from inhabitants of Heidelberg, for construction of a bridge over the Vaal River at Grobler’s Drift.

from F. Lang, who was permanently injured while on duty as a railway guard at Frenchhoek, for relief.

from J. T. Morilleau, for condonation of breaks in his service and leave to contribute arrears to Pension Fund.

from H. Buckingham, praying that his services in the Associated Boating Company, Limited, be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension.

gave notice that to-morrow he would move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the definition of the word “native in section 5 of Act 28 of 1898 of the Province” of the Cape of Good Hope.

Copies of Proclamation No. 88 of 1914, having reference to the, Precious and Base Metals Act Amendment Act, 1913.

Proclamation No. 76 of 1914, promulgating the manner by which the intentions of parties;to marry before any marriage officer in the Province of Natal, shall be made public.

Treasury reports on the Petitions presented by Miss Anne Octavia Edmonds, and Miss Eugenie Marie Francoise de Larue.

These reports were referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law as to riotous assemblies and the dispersal thereof; to amend the criminal law in certain respects; to provide for the constitution of a special criminal court for the trial of certain offences; and to provide for the removal from the Union of persons convicted of certain offences.

said he knew it was unusual to make a speech at that stage, but this was rather an unusual Bill, and he thought that the Minister should give the House an outline of the nature of the Bill, which had not yet been gazetted. No opportunity had so far been given for public discussion of the measure,

said this was no ordinary measure. So far as they could judge it was a proposal to perpetuate a method of dealing with certain persons, and they on the cross-benches were perfectly well aware who they were likely to be—persons who had been described as criminal undesirables from a political point of view. Under these extraordinary circumstances the Minister might have thought fit to answer his hon. friend (Mr. Sampson) and to have given the House some idea of what sort of Bill this was. In order to test the feeling of the House he would move an amendment to the motion: “In the opinion of this House, the publication by responsible Ministers in the ‘Gazette of proposed measures which are subsequently superseded by fresh proposals of a more stringent and coercive character, the latter to be in turn abandoned after introduction and superseded by further alternative measures, is calculated unnecessarily to disturb the public mind, and that the further extension of the practice of deporting citizens of the Union is repugnant to the wishes and sentiments of the people of South Africa.” In moving this he was expressing the views of a large proportion of the citizens of the Union. They on the cross-benches had made certain statements in this House— statements which other hon. members, particularly on the Government side, had been inclined to pooh-pooh, but it must be abundantly clear to the Minister and his colleagues and supporters, from whichever side of the House they might happen to come, that the country itself had spoken in no uncertain voice in various ways in expressing its abhorrence and disapproval, particularly of this Deportation Bill. They would like to know more about the Bill. If the Minister condescended to reply to anything put forward from the cross benches, he might tell them that the. Bill would be gazetted and that the country might have an opportunity of reading it during the fortnight’s recess.

They would like to know before the House rose on the following day exactly what they were giving the Minister permission to do. He and his colleagues were not in favour at all of a Bill that provided for the deportation of citizens. They said that that House should not allow the Bill to be introduced at all. Members knew, and Ministers knew, that the country was opposed to it, and the more the country understood what had been going on, the less likely it would be to support such a measure. Hon. members on the Government side seemed to think that they had the people of the rural areas behind them. They on those benches had information coming to hand daily from various sources in the country, which went to show that the Dutch population—he would be frank about it (The remainder of the sentence was drowned by cries of Ministerial dissent.) The fact was that these people did not always get the whole of the truth. As they understood it, these people were turning against this iniquitous proposal which the Government proposed to bring into that House. He hoped the House would see fit to consider and adopt his proposal.

said that this was an unusual course to pursue, and they departed from the ordinary course with the greatest hesitancy. The circumstances—the suspicious circumstances— under which the, Minister had brought that measure before the House were such that they could not even allow the initiatory stage, to be taken without a protest. He hoped the House would not allow itself not only to be gagged, but blindfolded. They knew nothing about the Bill. They were only aware of the title, and in that title there was a significant sentence. The Government had already sufficient power for the purpose of deportation. They were deporting daily men who had committed crimes thirty or forty years ago. It was evident that if the Government could do that, they had sufficient power to deport those people whose presence they considered inimical to the country.

