of others, who was receiving compensation in the first stage, and who might be looked upon as being cured, and who had to go back again into the mines. Continuing, he said that the Board’s advisers came to the conclusion that this person was not qualified to receive further consideration. He received no further compensation, but—

said that the hon. member was now dealing with the motion.

said that he would pursue the matter further on Wednesday. Continuing, he said that they had no reports from the Miners’ Phthisis Prevention Committee since August last. When the committee was appointed it was stated that it was going to seriously tackle the question, and they wanted to know what the committee was doing, seeing that the latest report was dated August of last year. They would like to know whether behind all this talk about the improvement of the conditions there was any tangible evidence that things were better. Many of them feared that they were laying the flattering unction to their souls that an improvement had taken place, and that things would be better in two or three years time, but they had no evidence on the subject. Then there were those new methods of dust determination, about which they would like to know something. He wished to know what information the Minister had to give them in this respect? What measures had the Minister taken in the way of extra staff to see that there was no relaxation in the efforts to free the mines from dust? He was fully convinced that so long as the mines were in the hands of private companies, whose idea was to make as much profit as possible every year, it was an almost impossible task for the Government to undertake with the small expenditure that was set down on the Estimates, the task of seeing that the people who worked in the mines did not always play second fiddle to the desire to make as much profit as possible. Then they would like to know what the Government was doing with regard to making use of the powers placed in their hands by the Gold Law of 1908—the power of saying to the people in charge when a mine was closed down, either that the mine was worked or that the Government should take it in hand and work it. He referred to mines that had been closed down. It might be said that these mines were not payable. He ventured to say that those were not the views held when the shares were fetching big prices on the market in England. But, though it was dangerous to prophesy, he thought he might confidently say that, in the course of the next three or four years, those mines would be found extraordinarily payable again. The Government should make use of these powers.

They did not want to be like reciprocating engines—without a flywheel. They wanted to know how far the representations of the Minister had gone. Had they gone any further than simply asking whether they were going to work these mines? What they wanted to know was: whether the Minister had intimated to them that he had powers under the Gold Law, and that he intended to use these powers? Another point was with regard to the hours of labour—the extension of the Saturday day into the Sunday morning. It was stated that having two shifts on the Saturday night did not allow time for the smoke to clear away, and therefore the Minister had allowed them to work on Sunday morning. This might be according to the strict letter of the law, but it was not the intention of Parliament to allow this routine work to be done. (Hear, hear.) If they allowed this work to be done up to 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning on mines where he had given permission, it would be done on mines where the Minister had not given permission. With regard to this Industrial Disputes Act, he thought the Minister should have tried to have made this Act less an absurdity than it was today. Proceeding, the hon. member stated that employers paid no attention to this Board nor its decisions. It must be evident to the Minister that men were not satisfied to work under a law of that sort. If they were going to deprive men of the right to stop work, then they must be very careful to give them some remedy for protecting themselves. They tied the men’s hands, and they gave them no real substitute for the freedom they took away.

referred to the measure dealing with the bewaarplaatsen, from which he said he noticed that it was the intention of the Government to hand over half of the proceeds from these bewaarplaatsen to the owners of the undermining rights. He mentioned this to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Jeppe in regard to the State undertaking the working of the ground still in their possession. So far as he (General Hertzog) knew, there were still certain lands belonging to the State, that was to say land, the undermining rights of which were still in the hands of the State. Well, if one accepted the principle that half the proceeds from these bewaarplaatsen—that was the bewaarplaatsen which had not been given out yet—must be given over to the owner of the under-mining rights, then he thought the time had come for the Government to consider whether they should proceed any longer to give these rights to other people, or allow other people to contract for these rights, or whether it was not better for the State itself to work these rights. (Hear, hear.) One thing was clear to him, and that was that the State had the right to work that land themselves without giving up one six-penny niece of the proceeds. (Hear, hear.)

In these circumstances, he thought the Government should give their serious consideration to the points raised by the previous speaker. Looking at the amount already in the Treasury as the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen—half of which amount would now have to be given up—it seemed to him that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the State themselves working these undermining rights. He hoped in the circumstances that the Government would consider the matter during the recess and would have the necessary investigations made, and in the meanwhile they should not let out or give out the under-mining rights on any of the ground at present still in their hands.

said that earlier in the session a question was put with regard to the Murchison water scheme, the position in regard to which was unsatisfactory. The gold mining licences brought in a very large sum of money, but because nothing was being done to provide water many people were abandoning their claims. Unless something was done very soon to provide water so that mining operations could be prosecuted the position in the Murchison Range was going to be a very serious one. Seeing that the licences brought in from £50,000 to £75,000 a year the cost would be recovered in a couple of years or so. In face of this the Government’s inactivity was a “penny wise, pound foolish” policy. Unless something were done in this matter the money invested in the Selati line would be lost to a very large extent.

asked if the Minister intended to do anything with regard to the men affected with miners’ phthisis who at the end of their first year’s payments would not receive any further benefits.

