from A. R. Mackenzie, teacher, for condonation of breaks in his service.

from L. F. Reinecke, Land Bank, for condonation of a break in his service.

from C. H. Grove, for condonation of a break in his service.

from F. W. McClintock, railway clerk, for condonation of breaks in his service.

as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Amendment of South Africa Act.

The report and evidence were set down for consideration on Monday, the 50th inst.

said that before the House went on to the Orders of the Day he would like to give the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) some information the hon. member asked for yesterday in connection with the contracts for rolling-stock. He (Mr. Burton) found that his recollection of this point was quite correct, and that in calling for world-wide tenders they were asked for generally. (Cheers.) A new feature was introduced in connection with these tenders, a chance being given to firms or their representatives here to tender in South Africa, which he believed was a great improvement, but these tenders must be sent in on the same dates as those from other parts of the world.

moved that the House concur in the amendments made by the Senate.

supported the motion, remarking that he would like to say a few words to show why the House should accept the amendments. No definite charge had been made against the deported men; the Minister having shifted his charges on every stage of the Bill. Affidavits had been received from the deported men in England. These affidavits bore on the arrest and stated that force and violence were used.

That would not be germane to this question.

Would it not be germane to draw attention to the method of the arrest?

No. The only thing before the House is the acceptance or rejection of the amendments made by the Senate.

I was going to give some reasons why we should agree with the amendments made by the Senate in the preamble. I would like to point out that at the time of their arrest these men were not styled undesirable immigrants, and I would like to read some of the affidavits that have been received from England. Mr. Sampson was proceeding to read the affidavit of Mr. Bain, when

May I point out that these affidavits might have been read on the second or third reading, but the question now before the House is only the deletion of these words.

said he thought the affidavits had a strong bearing on the matter.

The history of the strike or anything dealing with the merits of the Bill cannot be discussed.

said the affidavits dealt with the method of the arrest of the deportees. It was not alleged against the men at the time of their arrest that they were undesirable members of the Union. Now they were dealing with the preamble, which had stated that those men were undesirable members of the Union. He wished the House to accept the amendment made in another place. It seemed to him that, if the amendment was agreed to, the title would not be in conformity with clause 4, which said that the men might be dealt with as prohibited immigrants. He would regret to see the amendment not agreed to, but it would not achieve the object of the Senate, who had inserted it. If the words were taken from the preamble, something would have to be done in connection with clause 4.

The House is incompetent to deal with clause 4.

I regret you will not allow me to read these affidavits, because they are of great interest.

said he would like to support the amendment which had been moved in another place. It had been stated right through the discussion in that House that those men were undesirable citizens. The other place had passed the motion for the purpose of deleting those words, and they had before them that day nine affidavits from the men, which, if read out, would give their side of the case, to show they were not undesirables, but were desirable citizens of South Africa. He wished to raise his voice in protest, because those affidavits had a direct bearing on the matter. Not only the members of that House but the people of South Africa, and the people all over the world, were looking for information from those affidavits which were not allowed to be read out, although they had a bearing on that particular clause.

The amendments of the Senate were agreed to, and the Bill was retransmitted to the Senate.

moved the second reading of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill. He said the Bill had come to the House after careful consideration by the Senate. It was not a contentious measure, and he hoped the second reading would take a very short time. The Bill embodied everything that was best in the Acts of the four Provinces, but there were some new provisions. One necessary provision was the necessity for a penalty for animal fighting—cock fighting, dog fighting, or anything of that sort. Another very necessary provision was to stop the doping of racehorses or other animals, and another was to see that farming operations were carried out with due care. In moving the second reading, he would have liked to have added one thing, and that was, to do away with club-swinging and similar feats of endurance. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill.

objected.

The Committee stage was set down for next Wednesday.

on the order for the House to go into Committee on the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Bill; on behalf of Mr. Hull, moved: “That the order for the House to go into Committee on the Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report.” He said he had been asked by the hon. member for Barberton, who was, unfortunately, unable to be present to move the motion standing in his name, and he did so with pleasure, because he entirely agreed with it. He was sorry that he did not have an opportunity of saying a few words on the second reading of the Bill. He would have asked the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to withdraw his resolution, because one could not expect the House to vote against the principle of the Bill at once. He did not think that was altogether reasonable, although he was quite convinced that on the details of the Bill a Select Committee would be an enormous saving of time, and at the same time it would give a great deal of satisfaction to the people concerned. There were many questions which were opened up during the discussion which must have convinced a person that it was desirable that they should meet in a calm and reasonable way—trying not, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said, to catch votes, but trying to do the best they could for a large body of public servants. They would not do anything by a wrangle in the House, but they might try to do it by a Select Committee. How was it that within the Cape Colony they for years past had had a large body of public servants— he supposed about half the whole force of the Railway Department who went through very troublous times, who were retrenched, and docked of their pay, and yet there was a loyalty and a feeling of pride in the service which they had to seek in vain for now.

What was the reason of that? It was no good lightly to say it was due to agitation. There must be some good ground for the seed to grow. There must be some ground for this sort of thing. He could not help thinking that they were in too much of a hurry to depart from Cape methods when the railways were taken over by the Union.

Quite true.

said he thought so too, and he thought that if they could get back to Cape methods or near them they would improve the service considerably. In 1908 no service in the world would have gone through a greater strain than the Cape service. People were retrenched, they had their pay docked 5 per cent, down to the poorest man, and, above all that, they had to pay an Income Tax. But they heard nothing of this frightful commotion. These men had a sense of loyalty. They knew the country was in a difficulty, and they said they were going to see the country through. It was not for want of agitators, because God knew they had enough agitators in the Old Cape House on that occasion. The men stuck to their guns, and behaved in a manner that earned the admiration of everybody. Why should it not be the same now? It was a question that was not easily answered by saying agitators. The agitators in the case he had mentioned were in higher places in the House. They were members of Parliament who came down to the House and pleaded and put the case of the men as strongly as anything could be put. There was a point that the Select Committee might inquire into—the system adopted on the American Railways, which would be found admirably described in a report prepared by Sir Neville Priestley. The report showed how huge bodies of men were controlled, and were controlled fairly well.