They had also deported by pressure large numbers of men. This week, to his knowledge, a large number of men had left under pressure. The Government had the power to discharge men, put red marks on their tickets of discharge, and thereby prevent them getting work in the country. The power of the Government was already too enormous, and they now brought forward a Bill, the title of which bluntly and openly suggested that they should have power to deport people for other offences. What were these other offences? They on those benches could guess these crimes. The Peace Preservation Bill, under the continual pressure of public opinion, had been withdrawn and all the expense and the time of the House in dealing with that matter had been wasted. They had no guarantee that this Bill might not be withdrawn. If hon. members on the other side were so sure that they had the Dutch people behind them, why had they not got the Prime Minister in their ranks that afternoon? A little bird told them that he was trying to influence certain things in this country. That showed that hon. members on the other side were not so sure of their position. It might be that that Bill would perpetuate the worst features of the Peace Preservation Bill. They demanded that the Government should tell the House the contents of this measure. He entered his protest against this practice. The Government came down, and by the power of the steam-roller could dragoon any sort of measure through the House. He seconded the amendment.

What is the motion before the House?

Leave to introduce a Bill.

said he would like to point out to those gentlemen opposite what an extraordinary course they were adopting. They did not even want to allow the Minister to introduce a Bill. Continuing, he pointed out that it only needed a message from the Governor-General, and the Bill could be introduced without debate at all. He thought that they were going too far. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he did not propose dealing with arguments which could be more fitly dealt with on the second reading, because the Bill would be in the hands of every member on the following morning. He did not propose taking the second reading until April 27. which would give time for that discussion which hon. members on the cross-benches insisted upon. He had no objection to giving an outline of the Bill, but it was not the usual way of doing things. If he gave an outline it would be difficult to leave out argumentative matters which might lead to a long debate. The main principles of this Bill were all contained in the Bill which he withdrew, so that it was not bringing forward anything new. There were a few minor alterations, but the main principles were already known. He thought that there would be ample time for that expression of popular opinion which hon. members on the cross-benches desired.

said he thought the remarks of the Minister justified the course that they had adopted. (Ministerial laughter.) He was surprised and astounded that one whom they looked up to as the father of the blouse in matters of constitutional procedure did not know that on motions for leave to introduce very important Bills there had been debates of very long duration.

On the first reading.

said he would remind the right hon. gentleman that under the Rules of the House, having committed a Bill to be introduced, there could be no debate on the first reading. If his right hon. friend did not know of precedents, he should search the Hansard of the House of Commons. They were in exactly the same position. The correctness of their judgment had been justified by what the Minister of Justice had said himself. The Bill which the Minister had withdrawn was one which they did not want to see advanced by one single step and was one against which they on those benches desired to enter their most emphatic protest at every one of its stages.