That will be dealt with in the motion to come before the House on Wednesday.

asked the Minister if some immediate provision could not be made for them. They were out of work and there was absolutely no provision for them at the present time. The position would become more and more serious, and before Parliament met next session there would be a larger number of those people in distress.

asked for information regarding accidents in diamond mines in the Cape Province, and said that the last report showed there were 295, which worked out at an average of 12.79 per 1,000. That was even a larger average than the gold mines in the same year, which worked out at 9.49.

wanted some information respecting the hours worked underground in the mines, and wanted to know how long those who worked eight hours on the face had to work underground.

asked for information regarding the Precious Stones and Minerals Act. His constituents had been visited by two Ministers of Mines, and both had given assurances with regard to grievances to which their attention had been called, that these grievances would be dealt with under the Precious Stones and Minerals Act. They had waited patiently for two sessions, and they would like the hon. Minister to put him in a position to explain why those promises had not been carried out.

said he did not propose to go very deeply into the question of the Government’s working the gold mines, or to the contentions of the hon. member for Smithfield, but he would have been glad to have explained to him had he been in the House that he had confused the two questions of bewaarplaatsen and the Government Areas. The hon. member for Jeppe asked what had become of the two large areas which the Government had more recently offered for tender. One was closed a month ago, no tender being received, but the other was not yet closed. The alternative which the hon. member threw out that the Government should work those mines was a very big proposition. The hon. member was hanging between two principles. He had advocated the principle that all the mines should be taken over, but they could not agree to that, and the other was to see that they should leave it to others and supervise. Well that was the present principle, and the hon. member was now mixing up the two.

Why not?

Because you have complicated a number of questions which would not be discussed in the same impartial way by the Government if they were interested in the mines themselves. It was not good policy to use the taxpayers money to compete with private enterprise. The laws they passed in that House would not provide the capital to work the mines. The hon. member wanted them to undertake a thing which would only lead to further complications. The Modderfontein area was rather a speculative undertaking, and he thought it would cost a million for development and shaft sinking. With regard to the Miners’ Phthisis Prevention Committee he would say that the first report had already been issued. Since then they had framed revised regulations, and these would soon be put in force.

Why have we not got the report?

explained that the report had been perused by interested parties, and the hon. member could see it if he wished. It was a very technical document, and that being so it was not thought advisable to furnish copies to members of Parliament. The committee was preparing its third report, which had to do with general working. No general permission had been given for men to work on Saturday afternoons into Sunday, but in certain cases, where mines were in an unsatisfactory state, permission had been given these mines, for three months, to carry on Saturday work. So soon as these mines had placed their houses in order the permission would be withdrawn. He would not say that the Industrial Disputes Act was a perfect Act, but he would point out that a British Commission had reported very favourably on the Canadian Act, which had served as a model for the Transvaal Act. Proceeding, the Minister of Mines said that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg had referred to the water supply, and he (the Minister) had taken the opportunity of visiting the Murchison Range and investigating the scheme. The hon. member called this a private scheme, but that was not quite correct. They wanted a very strong Government subsidy. In fact, it was intended to be largely financed by the Government. Government, however, came to the conclusion that the scheme was not of a nature to go on with, and the Irrigation Department was asked to see what they could do to get a Government scheme. He believed that such a scheme was feasible, but that scheme would require money, and for this present year he did not think that it could be proceeded with. He hoped, however, that next year it would. They had the Selati Railway running along there, and unless they provided facilities for the mines this railway would not be a paying proposition. He was a strong believer in the water scheme of the Murchison Range, and he thought an expenditure of £100,000 would be well laid out. With regard to the figures quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, these rather surprised him, but he would look into the matter. The hon. member for Fordsburg wanted the average of work done underground. He did not think there had been much change, but if he wanted the latest returns he would let him have them.

said rarely had one listened to a more unsatisfactory answer from a Minister. In order to test the feeling of the House, he would move to reduce the amount by £150 from the item “ Secretary for Mines, £1,500.” It was a dangerous position when a Minister practically said that the mine owners could shut down their mines as they liked—they were privileged and could go on strike— and he (the Minister) would be powerless. The Minister also said that if this little group of “houses” did not compete for the Government mining areas the Government would not work them, and the Minister also said that he had not the least intention of using his powers.

I did not say that.

What did you say then? Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that the Government surrendered itself into the hands of a little group of mining houses. The Minister also observed that he could not understand their advocating the taking over of the mines, but not starting to work the Government areas by themselves, because that would confuse two functions of the Government. What would the Government answer if they on those benches proposed at one fell swoop to take over the whole of the Mines on the Witwatersrand? With regard to the Minister’s argument that the Government would not be able to show impartiality with regard to those mining interests they were concerned in connection with the decrease of the profits from the mines if the mines were to be stopped on Sundays. He did not remember that it meant that the Government would lose 10 per cent, of the profits, but it conveyed that impression. The Government was interested, at all events, with the result of the working of the bewaarplaatsen, and their impartiality could just as well be maintained if they were working one of those Government areas. Their impartiality would have been felt in no material degree by the men working in those mines. Then he tried to tell the Committee that the native supply question would affect the question, and then he tried to frighten the question by saying that they would have to spend something like a million in developing a Government area. The Government need not spend that amount. The Brakpan mine did not spend that amount, and they had got results. What did it matter if they did spend that amount, so long as they got the results achieved by the Brakpan mine? There was no need for the Government to go in for it on that scale. It was an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the Government should place themselves in the hands of the ring, which members on the cross-benches and others were trying to break. Why did not the Minister tell the House candidly that he did not intend to make any change with regard to industrial disputes and the hours of working until his hands were forced?

moved to report progress.

said he would like to get one vote through.

considered that the replies of the Minister of Mines so fair had been most unsatisfactory. He hoped the House, therefore, would agree to report progress.