They had spent a good deal of time over this Bill, and by discussing its provisions in the House they were only creating fuel and blowing up the coals when they wanted to smooth them down. Here was a case where a Select Committee could do good work, and he urged upon the Minister not to wreck, by what the Minister called firmness, but which might be called by a harsher name, the possibility of making a good measure that would bring peace and contentment to the men. Sic volo, sic jubeo. Stet pro ratione voluntas. That seemed to be the Minister’s idea, but it was not the right spirit. He did not bring this forward in any spirit of hostility, and personally he could not be accused of angling for Labour votes. He wanted to see an end put to this discontent in the service. During both these troubles he had had conversations with some of his friends on the railway. The first time he was told there was no chance of the railwaymen going out. The second time he asked his friend, and he said, “Well, in June I told you there was not the slightest chance, but I am not quite so sure now. There is a certain amount of discontent.” He (Mr. Merriman) asked what had caused the discontent, and was told that there were grievances, though a great many of these were sentimental grievances. All these might be avoided if they laid their heads to it and put things on a satisfactory footing. Let them try to do so, for he thought most members of that House were anxious to make the railwaymen as contented as possible. He would appeal to the Minister, who, he knew, was a reasonable man if they got at him in the right way, though the difficulty was finding the right way. It would avoid waste of time, avoid irritation in the country and among the railwaymen, and he believed that the Minister would be acting up to the spirit in which he moved this Bill, which was one of conciliation (Cheers.)

in seconding the amendment, said his right hon. friend had referred to the amendment he (Sir Thomas) moved the other day, and had talked about certain matters being discussed in the committee room. The right hon. gentleman must know that unless the order was discharged and the subject-matter of the Bill referred, to a Select Committee, the rules of the House would make it impossible to go into some of the interesting facts the right hon. gentleman had brought before the House. He was sorry that the Government and the Minister had looked upon his amendment the other day as a motion of no confidence. Why that attitude should have been adopted he could not understand. He pointed out that in connection with the University Bill the Minister of Mines spoke for two hours and then moved a similar resolution to the one he (Sir Thomas) had placed before the House. He (Sir Thomas) thought that the Government having adopted that course in connection with the University Bill, it would adopt the same course with a far more pressing measure. He supported the amendment because he thought they were more likely to do justice in the calm, judicial atmosphere of the committee-room, where there was no opportunity of making political capital, as might be the case in that House. If the Government agreed to the course it could bring resolutions from that House to the committee which would allow the committee to make alterations in the clauses, The majority of members of that House were in favour of making an example of the ringleaders, but having done so, thought that the rank and file should be leniently dealt with. He also asked whether some alteration could not be made whereby something more acceptable to the men who stuck at work could not be given than three or four days’ holiday. With regard to grievances, he thought that if the House made a claim that it was prepared to go into grievances the men would accept the position laid down by the House. Over and above the unfortunate Socialistic element which had entered into all their working arrangements should be proved to the men to be detrimental to their own interests, and it must be shown that the House was prepared to deal with legitimate grievances. If the House was prepared to deal with the matter in a sympathetic manner he thought it would go a long way to reassuring the, men. If the Bill went to a Select Committee he hoped that the Government would allow alterations to be made, and would treat the matter in a sympathetic manner. After all, when a man left the railway service of this country he had no other place to go to. Though they regretted the strike and the events connected with the strike, and though they regretted the unfortunate suffering of many of these people and their families, he did say that they had arrived at a time when the House should not be vindictive. He was prepared to give his, support to the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West.

said that one matter which had not been mentioned in the debate on the second reading ought, he thought, to engage the serious attention of the House. The real root of the trouble in the service was one of security, etc. Now, was there not a great deal to be said for the old Cape system of the fixed establishment, which brought men on to the fixed establishment and gave them a very moderate measure of security of tenure after ten years’ service? He would put it to the House whether they should not have that established again. It was a safeguard against strikes, which, in his opinion, and, he thought, in the opinion of many members who knew the men, was far more effective than any of these punitive clauses.

said that he had given his vote for the’ second reading on the understanding that the Bill would go to Select Committee. On several grounds, he contended that the subject-matter of the Bill could be dealt with much better in Select Committee than in Committee of the whole House. In addition to loyal daily servants, they had loyal burghers who had left home and hearth in despite of the drought in order to do their duty. Well, if they were to reward the first, they ought to reward the second. Many of the railwaymen were really innocent, as they only went on strike under threats. He accordingly supported the amendment.

said that, when the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was before the House the other night, he indicated the reasons which actuated the Government, quite apart from the question of the effect of the hon. member’s motion—because he said then quite clearly that he did not impute the intention of moving a vote of no confidence, though that would be the effect—but, quite apart from that, the objection to the reference of this matter to Select Committee rested upon other grounds. He had tried to point out to the House the reasons which actuated the Government in opposing this motion. He hoped he would not be misunderstood, or that it would not be said that he was pursuing a course which amounted to sic volo, sic jubeo. He was convinced that, if they referred this Bill to a Select Committee now, they would not save any time at all. (Ministerial cheers.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had been perfectly candid in stating as one of the reasons why he desired to have this Bill referred to Select Committee, that they should have a grand inquest on grievances, that they should have in this Select Committee, not an investigation dealing with how men were to be rewarded, and how men were to be punished, or rather, he should say, how they were to let them off being punished—they must not deal with these matters that the Bill dealt with, but they must open up the whole avenue of grievances that they had had in the past. He could conceive nothing that would be more harmful to this country at present and to the railway service. (Hear, hear.) One knew perfectly well what was going to happen. On that committee they must have the representatives of a certain section in this House, and they would have a majority report and a minority report, and when the Bill came back to this House, and they went into committee, they would have just as much—and probably more—wrangling than if they were to deal with it now.