It was a policy, he was convinced, which was going to embitter the feeling of the people of the country and keep up a dislike and almost bitter hatred towards the Government of that day. He did not think the Minister could realise the feeling of intense bitterness which the Government was raising by that policy It was a policy of coercion and repression, coupled with a power to take any citizen who committed any of the offences to be created under that Bill and putting him out of the Union. They (Labour members) know that they would have no help from hon. members on the other side of the House, and he ventured to say that the country, as a whole, was behind them (Labour members) in the protest they were making against the extension of that policy. There was a movement in that country which members on both sides of the House did not understand, but which they on the cross-benches did understand, and the Government wanted to repress that movement. He took it that when the Government permitted a Minister to put a Bill in the “Gazette,” it was a declaration of their settled policy. The hon. member went on to refer to the publication of the first Bill and said that towards the end of December the Minister had brought in another Bill different to the other one, which merely aimed against the growth of the Trade Union movement in the country, and that was the head and front of the Government’s policy. That second Bill had been resented as an insult by the people of the country. The Government were labouring under a very deep misapprehension if they thought that the Dutch section of the population was not as liberty-loving as they on the cross-benches were, and that they did not resent that action as much as they did. The Minister, in view of the number of clear expressions of disapproval of public opinion, had withdrawn the Bill from the Order Paper. Now, in the beginning of April, another Bill was brought forth. How many “settled policies” did the Government have? Did they have a mind of sufficient constancy to keep the same a week altogether ? As to deportation, the Government’s ideas seemed to be that if they could not deal with a difficulty they would have no more of it. The hon. member went on to say that the country had had quite a sufficient number of lessons in the practice of deportation to last it for a very long time. They had given a Government legal method of deportation by the Immigration Act which had been passed last year, and they were giving the police powers which required the greatest investigation, and legislation at an early date. They were not to be governed by the police as they were in Russia. The police were their servants: not their masters. They on those benches detested that coercive policy, and no such coercive Bill was required to extend the executive powers of the Government. There was no excuse for it whatever, and they had sufficient power already, if they only used it in a reasonable and sympathetic way. He supported the amendment on the grounds that they were tired of that vacillation on the part of the Government, and putting in a Bill as a sort of “try-on.” It was undignified for a Government to table a measure, and, when they saw it went too far, to withdraw it and substitute another. How long was that sort of thing to go on? Then he opposed it on the ground that the Bill created special offences. They had quite enough special crimes in that country, which were crimes here but crimes nowhere else. Surely the courts, if they were quite good enough to see that contraventions of the ordinary law were punished, were good enough to deal with these offences. On these grounds he asked the House to refuse to give the Government power to introduce such a measure.

said that it appeared as if the Government were having their first lesson in connection with that ill-advised action of theirs in forcing through that House with a small majority a measure closuring the debate. The Government were learning that, if against the good sense of Parliament a measure of that sort were passed, there were those who were likely to take advantage of every opportunity to impede the business of that House, for, after all, that was the reason which had moved hon. members on the cross-benches to take the extraordinary course they did of opposing leave to introduce a Bill. It was utterly impossible for this House to discuss in anything like a reasonable manner the provisions of a Bill until the Bill had been laid on the Table.

We don’t want the Bill.

said he was extremely sorry that the suggestion made by the right hon. the member for Victoria West was no longer in existence. In the old days of the Cape Parliament any Minister could bring up a Bill with a message from H.E. the Governor, but under their new Rules of Procedure, he thought largely at the instigation of the Minister of Finance, that very wise provision had been done away with, and it was now impossible for a Minister to introduce a Bill without a formal notice for leave to take such a step. If there were any foundation for the statement that had been drawn from the Minister of Justice that he had withdrawn one Bill and that this was another Bill with a different name but embodying the same principles—if he had done anything so unwise, irrespective of resolutions with regard to the closure or no resolutions, a Bill embodying the character of the Peace Preservation Bill that was withdrawn the other day would meet with such unqualified opposition from the House and the country that if the House sat until December next that Bill would not be passed.

I said that the main provisions of this Bill are also to be found in other Bills.

It is the same thing.

The principles that are in this Bill are also to be found in other Bills, but I did not say all the principles are in this Bill.

At any rate, that makes it all the more necessary for us to see the Bill. (Hear, hear.) He went on to say that he did not agree with the position that at the stage for the introduction of a Bill the House should proceed to discuss it before it had had an opportunity of reading the Bill and recognising what were the provisions therein contained. What he would say to the hon. members on the cross-benches was that, if the provisions of the Bill were of such a character as had been stated, then it would receive as much opposition at the proper time from that side of the House as it received from hon. members on the cross benches. He did think, however, that it would not be in accord with the dignity of this House to refuse a formal motion for the introduction of a Bill without having an opportunity of seeing that Bill and knowing what it contained.

said that, in reply to the hon. gentleman, he would urge that they should have an opportunity of seeing these Bills before they were introduced into the House. The Bills ought certainly to be gazetted. There was no excuse whatever for asking the House to accept this blindly, and he should vote against the motion for the introduction of this Bill.