The motion to report progress was negatived.

said that he wanted to draw the attention of the committee to those mines which had been closed down, and what effect they had on the various mining communities. He knew the district thoroughly. In the Benoni district nine mines had been closed down within the last couple of years, and when they came to analyse the reasons fox-closing down these mines, he thought the committee would understand that there was a screw loose somewhere. The hon. member, proceeding, referred to the closing down of the Apex Gold Mine mainly due to a reduction plant. In the course of the erection of this plant, no fewer than £80,000 had been expended for the working of the Benoni and the Apex mines. The Minister had not made it clear that the plant had been tried on the E.R.P.M. district and had been proved an absolute failure. In consequence of expenditure of this money, that mine had to be closed down, yet the Minister said he was not going to take upon himself the powers conferred upon him by the Gold Law. The Grootvlei mine was closed down about 18 months ago, the alleged reason being that it was flooded out, no provision having been made in the first place to cope with the water. In both these cases there had been negligence on the part of those responsible, yet the Minister said he was not going to do anything. With regard to the Geduld Deep, all the money subscribed by the shareholders had been expended, and not even a sod had been turned. The Afrikander mine was also closed down for lack of money, but the real reason was that the Anglo-French Co.— which controlled it—were particularly anxious to squeeze out a particular individual who had a large interest in it. There was over a million tons of rock on the surface waiting to be crushed. Continuing, Mr. Madeley asked upon what did Government base its Estimates for the profit tax accruing from De Beers. That company, in estimating its assets, had written down the whole of its machinery to the sum of only £1, with the result that there was less profit which the Government could tax. With regard to accidents in Cape Colony diamond mines, it seemed to point to the necessity of certificates of competency being held by those who might be said to hold in their hands the lives of others.

said that the hon. member had made a statement that because De Beers Consolidated Mines had written off a large sum for depreciation, the Government had not received its full share of the tax, and he had requested the Minister to keep a watchful eye on the De Beers Consolidated Mines. He (the speaker) assured the House that the amount which was written off was not debited to profit and loss at all. The Government did not allow the diamond mining companies to Write off anything for depreciation, and the total profit, on which the Government received its tax, was not affected in the slightest degree by the amount written off for depreciation. The hon. member made some peculiar statements, and he would not be surprised to hear him one day ask if he could be informed by the right hon. Minister, “Who killed Cock Robin?” (Laughter.)

said the clause in the Gold Law was brought about as the result of an agitation and a petition with 10,000 signatures. The Minister seemed to think there was no necessity to carry out these powers. Now it meant a big thing to that country. In Australia people had to forfeit their claims if they did not work them, and why should not the same thing be done here? He did not think the Minister had taken up a sound position at all.

said the time had arrived when the Government should consider the scheme outlined by his hon. friend. It showed clearly, to his mind, that a boycott had been established, and that the Government had simply declined to work these areas. Surely the Minister was not going to put the country off with the statements made. Proceeding, the hon. member said that a very interesting sidelight was thrown upon the present value of the Premier Diamond Mine shares. The evidence of the manager went to show that the original capital of the Premier Diamond Mine was £80,000. The value of a pound share today was £73. The manager further added that they had spent in equipping the mine close upon £2,000,000. But, instead of watering the capital, they were simple-minded, and used their profits for the purpose of equipping the mine.

He maintained that the mineral resources of the country were being exploited—not for the interests of the people and in order to build up a great white nation—but purely in the interests of the financial houses which had control of them. Talk about American Trusts! We were just as much in the hands of Trusts in South Africa as the people in the United States were. And no effort appeared to be made on the part of the Government to break through this ring. Here was an obvious opportunity for the Government to do something—to take part in mining, not as a speculation, but as a dead certainty.

We have made our protest; we have raised questions which have been met by the same conspiracy of silence.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion.

I am, sir. I am calling attention to the fact that though we have been making these representations they have been met by a conspiracy of silence on the part of that party which distributes itself to your right and to your left.

You bore us. (Laughter.)

The more they show their indifference the more the ranks of those who sit on these benches will be strengthened.

The amendment moved by Mr. Creswell was negatived.

called for a division.

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

declared the amendment negatived.

said they had been discussing policy, and he suggested that progress might be reported. He would refrain from discussing the vote any further if the hon. Minister would allow the Estimates to be discussed as they went through. He suggested that if frank and candid discussion were allowed the progress of the items would be facilitated.

said that he had not the slightest intention of preventing any member from discussing the items. They had been two hours on that one vote, but when they passed that vote he would agree to progress being reported.

said they were not at all pleased of having to do all the talking.

Sub-head (a) was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.