In regard to this matter of grievances, he believed that they could arrive, in Committee of the House, at a reasonable settlement. It was quite clear to him that the idea of this Select Committee was not to settle these matters, but to open up the whole question of grievances. They had got a Commission appointed for the special purpose of going into all the grievances which were represented by the men’s society and the Trade Unions, and the people who professed to represent the railwaymen generally. All the points of grievance which they presented as standing over had been specifically referred to an outside Commission, a Statutory Commission. He had already told the House that it was his purpose—he was in a position now to do it almost immediately, and he had taken all the necessary steps to see that the successor of Mr. Poutsma should be elected as soon as possible on this Commission. He did not agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg in his view of these Commissions. He claimed that, if they took a Commission presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court of the standing of Mr. Justice Ward, combined with a representative of the Administration and one of the men themselves, they had got an infinitely better body for dealing with these matters than if they had a Select Committee of this. House. It had been patent for some time that the Government had been pressed from all sides in order to water down this Bill until they could hardly recognise it. One felt tempted to say that if there was all this fuss about the matter, let him withdraw the Bill and stand upon their own legislation. No one would be able to accuse him of a vengeful or vindictive attitude; he should simply say “Let the law take its course.” But that was not his attitude. He did not think any Minister, under the circumstances which had occurred in this country, could be charged with being vindictive or unreasonable if he simply said “You have chosen your course; let the law take its course. You have gone out gaily without a thought for your country, without a thought for your duty.” He had not one iota of bitterness in this matter, but if they were to adopt the line which was now pressed upon him, one wondered whether it would not be better simply to have said to the House, “Let the law take its course. ”

To send the Bill to a Select Committee, which must necessarily represent to some extent the extremists, would be doing one of the worst things possible. He was continually told that the proper way to deal with grievances was to have them dealt with by a body outside the department. In the matter of grievances a Statutory Commission had been appointed to go into them, and yet it was suggested that we should have a Select Committee to go into all these matters here. Let them see what were the matters which were placed before the Grievances Commission which was presided over by an impartial Judge of the Supreme Court, First of all the men desired the immediate introduction of an eight hours’ day and a minimum wage of 8s. a day for all white adult employees. The House had been told that it was not so much a question of wages or material benefits, but it was status that the railwaymen required. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had been very loud indeed in proclaiming this doctrine. But if one gave the railwayman the pay he wanted and the conditions under which he desired to do his work, he would not trouble one much with sentiment, or sentimental ideas of status. Let them listen to the men’s grievances and then say where the sentiment came in or where the £ s. d. came in. Of course, that was perfectly natural, and he did not blame the men for it, for, after all, what was status but pay? The grievances included the revision of the present rates of local allowances on the basis of the comparative cost of living at various centres, the abolition of piecework—purely sentimental-less severity of punishment—more sentiment—reinstatement of men who had been dismissed, and that apprentices should fully be indentured. On these matters there was something to be said on both sides and they were to be considered. Then the list of grievances referred to the overtime rates for mechanics, and asked that apprentices should not be allowed to work overtime under any circumstances. These were some of the grievances which had been referred to the Commission.

There was one element in this matter to which he had not yet referred. The right hon. member for Victoria West had made mention of the loyalty of the Cape men— loyalty which the Government and the Administration appreciated most sincerely and highly. (Cheers.) But do not let them get the idea that loyal men were only to be found in the Cape. If the circumstances such as prevailed in the Cape existed in the other centres and the men were free from the constant attention of agitators they would have had plenty of loyalty in the inland centres. (Cheers.) So long as the railwaymen had votes so long the shadow of the railway voter would rest heavily over the House. (Cheers.) He did not object, but they must not tell him that a Select Committee was the best form to adopt to inquire into railway grievances. In the old days before Syndicalism no member of Parliament ever spoke in such a way as to induce men to be unfaithful, and no single member of Parliament ever acted in such a way as to incite men to be unfaithful and disloyal. That was the most material difference between the position in the old days when, thank God, we had not yet entered on this new era of liberty, so called That was the Teal difference in the position of the men in the simpler and happier old days and the present time. When it was said that a great deal of our troubles was due to our having departed from Cape methods he confessed he found it a little difficult to find what was meant by Cape methods in this respect. Might he remind the House of the actual position in regard to the presentation of grievances to the late Commission of which Mr. Goldman was chairman. The bulk of the complaints with which that Commission dealt were Cape grievances and Cape grievances which had existed prior to Union. (Ministerial cheers.)

That makes the case all the stronger.

said he was partly responsible for the Cape way of dealing with things, but could not carry his predilection for the Cape and its methods to the point of not recognising facts. (Hear, hear.) There was no doubt that the amalgamation of the different railway systems under Union had pressed a little hardly here and there—that was inevitable, but the only substantial difference that had taken place so far as the Cape men were concerned was that in the increments which he had told the House had been made since Union the Cape railwaymen had secured far the largest portion, they having benefited more than the railwaymen in any other part of the Union. The House had had an interesting statement from the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir W. B. Berry), in regard to the position of the men there. The hon. member read a telegram from the Queen’s Town men stating that they wanted the removal of their grievances, but only in March last year the Queen’s Town railway staff voluntarily testified to the satisfactoriness of the revised conditions under the new staff regulations—a most refreshing incident. A testimonial was sent to the Divisional Superintendent stating that the only outstanding grievances were in regard to Cape rates of pay, and those grievances had finally been removed. (Hear, hear.)