said he was disappointed with the attitude taken up by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He hoped the House would realise to-day how essential it had been to introduce the closure. But, of course, one expected an attitude such as had been taken up by hon. members on the cross benches, who from the very first day of this session had opposed every proposal introduced by the Government. This was a beautiful country, but unless the Government showed its determination and unless there was a great change in the political life of this country conditions here would be such as to remind one of hell. (Hear, hear.) In the circumstances he hoped the Government would prove its determination to govern the country according to its opinions and principles. (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member who had just sat down had, he thought, made a mistake. He blamed people on the cross-benches for making of South Africa a hell for people to live in. He ought really to pay attention to his own Government, and then he would understand a little better. He did not consider that they were departing from precedent in taking objection to leave being granted to introduce this Bill. An entirely new state of things had arisen since last week, when provision was made for forcing legislation through by means of the closure, and he thought they would be extremely lax in their duty to the country if they were to allow a measure of this sort to be brought in without first making an attempt to have it put in print before them. There was a perfectly easy remedy open to the Minister, and that was to have this Bill gazetted during the recess. He recalled an occasion when a similar motion was made in regard to an Electoral Bill, and a slashing attack then made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, the result being that no more was heard of the measure. The present, motion was not quite so harmless as people might imagine It was not merely a matter of power being given to direct the removal from the Union of certain persons. He took it they would have a differentiation, so far as penalties were concerned, between people born in South Africa and people born overseas. They were also asked to make provision for special criminal courts to try certain offences. One of the main principles of the old Bill which had been withdrawn, so far as the special court was concerned, was that it was to do away with trial by jury in very many instances; that they were to set up a court which would consist, not of ordinary judges, but one judge only, assisted by a magistrate and an advocate of at least ten years’ standing, and that the majority of this court was to be allowed to decide on any question. The judge would be out of it altogether. The Government would have the appointment of the magistrate and the advocate of ten years’ standing to sit on this special court. They should have learnt already by bitter experience the danger of allowing the Government to introduce provisions such as this—for the exclusion and removal of people from the Union—into their legislation. If to-day they were to have before them the Immigrants’ Restriction Bill that was passed last session by this House, did they think that the House would pass that measure? He thought not. The powers given under that Bill to the Government for the removal of people from the Union had been very much abused. (Hear, hear.) There was more than a suspicion that people had been removed from the Union under this Bill, not because they had committed offences years ago, but because they were looked upon as political undesirables today. (Hear, hear.) In the Roman Empire the penalty of “deportatio” was used as a means of removing those whose wealth and popularity rendered them objects of suspicion; only the latter class were so dealt with in South Africa, the rich escaped. He thought in the circumstances, that it would be one of the gravest mistakes for Parliament to give leave to introduce a Bill for making provision in reference to the matters set out in this motion.

said that if this were an ordinary Bill he did not suppose there would have been any opposition on the part of the cross benches, but froth the title of the Bill alone it was a most extraordinary one, and contained a most pernicious principle. He would remind the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) that before the hon. member spoke the Minister of Justice had already informed the House that this Bill in the main was similar to the Peace Preservation Bill which was withdrawn a few days ago. Consequently, the same principles must be embodied in it. The power of deportation would be directed against people who were not born in this country. If any person in the Union committed an offence let him suffer for it and go to prison. If there were certain persons who were undesirables let them be dealt with in the country instead of deporting them. South Africa would be about the only civilised country to adopt this method of deporting those who held different political and economic opinions from the Government which happened to be in power. The time might come when members who were using this weapon might find it very inconvenient, for some day they might find it turned against themselves. The proper time to oppose the measure was now and here. (Hear, hear.) He rose to enter his protest against a Bill of this nature being read a first time.

said he would like to remind the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, that when he introduced his Bill dealing with plural voting, no exception was taken to it, and the House waited to see what it contained before opposing it. So far as the hon. member (Mr. Boydell), at all events, was concerned, if the House extended a courtesy to him he ought not to be against a similar courtesy being extended to the Minister. He (Mr. Fawcus) was just as much against a lot of this legislation as his hon. friend, was, but they should wait to see what the Bill contained before raising any objection to it. (Hear, hear.)