said that his hon. friend the Minister had done his best to prolong the matter. The question before the House was whether that Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. If they were going to the Committee-room, was it not likely, he asked, that they would have a shorter discussion than they would have in that House? Why should the matter of grievances be brought up at all in regard to that Bill? That Bill did not deal with grievances, but simply with punishments and rewards, and a strong Chairman of the Committee could rule any discussion on grievances out—for one reason that it was not in the Bill, and for another reason, that the Government was taking other measures to deal with grievances. There was a tremendous difference of opinion about these punishments and in regard to fines, and whether they should not leave them out altogether. They wanted some clear evidence as to what had been done on English railways under similar circumstances, as regards, rewards and the like, and the hon. member referred to what had been done on the Great Western Railway in that respect. Some members claimed that there should be an addition to the pension fund, but the Minister had stated that that would be too expensive; however, useful evidence could be given before the Select Committee in that direction. He felt confident that, if such evidence was given, a Bill would be brought before that House which would go through with very little trouble. He believed himself, and his hon. friend know, that his sole reason for urging that course was that they would get a much better Bill, and they would certainly expedite matters.

said that he hoped the amendment of the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West would be accepted. The hon. Minister had referred to piece-work and the policy of piece-work and time and a half, and all the rest of it, but these matters would not come before the Select Committee, if one were appointed to deal with the Bill. When the Minister referred to the Statutory Commission, which went into grievances, he (Mr. Boydell) asked what had that Commission to do with the Bill they were now discussing? As to what the Minister had stated that it would not save time to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, was that going to set up a precedent for all future Bills, because in the past several Bills had been referred to a Select Committee to be threshed out there? The argument about not saving any time seemed to be a very thin one. There were a good many amendments to that Bill on the paper, and what chance would these amendments have of passing in that House? In the Select Committee they would have a much better chance of being accepted. Taking the first amendment on the paper, although several hon. members might be in favour of it, the House, he thought, would be very loth to accept it, but the Select Committee might accept it. There were many of these fines imposed on the men which were altogether unequal and disproportionate. Dealing with what the Minister had said about what would have happened if the law had taken its course, and that Bill had not been introduced, the hon. member said he thought it would be very unwise, from the Government’s own point of view, to let the law take its course, and let these men be fined for striking. The Government would be very sorry before they had done with it. Despite what the Minister had said, there was a certain element of vindictiveness in that Bill, and the punishments in many cases were going to be exceedingly severe. He knew of a man in Durban, who, if he were not back in the service, lost something like £90, and he was not a ringleader. That man had paid quite recently the whole of his hard earnings—£90 arrears—into the superannuation funds.

said that if a Select Committee would deal with all the questions of grievances then the Minister’s statement was unanswerable. The last speaker in a convincing manner had pointed out the enormous variation in the punishments, where the punishments were intended to be equal. It had been said that the amendments proposed by the Labour members would not be considered in the House, but would be considered by a Select Committee. He thought they should have the fullest consideration. If there was much in those things they ought to know them and act accordingly. Could they not get out of the difficulty this way— in some way to make it clear that the work of the Select Committee would be limited to the Bill? If it were to mean that all the grievances were to be dragged into the discussions of the committee, then there would be no answer to the statement of the Minister, but he did not agree with him. He did not think it would be necessary for the committee to go into the grievances. The best thing they could do was to show that they were desirous of giving every possible consideration to the facts of the case.

said that he agreed with the amendment if it could be laid down that the Select Committee was only to deal with matters dealt with in the Bill and was not to go into the question of grievances. He thought if that was done the Minister should withdraw his objections. As to the argument that the Select Committee would return a majority and a minority report, the hon. member stated that other controversial matters had been referred to Select Committees, and that although in many instances minority and majority reports had been put before Parliament, the House had yet been able to come to a satisfactory conclusion. On the other hand, they had often had unanimous reports. (Hear, hear.) It would be totally wrong, the hon. member went on, to make this a party question or to create an impression that some members of this House were more in favour of the railway employees than others. That impression might be created if they had long speeches during the committee stage. If the amendment were accepted that would be obviated, as the question would be fully dealt with in the committee rooms. Better means than those proposed might be discovered in committee for the reward of the loyal railwaymen. Personally he was in favour of the principles laid down in the Bill, as he was of opinion that the men who had broken their contracts were deserving of punishment. On the other hand, some people might be more guilty than others, and even as to the kind of reward that was suitable there was difference of opinion and both these were matters which should be gone into by a Select Committee. To say that the men should be loyal to their comrades was all very well, but it was ridiculous to say that they should be more loyal to their comrades than to the State. In the circumstances, Mr. Grobler concluded, he was going to vote for the amendment.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had complained that the Minister had treated his motion to refer the subject matter of the Bill to a Select Committee as a motion of no confidence in the Government, and had tried to draw a parallel with the case of the Minister of Education and the University Bill, but it was surely an entirely different matter for the leader of the Opposition to introduce an official motion, the only interpretation of which was that the Government was incompetent to draw up the Bill before it was placed in the hands of members of the House. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said that the grievances should be ruled out of the discussions of the Select Committee. But it was natural that members who had railway constituents should wish the Bill taken in Select Committee, but if they were not satisfied then they would undoubtedly raise their voices again in the House, and thus no time would be saved. The motion before the House did not give power to call for papers and evidence, but the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, proposed to take evidence. What evidence did he propose to call? The heads of departments? Was that going to satisfy members of the cross-benches? Once they began to take evidence on that matter from any member of the Railway Department, then every man of the lower ranks would consider he had a right to come before the Select Committee. Once they began to introduce evidence of that kind to deal with the provisions of the Bill, every one of the 250 ringleaders would reckon he had a right to come before the committee and give evidence. Under all the circumstances it would not be wise to send the Bill to a Select Committee if they intended to do anything to relieve the men of the burden they had placed on themselves by striking. After all, it was a measure of relief, and that point should be insisted upon over and over again until those concerned realised that it was so.

If they were going to take up weeks by taking evidence in Select Committee, they would not be able to give relief: The hon. member for Greyville had spoken of a number of amendments he had on the notice paper, and said he did not think they would be likely to find favour in the House. If the hon. member would give a guarantee that if his proposals were not carried out in Select Committee he would not push them again when they came to the House, there might be something in it. He did not think the hon. member would give that assurance. Once they started to deal with grievances they went outside the scope of the Bill altogether.

said that the House needed further information. They were asked in the Bill to punish a number of men. Before consenting to a measure of that kind he desired to have the fullest information regarding the matter.