said it was not a question of courtesy, for if it were he thought they on the cross-benches knew just as much about good manners as anybody else, and they had always shown that. (Laughter.) This was an altogether exceptional measure. His objection was not based on the question of time, but he looked on the Bill as an insult to a free and liberty-loving people. He was trying to find out to what era the Minister belonged, for he could not conceive of any Minister knowing the state of the country and the trend of public feeling introducing such a Bill to-day. If the Minister would only remember the effect of similar legislation in days past he would withdraw the Bill straight away. The title of the Bill itself was enough to create alarm. They knew how the Government had deliberately abused the power put into its hands by deporting men without trial, and they knew the state of the country, and they knew what would take place if the Bill were forced on the country. He did not want to see any more conflict or trouble. Every intelligent man was supposed to be responsible for the probable result of his own action, and if the Minister tried to push the Bill through there would be such a row throughout the Union as there had not yet been. To-morrow the House adjourned, and a number of members were going off to the Rand, but the Government was only putting into their hands arms and ammunition, a fact which the Government would bitterly regret. His personal reason for objecting to the Bill was that it was on the face of it an insult to a liberty loving and free people, and it would be a scandal to this House.

The amendment of Mr. Andrews was put and declared negatived.

called for a division.

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

declared the amendment negatived.

The motion for the introduction of the Bill was carried.

moved that the Bill be read a first time.

The motion was carried.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Thursday, April 30.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours (Application of Money, 1912-1913) Validation Bill, 1913. He was understood to say that the amount represented moneys collected in various parts of the Union, which it was impossible to allocate to funds. The matter had been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which recommended that these moneys should be paid to the renewal fund. That had been done, but another recommendation had been made that the transfer of this money should be validated by an Act of Parliament.

was understood to say that he could not say he was impressed with the explanation. It was proposed to transfer £156,000 to what was called the renewal fund, but the Act of Union had no knowledge of such a fund, and this fund had simply been created by the Ministerial Department.

It is depreciation.

said that that was a point upon which he would have something to say at another time. He said that to give this money to the Government to use as it saw fit seemed to be an irregular proceeding, and he thought that the Minister should have nominated heads under which this money could be paid. He thought it wrong to ask the House to vote the money to a fund of which they knew nothing.

said that the money was first paid into the revenue but the Public Accounts Committee recommended that it should be paid into the renewal fund. That was done. It was then pointed out that it had been done without a vote of Parliament, and thus the Minister had come forward to obtain the sanction of the House. He agreed with the principle that the money should be paid into this account, but there was another point he would like to put to the Minister. He had got invested in stores £2,131,000 and he had got a further sum for equipment, bringing the total of capital to £2,420,000. He had only taken a vote of Parliament for one-half that amount, or. £1,237,000. The other part of this money which he had taken out of certain balances that were left in his hands. Now he was financing the stores account out of this fund, and he (Mr. Jagger) thought that the Minister should come before the House and ask for a vote of money that he wanted to invest in stores. For the regular standing stock of stores the money ought to be voted by that House, and he hoped that the Minister would take this point into consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for Committee stage on April 23.

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On sub-section 1,

said that sub-section 1 created a first charge for the wages due to the workman. It might be that the workman might be entitled to a small amount from the contractor. The money not being paid to the workman, he would be entitled to go to the principal and lodge a claim against the outpayments to the contractor. Assuming the contractor fell ill and died. According to common law the first claim against the estate of the deceased would be the last medical expenses and the funeral expenses, and these might only be covered by the small amount in the hands of the principal. Seeing that this created a first charge and that by common law a first charge was already in existence, which would have preference—the wages of the workman or the funeral charges? It seemed to him that there would be some confusion.

was understood to say that the Bill did not seek to interfere with the insolvency procedure or anything else. They sought merely to make the wages a first charge on the moneys held by the principal for the contractor.

said that the Minister had stated that it was not intended that this measure should conflict with the statutory common law. But the Bill created a first charge, and there could not be two first charges.