Now the Minister knew that this matter would be before the House, and he found fault with the Minister for not having appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court to inquire into the genesis of the whole matter so far as the centre of the trouble at Pretoria was concerned. Then they would have known how far the Government had been negligent, and that was the reason they advocated the Bill going to a Select Committee in order that evidence might be called. If the Administration found it necessary to look after the material that was used on the railways, surely it was their duty to look after the running staff and treat the men with the greatest consideration. It appeared to him that the Railway Administration had been lacking in that direction, and the House needed evidence to show how far the Administration had been culpable in this matter. It was ridiculous for the Minister to say that the Government was absolutely blameless. He found that the Government wished the House to accede to a number of punishments, and that could not be done unless they had sufficient evidence to justify the guilt of these men. Members wished to support the Government, but unless evidence was brought showing the guilt of the men concerned, the Government could not be supported whole-heartedly.

said he was sorry the Minister had taken up such an attitude, and he would like to bring the Minister back to the notice on the paper. He challenged the Minister to show how it would be possible, under the rules of the House, for that committee to take any evidence whatever. No matter what hon. members might say in their speeches, the Minister knew very well that no evidence could be taken. Then the Minister spoke of a minority report. The Minister knew perfectly well that there could be no minority report, and he thought the Minister should be more careful in his language. Why should he mislead the House in the way he had done? Those who supported the amendment thought that they would be able to arrive at a more just settlement in the committee room than by dragging the Bill across the floor of the House: He could not see the logic of the strange doctrine propounded by the hon. member for Zululand, who said that if a motion of that character was brought up by a member of the Opposition it was a motion of no-confidence, whereas if it was moved by a Minister it was alright. (Laughter.) Then the member said that no time would be saved. That was not their experience during the last four years, and he alluded to the fact that days were saved in connection with the Public Service Bill and the Railway and Harbours Service Bill by adopting this course. He asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling whether on the motion as it stood it would be possible for the committee to take evidence without a special order from the House?

I cannot help the hon. member. It is not my duty to deal with hypothetical cases, but with facts.

said the point he raised was whether it was possible for the committee to call evidence?

If the committee are appointed and a decision is asked on the point, they will get it. (Ministerial laughter.)

said that the hon. and gallant member for Braamfontein had said that the Government intended to punish a lot of men in a drastic manner. He (Sir David) did not look on the Bill in that way. He looked upon the Bill as a measure of relief for men liable to certain punishments for deserting their posts under the Act passed in that House in 1912. He called the Bill a relief Bill, and he intended to support the measure. If in committee any amendment was brought forward to increase the relief to these men, he would certainly record his vote in favour of any act of mercy that might come from the Government. The hon. member for Greyville had said that the Government were victimising the men under this Bill. He (Sir David) did not think the Government was doing that. The Trade Unions knew how to victimise men who infringed their laws and regulations. Those men received no mercy from the Unions, but the House could not follow such a bad example. That Bill was one to enable a large number of men to resume their posts and to earn sufficient for their families, and he would give it his heartiest support. He thought the House could very well deal with any of the clause when the committee stage was reached.

said it was his opinion, that it was a good idea to moderate the existing Railway Services Act in certain respects, but while the Minister was showing a measure amnesty he might well have gone somewhat further. It was not fair to punish all the men. In his own district he had seen people come out on strike, and he had reproached them for doing so, but they had stated that if they did not do so they would never again be acknowledged by their colleagues. He feared that a good many people who were not guilty or at least not very guilty would be punished under the Bill. In the circumstances, he thought the spirit of conciliation might be allowed to go a little further, though they ought to punish the leaders. Some people would be punished for not coming back at a certain date, but others, who might have been more responsible for the happenings, would receive less punishment, merely because they had gone back to work sooner. He knew of people among the most trusted railway servants who would be severely punished, and they were neither leaders nor ringleaders. The hon. member quoted an instance in which he stated that three railwaymen had been discharged for assaulting a stoker named Scheepers. The fact of the matter was that a number of men had quarrelled among each other after having indulged in certain festivities. The Minister stated that the men had been dismissed for reasons additional to the strike. Here was another case of punishment without trial. He was in favour of the principal ringleaders being punished, but whatever was done let them be tried first. They were entitled to trial under the Act of 1912. In the circumstances, he thought the amendment was a good one, because the Select Committee would be able to go into details and be able to see that substantial justice was done. How was it possible for members to follow the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he always spoke in English?

said he regarded the amendment as a proposal to shelve the Bill. It struck him very forcibly that the hon. member for Barberton, on every measure coming before the House, opposed the Government. If the Bill went to a Select Committee they would see that these hon. members who now opposed the Government, would continue to do the same in the Select Committee.

said he agreed with the amendment. He had voted for the second reading because he thought the principles of the Bill were sound; but it ought to be sent to the Select Committee. What was wanted in South Africa was peace, and peace could only be achieved by justice being done to everyone. He thought they had a good opportunity here of placing themselves in a position of doing justice to everyone. He knew of one case at Reitz, where he had been in a position to protect the stationmaster, who otherwise would have been forced to strike. There were many other people similarly situated, and their case deserved every attention.