said he could not follow the Minister either. He (Sir H. H. Juta) had said the other day that there would be a conflict of these first charges. The question was what was going to be the order of preference, for they were simply going on gaily creating first charges. The unfortunate public wanted to know which was the first charge, the first first charge and the second first charge.

said that in the Transvaal when a company went into liquidation the wages of its workmen and clerks for two months past were a preferent charge, but that could not apply to a private insolvent estate.

said he could not see how the Minister could say that it did not apply to an insolvent estate. He cited clause 16. It was only when a man became insolvent that it became important to know whether a workman was going to be paid or not. (Hear, hear.) Under the Companies’ Act of the Cape they had six months’ wages preference. The Minister ought to make it quite clear whether a workman’s wages were preferent in case of an insolvent estate.

said that hon. members had failed to grasp the intention of the Bill, which was simply to attach wages payable by contractors. Contractors in the past had sometimes disappeared without actually going insolvent. The Bill did not seek to override or amend the laws in the various Provinces relating to insolvency, and these would exist as they did at the present day, but he hoped that the question of the Insolvency Laws would be dealt with by his hon. friend the Minister of Justice some other day. It was quite true that in the clause referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), the, trustee in an insolvent estate was mentioned; but it simply put the trustee of an insolvent estate in the shoes of a contractor. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), it was quite true that they had created a number of charges against property, but these were charges against fixed property. However desirable it might be to deal with these charges, the hon. member would admit that in the Bill the charges were only personal charges. It would not conflict with any of the other charges he had mentioned. The workman had a right to be paid first in the case of insolvency, and the other creditors should be paid in the order laid down by the Insolvency Laws of the different Provinces.

was understood to say that be would like the point cleared up.

said that it was really difficult to see what the workman was going to gain under that measure. He supposed that, not being a lawyer, he utterly failed to see where the workman was protected.

said that if they were passing an Insolvency Law together with that measure, the two things would be reconciled. It did seem as if that Bill was in conflict with the Insolvency Law, and he thought they should amend the Bill, and put in something to this effect: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Insolvency Law …” It seemed that the present Bill only gave a man preference in regard to certain contractors.

I do not know what the unfortunate workman is to do, if there is such a difference of opinion in the House on this matter?

Go to a lawyer.

If he goes to a lawyer and finds as much difference of opinion as there is at present amongst the lawyers on both sides of the House, he will still, I think, be in a difficulty. (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that he understood that, under the Insolvency Law, the periods of time were entirely different in the various Provinces—because they were different laws, as his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) said. With the least possible delay they should co-ordinate their legislation throughout the different Provinces. Surely it would have been quite simple for his hon. friend the Minister to have introduced a Bill making it perfectly clear that, under all conditions, workmen’s wages were a first charge throughout the length and breadth of the Union, whether it was an insolvent estate or any other estate.

said that it seemed to him that the provisions of that Bill were quite clear. That Bill did not purport to deal with general estates, but with moneys specifically due to a contractor by a principal. The principles of preference in regard to the estate of a contractor would naturally come under the Insolvency Laws. Supposing “X” were a contractor and went insolvent; he had built a house and the principal owed him £500 on the contract; then his workmen had a first charge on that £500 for their wages, provided they had given the notice stipulated for under the Bill. If they had not given notice, then that money was paid ever to the trustee and was dealt with as part of the general estate of the contractor. He regretted very much that he had not been able to bring a general Insolvency Bill before the House this session. The Bill had been drafted. It was a lengthy Bill, and the translation had been unavoidably delayed. In that Bill, which he certainly hoped to be able to deal with next year, he had made a general provision giving workmen a preference on the general estate of a contractor for a month’s current wages. He would point out to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that it would be very difficult to put a general clause into the present Bill, which was a Bill to protect workmen not in case of insolvency, but to protect them from being robbed of the fruits of their work. This Bill was only going to be used for that particular purpose, i.e., preventing a contractor from drawing all the moneys from his principal and not paying his workmen. The Bill only dealt with moneys due to the contractor from the principal, and not with his general estate.

said that, quite apart from the question of what happened in the event of the contractor dying, there was also the question of what the effect would be in the event of the principal dying. If he owed money to a contractor, who was going to earmark the money in his estate due to the contractor on which the workmen would have a lien? He thought a good many of these difficulties might be solved by the substitution of “preferent claim” for the words used in the section, “first charge.” He quite agreed that they could not tackle the question of insolvency, with all its bearings, in this Bill. He moved, in line 6, to delete “first charge” for the purpose of substituting “preferent claim.”

said he thought the words “first charge” ought to stand. They wanted to give the workmen a first charge on the money which he earned. The word “preferent,” it seemed to him, would not meet the position.

said he would be glad if the Minister would explain to him where a workman was protected under this clause against the contractor who disappeared?

said he did not see any necessity for the amendment. He thought it was clear to the ordinary layman that the “first charge” provided for under this clause was only in respect of moneys payable in respect of the particular work.

said that, in regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Barkly, the workman must take the first move in the matter. If the workman did not make any attachment or give any notice to the principal, the principal would be perfectly warranted in paying the contract price over, and if the workman sat still and did nothing he could not blame anybody but himself. But, if the workman did not receive payment of his wages, he was empowered under this Bill to go and attach the moneys without incurring any expense, in the hands of the principal. That could not be done under the present procedure.

Yes, if there is any money in the hands of the principal. If the principal should have paid the contractor, how does the Bill protect the workman against the contractor who has disappeared?

said that the protection lay in what were called the retention moneys. If the contractor cleared out, or if the principal had been unwise enough to pay the contractor more than his due, the workman would get his money out of the retention moneys.

said that retention money applied to big contracts, but it did not, as a rule apply to small contracts. He thought that, if it were intended that the workman should look to the retention money, provision should be made in the Bill that there should be some retention money.

said that the Minister had skated very carefully round the point he had raised. No doubt this Bill went a very long way to protect the workman, but the point he raised, and one that he asked the Minister to consider, was that the amount in the hands of the principal was a very small one, say £30, £40, or £50. The contractor died, not having paid, his medical or funeral expenses. They would then have two “first charges” —first the common law charges in respect of medical and funeral expenses and then the preference which would be created by this Bill. The executor of the estate would thus be met with two “first charges.” There could not, of course, be two “first charges.” Therefore, he submitted that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Newlands might meet the case; at any rate, it would make the matter more simple.

said he thought the hon. member’s difficulty was a little more apparent than real. The “first charge” for funeral expenses was on the estate of the deceased and not on the moneys due from the principal. This Bill would make the moneys due from the principal subject to a “first charge” in favour of the workman’s wages. A “first charge,” naturally, could not be a second charge. That was the very reason why the Minister of Public Works did not want the words “first charge” to be changed. If the words proposed by the hon. member for Newlands were accepted, then all these difficult questions would arise as to whether the workmen’s wages were preferent to this or preferent to that.

said he thought that the point as to the retention money was one of some importance, but, to his mind, it could be more suitably dealt with in the next clause. This clause only dealt with moneys due; they wanted to provide that there should be moneys due.

asked the Minister whether there was any meaning in using the word “payable” in the first sub-section and the words “due and payable” in the second? If there were no intention to draw a distinction between the two cases, it would be better to use the same phraseology in both instances.

was understood to point out that as a rule contractors were paid in instalments. So far as the first instalments were concerned the workmen were all right, but it was a different matter when they came to the last instalment. The contractor could go to the principal and draw the last instalment before he paid his men. What safeguard had the men got? How could the principal withhold money unless authority was given in that Act.

was understood to say that he did not think it was possible for the House to regulate agreements, and the relations between the principal and the contractor. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, he would move an amendment in the next sub-section.

said that in the Dutch version the word “bevoorrecht ” (preferential) was used instead of “eerste last,” which was the translation of the English “first charge. ”

replied that the word was correct, as hon. members would notice that it was used as a verb. The context would show that the meaning of the Dutch was the same as the English.

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

Sub-section 1 was agreed to.