said that the Minister had given the House some of his objections to that Bill going to the Select Committee. One of these objections was that all past grievances would be resurrected. If he (Mr. Haggar) thought for one moment that this would be the case he would certainly vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton. They had already too many grievances. Many of these grievances were only real in the same sense that: dreams are real while they last. Another objection was that it would take away the time. That he thought was not a consideration that should weign with that House If members claimed to be intelligent and earnest it was thoroughness they should aim at, and if it took them one week or one month they would be well repaid for the time spent. Personally, he thought the measure should be labelled “A Bill for the Manufacturing of New Grievances and the resurrection of old ones.” The Minister had said a great deal about grievances, but he (Mr. Haggar) would like to point out that grievances are the result of causes. They were symptoms of a disease which, if not properly treated, was going to cause greater trouble than they had done in the past. It was no use applying a plaister to a cancer as palliation was no cure. They had heard quoted a great number of times the dictum uttered by the late Mr. Sauer, that what they required was a contented service, but he (Mr. Haggar) would like to ask: Could they have a contented service while they allowed the causes of that discontent to remain? And that was just where the Minister failed to deal with the question by not putting his finger on the sore. Men who knew a great deal more about railway matters than he (Mr. Haggar) did said it was useless to send the Bill to a Select Committee because the recommendations of that committee would have no weight with the Government. Whether that was likely to be so or not he would not say. A Select Committee, however, was, in his opinion, essential in order that the fullest information may be gathered on the subject. Hon. members were often too much interested in their coffee and billiards, and too little interested in the work of the House to give attention to the information that was before them. But before a Select Committee such information would be thoroughly gone into. Referring to the case he had brought before the Minister the other day, of a railway servant who had been unable to get the leave due to him, the Minister had replied that the case was a solitary one, he had, however, quoted dozens. Since that reply had been given he (Mr. Hagga) had received a letter from another railway servant who applied for his annual leave some time ago He was told that he would be granted leave in the order of his application. After a considerable period had elapsed without any intimation of his leave being forthcoming the man wrote again, when he was told that there was still a number of applications to be granted before his turn arrived. Thus it would be seen that the case he had mentioned was by no means a solitary one, as was proved by the department itself in admitting that there was still a long list of applications on the book. If present leave could not be granted to men to whom it had been due, in some instances for ten years, what was the good of promising what could not be fulfilled? Another reason why they should have this Bill before a Select Committee was that there seemed to be a good deal of wirepulling going on. He had a copy of a letter before him in which a bricklayer, who apparently had friends at court, was being put forward as a candidate for the position of an engine-driver by the private secretary of one of the Ministers. He (Mr. Haggar) quite agreed with the Minister that there were sentimental grievances on both sides, and if he was in the position of the Minister of Railways his feelings would no doubt be often roused. But conciliation, arbitration, and palliative methods only dealt with the effects and not with the causes of grievances. They would have to get down to the real cause, and until that was done they would always have recurrences of these industrial disputes. He was prepared to support a good proposal, no matter from whence it came. That was the position he and hon. members on the cross benches took up. There was one point they wanted decided: When could a man be said to be on strike? Some hon. members said that some men went on strike against their will. He would admit that so far as Salt River people were concerned, but the hon. members were quite wrong when they said that the hon. member for Springs and himself (Mr. Haggar) came down from up-country for that purpose. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Springs had been down here for several months trying to recruit his health, and he (Mr. Haggar) had been down here for some twelve months. Proceeding, he said that the people at Salt River left their work because they were ordered to do so. They were ordered to leave their work for an hour to listen to the speeches of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the Mayor of Cape Town. Those men were ordered out; against their conviction, against their feelings—ordered in a partial way to leave their work, to listen to a party politician. Let them be honest towards those men. Was it a serious crime that they protested against that sort of thing? He wanted that to be investigated. The Government was the authority for saying that a man was responsible for the effect his speeches had on other people, and these men who had been ordered by notice to leave their work to listen to a party politician —

Who ordered them?

The hon. member should vote for the Select Committee, and he would get all such information.

The hon. member for Uitenhage said that the real root of the trouble was want of security. What was really wanted was, that the men should be able to get rid of that sense of insecurity. If, after investigation, they found men were in the wrong, by all means let them be penalised, but, for Heaven’s sake, let them get rid of the feeling that the Government were victimising the men because they had the power to do so. What they wanted was a Bill that would not resurrect those grievances, but would fix a basis upon which they could be just towards the men. Let them put aside their prejudice and vote for the motion of the hon. member for Barberton, and have the Bill before a Select Committee.

said he was particularly interested in one piece of information the Minister gave, that Mr. Poutsma’s position on the Statutory Commission was to be filled. He hoped it would be filled by the vote of the members of the railway service, and he hoped it would be filled with an equally good man. He did not agree with the hon. Minister when he stated that that Select Committee would be a grand inquest into grievances. He (Mr. Andrews) did not think that would be possible, or, if it were possible, that it would be desirable. They would discuss the pains and penalties laid down in the Bill, as well as the rewards, but he did not think there had been much criticism so far as the rewards were concerned. Most hon. members were convinced that the rewards were not out of proportion to the services they rendered to the State. The hon. Minister made a remark which sounded very much like a veiled threat. He said he could withdraw the Bill. No doubt he could, but he (Mr. Andrews doubted very much whether he would have the courage to do so, or whether the Prime Minister would have the courage to face the consequences of withdrawing the Bill. The Government knew perfectly well, as they on the cross-benches pointed out in 1912, the penalties under that Railway Service Act were so severe that they would not dare to put those penalties into effect in all their severity. The hon. member went on to instance the case of a man who had about £60 in the Superannuation Fund. This man was reinstated after the strike and worked for about a fortnight, when, for no reason whatsoever, he was discharged again. He was not a ringleader. This man was working on the railways 10 years ago with him (Mr. Andrews), and had been working on the railways until his recent dismissal, so that he could not be inefficient. After being reinstated, after accepting the invitation of the Administration to sign his name, he was taken on and sacked again. He would probably come under the Pains and Penalties Act. There was a feeling existing in favour of the Bill going before a Select Committee, and if the hon. Minister and the Government would allow those on their side of the House to vote otherwise than from a party point of view, would let them vote as they liked, he was assured that the Bill would be sent to the Select Committee. It was in the interests of the men on the railways and in the interest of the country. They wanted to get rid of those difficulties with as little heartburning as possible, and the Select Committee was the proper place to consider in detail the proposals placed before them.

said that the Minister of Railways, by refusing the amendment, was giving the impression which he (Mr. Madeley) thought he was keenly anxious to avoid doing that he entertained feelings of bitterness and vindictiveness to the men who came out on strike. The effect of that would be deepened by the Minister’s own words this afternoon. Many hon. members were anxious to minimise the penalties contained in the Bill; they did not want to drive it into these fellows and to kick them while they were down. He (Mr. Madeley) appealed to the House to agree to send the Bill to a Select Committee. The Minister had stated that the whole of the railwaymen’s grievances would be brought before a Select Committee, but that was quite wrong, it practically being impossible for that to be done. Only the Bill could be dealt with by the Select Committee. Men, for instance, could not be brought up to prove that they were working for 3s. 4d. a day or that the deportation of Mr. Poutsma caused the strike. Then it was absolutely impossible under the rules of the House for the Committee to bring up both a minority and a majority report; all that could be done was for the minority to move an amendment to the report. Then what objection could the Minister have to the proposal? He (Mr. Madeley) believed that it was not because the Minister did not want information to be supplied, although it looked suspiciously like it. With regard to the Statutory Commission, did the Minister mean that the men’s representative must be one of themselves? The Minister remained silent.

I have told the hon. member that the election will be exactly on the same basis as before.

My mind is at rest and I know what the Minister means. The railwaymen may elect any man they like, whether a railwayman or some outsider.

I will proceed to put the question.

I am sorry—.

I thought the hon. member had sat down. (Laughter.)

No, sir. Continuing, Mr. Madeley said he was glad that the right hon. member for Victoria West had come to the conclusion that agitators did not make trouble, but were really the result of trouble. He (Mr. Madeley) was very pleased to hear that the hon. member was at last beginning to think something in their way of thinking.

Nonsense.

said it was necessary that there should be a Select Committee, because there was at the present time in the railway service an absence of good feeling and an absence of trust between the Administration and its men. Charges of sabotage had been made against the railwaymen. He did not think the Minister had deliberately misled the House but that he was very ill-informed in regard to the railway points being tampered with at Mowbray. That was a matter the Select Committee could take evidence on, and if it were found that the tampering was not due to some striker the committee could suggest that the punishment clauses should be amended. Then did the Minister mean to include apprentices among the ringleaders? Surely not. These lads had nothing to do with misleading the bulk of the men who came out on strike. But at the present time three Salt River apprentices had had their increases stopped. They went back to work within the time limit, and were re-employed, but now they had to lose their increases. Surely the Minister was not going to insist on that. If the Minister would only allow the Select Committee to consider the matter and to have the subject threshed out coolly and calmly he (Mr. Madeley) thought the Minister would alter his opinion and considerably modify these penalties. Had the House-forgotten that the most contentious matter ever brought before the Union Parliament was smoothed over in a Select Committee? He referred to the education and language question. The two parties who were more in opposition on that point than on any other come together in a Select Committee, threshed the matter out cooly, and the committee brought up a report which the House adopted.

It was said that because these men had gone on strike they were to be punished, but they asked why? The Minister had got certain men victimised at Salt River. The Minister had issued a statement that all men applying on or before the 23rd—and then there was that saving statement “and re-engaged”—would receive sympathetic treatment. They read it that they would be re-engaged, but he had it as a positive fact that all the men who had come out at Salt River and Cape Town had sent in., their applications before noon on the 23rd in terms of the Minister’s notice. The House did not know that these men had been victimised; and they could not have a better argument for making a close and careful inquiry into the whole thing than that. One man told him (Mr. Madeley) that he had paid back no less a sum than £120 to the Superannuation Fund, and another man had told him that he had paid back no less than £150. Were these men to lose all that money? Did the punishment fit the crime—if it could be called a crime to go on strike? That Bill did not reflect the effect of the punishment. Whatever a man might have done, they could not in justice deprive him of his money, and that money belonged to the man. But that Bill provided that it should be done not in one or two instances, but in many instances. That Bill was panic legislation, and the Minister had rushed into print. The measure was ill-considered. The country had a right to claim—and the railwaymen had a right to claim more than anybody—that they should be heard. In conclusion, the hon. member again strongly appealed to the Minister of Railways to agree to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

also hoped that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, because he saw insuperable difficulties if that were not done. There were, he said, many amendments on the paper, and they did not know how many more amendments might be moved in Committee, and they should have an opportunity of studying these amendments. Proceeding, he said that they on those benches had never advocated a strike among railwaymen, although they had been well aware that sufficient grievances existed to have caused a strike in any part of the Union. That Bill was not calculated to restore confidence amongst the men. In England in 1911 there had been a very big strike, but there every one of the men had been re-instated, and there had been no pains and penalties. Parliament there had been asked to agree to an increase of the rates on the railways so that the men could be paid increased wages. He thought that the Minister should be convinced that a Case had been made out for that Bill to go to a Select Committee. The Minister would see that penalties imposed by the Bill was out of all proportion to what had happened in the country, if he considered what had been done in regard, to the treatment to men who took part in railway strikes in other countries. The penalties were altogether out of proportion. Compared with the Industrial Disputes Act in the Transvaal, another unjust Act, the present penalties bore no comparison at all. They could not get a proper analysis in that House of each of those individual cases. The only way they could get that and give consideration to some of the extreme cases would be to send the Bill to a Select Committee. He himself had been in strikes, he was glad to say, and he did not consider it a disgrace. There should be an amnesty for the rank and file, and even if the leaders were punished they would not have so great a grievance if the rank and file were not punished.

put the question: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and said he thought the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division.

A division was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—58.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry—

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beaton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik 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

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—44.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan. Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

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

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Merriman dropped.

The motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair was then agreed to.

moved to omit “twenty-fourth,” for the purpose of substituting “twenty-seventh.” The CHAIRMAN asked the Minister whether the alteration would involve extra expenditure?

said he did not understand what the hon. member meant.

said that the reason for the amendment must be obvious. The Bill fixed a certain strike period from the 8th to the 24th. But the men in Natal, for various reasons, did not go back until the 26th. Consequently they would be victimised and punished more severely than the other men.

It will make no difference.

If it will make no difference, will the Minister accept the amendment?

said he did not understand what difference the amendment would make to the men. He was prepared to accept this.

said that if they understood that the passing of this clause would make no difference to an amendment of the vital clause on this point, hon. members would not waste any more time over it.

said that the amendment would not make any difference. It would only deal with men who went out after the 24th, and as nobody went out after that date, he did not see that the amendment could make any difference.

said he thought it was very much to be regretted that when the hon. member for Greyville got up in his place he should assert over and over again that the Government’s intention was to victimise these men. If he voted in favour of any amendment moved from the cross-benches it went forth to the world that he was in favour of decreasing the victimisation that the Government intended to impose upon them. He thought they ought to keep that word out of the debate.

said that whether the hon. member for Beaconsfield intended to be merciful to these men, or whether he intended to deal with them on lines which would show that he was in favour of victimisation, would depend entirely on the attitude he adopted towards the amendments that they brought before the Committee.

It is not victimisation.

said that in view of the Minister’s assurance, he would withdraw the amendment.

asked if there were any definition in any Act of Parliament as to what a “strike” was? It was most ludicrous to say, as they did in this clause, that a “strike” should mean a strike.

said that there were certain clauses in the Railway and Harbour Service Act which dealt with strikes.

Yes, but they don’t use the word “strike.”

No, but the House has accepted the position that these are the clauses which deal with matters of this— sort.

said that when they came into court they had got to deal with definitions.

moved that “strike” in line 10 be deleted, and “desertion” substituted.

said that that would not work.

said he would withdraw his amendment.

moved, in line 10, to delete “strike,” and substitute “cessation of work without leave.”

said that if it were the sense of the Committee that “strike” should be defined, he thought the best course would be to bring up a definition at a later stage.

suggested that the Minister might well look up a little Bill which was gazetted some time ago, in regard to industrial matters, and which appeared to have dropped rather into oblivion.

said he would like to ask the Minister not to include the word “desertion” in his definition. That implied that these men were soldiers. (Cries of “No.”) It was not because he, personally, had any objection to the word “desertion” that he raised the point, but he knew that what was in the Minister’s mind was that these men were in the same category in effect as soldiers and sailors, that they had got a grip on them, and that if they happened to cease work for a short period they were deserters.

The hon. member is out of order. We are discussing an amendment which is not before the Committee.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 2, Provision as to servants who remained faithful to their conditions of service during the period of the strike,

suggested that the Committee should take the sub-sections seriatim.

moved that clause 2 should stand over until after clauses 7 and 8 had been considered. He said his view was that the best way of rewarding these men was to deal with the Grievances Board, and he felt very much that the Bill was on the right lines in providing for the Grievances Board.

said that he could not agree to the course suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle).

said he did not think that clause 2 was the proper way of rewarding the men.

The best way to deal with the trouble was to go to the root of the grievances of these men. The system of rewards, as mentioned in the clause, was unpopular according to the information brought to him from more than one quarter. Nor was it only unpopular, but it was not practical. The service at the present time was not able to grant the leave which was already due to the men and yet they were proposing to give them further leave on a very large scale. If that proposal was passed and they could not grant the leave to those men who wanted it, it would be cause for further dissatisfaction. Not only that, he wished to draw attention to the enormous cost of the proposal. The men were going to get in most cases half a week’s wages, which he computed would amount to £30,000 or £40,000. Hon. members could verify the figures for themselves. There was no doubt that the clause was going to cause a good deal of bitterness amongst the men, and he did think that clauses 7 and 8 if improved were calculated to give the proper amount of satisfaction. He therefore hoped the Minister would allow the clause to stand over until it was seen whether clauses 7 and 8 would not better answer its purpose.

agreed with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Uitenhage. Information had also reached him (Mr. Jagger) that the system of rewards mentioned in the clause would be unpopular. There was a great amount of leave outstanding which was already a cause for complaint, and it would be far better if the men were met in the way suggested by the member for Uitenhage.

thought that the difficulty of dealing with a question like that was the want of information which would have been forthcoming had a Select Committee been appointed, On the face of it, it was one of the most grotesque proposals he had ever heard of, because it was a notorious fact that men could not get the legitimate leave which was already due to them. As a matter of fact, the Government were promising what they were not able to give. It was one of the silliest things, he thought, that was ever put into an Act of Parliament. It wa3 not, of course, done for the purpose of creating unrest, but there could be no doubt but what it would result in further unrest being created. With regard to strikes, the only way to put them down was to make it clearly known that the man who wrote down his name as a striker was at the same time signing his own dismissal. Some of the recent strikers were no doubt misguided men, led away by false prophets, and for that reason a certain amount of leniency should be shown them. But in the future they should be given to understand that they could not go about for some days on strike and then come back like the prodigal son. When M. Brand, the Socialist, got into power, the men thought they would be able to strike with impunity, but the Socialist Minister had the strikers dismissed, and there was not the slightest doubt that when the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews) adorned the front Government Benches he would deal in the same manner with his friends. (Laughter.) He would vote for clause 2 standing over as proposed by the hon. member for Uitenhage.

appealed to the hon. Minister to let the clause stand over. According to the rules of the House it was impossible for any private member to move any alteration of the clause which would mean extra expenditure, and under the circumstances, before they considered the clause, he hoped the hon. Minister would be prepared to go into the suggestion which had been made for dealing with the matter referred to in that clause. There should be some recognition of the services of these men who remained loyal to the State which should be of such a character as the men would care to accept. The hon. member for Victoria West and himself were parties to a resolution passed during a crisis, stating that it was hoped the Parliament of the country would not be unmindful of the service of these people. Surely the clause before the House was not of such a character as to justify an opinion of that sort given at such a time, and endorsed by the great mass of the people of this country. He hoped the hon. Minister would be prepared to meet hon. members privately and discuss the matter with them, in order to find within the rules of the House some reasonable method for rewarding these people other than those in the proposals set forth in the Bill, which were of a childlike character.

said he could not accept the motion, but would move to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was carried, and leave to sit again to-morrow (Thursday) was agreed to.