On sub-section 2,

moved the deletion of the words “due and.”

asked the Minister to accept a new sub-section to follow sub-section 1 to the following effect: “In the absence of any agreement to the contrary the entire amount of wages due to, earned by, or payable to, any workman engaged or employed on work named in the contract, shall be paid to such workman at intervals of not more than one week.” He pointed out that this would not interfere with monthly payments or anything of that sort.

asked whether this amendment was in order, because it seemed to him to introduce a new principle. This clause revolutionised the matter so far as the payment of wages were concerned.

said he was sorry he could not accept the proposed sub-section at that stage, because sub-section 2 had already been put and an amendment accepted. The hon. member for Roodepoort could move his amendment when he saw a chance at some later stage of the Bill.

pointed out that the hon. member for Roodepoort had been endeavouring to catch the Chairman’s eye for some time before the Minister rose.

The hon. member can move it somewhere else.

said they were paying so much attention to the employee and the contractor that they were losing sight of the principal. He would like to know what legal obligation was thrown upon the principal in regard to this money which he was supposed to hold. In ordinary contracts between contractors and principal they would find in many cases, especially where the contract was small, that very often the principal had to become surety for the contractor to the merchant who supplied material, and this included not only the lump sum, but also the material that was supplied. The principal might get notice to hand over this money before it became payable. Continuing, he said that this did not free him from the legal obligation in sub-section 2, notwithstanding what was contained in clause 8. If this Bill passed as it stood it would create more difficulties for the contractor and would interfere with business to a great extent.

said that that was the point he raised on the previous sub-section.

moved that after the word “contractor,” in line 9, the words “nine-tenths of” be inserted, and at the end of the subsection the following words be added: “And the remaining one-tenth shall be kept by him for a period of seven days after the said moneys become due, and may then be paid by him to the contractor unless a notice of attachment has been previously served upon him in the manner provided in sub-section 3.” The mover pointed out that in a good many cases money was overdrawn. What was the good of giving a workman a lien on money in the hands of the principal when, perhaps, all that money had been overdrawn. It was to meet cases where there was no money to the credit of the contractor that they had to pass a Bill of this kind.

said he did not think they shoud make it compulsory on the principal to retain a certain part of the contract price. It might not suit either party, and they would be interfering unduly between the contractor and principal in order to protect the workman. If the principal and the contractor laid their heads together to swindle the workmen, he did not see how that could be prevented.

said that the House was inclined to think that this only referred to buildings, and he would point out that it was not only a question of big contracts, but small contracts, and he quoted the case of an order to a firm of printers. It would hamper business to a great extent if the principal was going to retain 10 per cent. of the cost. He had quoted this instance because it came under the definition of work in the Bill.

said that the discussion that afternoon made it plain that the Minister was wrong in setting down the Committee stage for that afternoon. He had not allowed sufficient time for the consideration of amendments. They wanted some protection provided in the case of a contractor who had drawn up to the last penny. The Act would be valueless unless some such provision was made. He quite saw the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, but he would point out that the great bulk of the cases could only be met by such provision as suggested by the hon. member. for Commissioner-street.

said that this point was considered very fully, but after further consideration, it was thought unwise to impose unnecessary restriction on contracts between principal and contractor. It was also intended to make the contractor hand to the principal an affidavit to the effect that he had paid all the wages of the workmen, but it was pointed out that in many cases the contractor was a small man with limited capital, and that it would be impossible for him to pay all the wages of his men until he got the balance of his money. Another reason was that it would place undesirable restrictions on business.

said that the deletion by the Minister of the words “due and” had made all the difference. It was now possible for the principal not to pay when the money became due, but before the end. As the sub-section originally stood the principal had only the right to pay when the money became due

appealed to the Committee to come to some understanding; the object of the Bill, he said, was to try to protect the workman against the dishonest contractor, but now they were trying to protect him from the dishonest principal. If one wanted to pay out money not payable, there was nothing to prevent it; but they assumed that people would not pay money until it was payable.

said there were other ways of protecting the workmen.

said it was a new doctrine to suppose a man would be ashamed to take money that was not due. There were many people who would do that. The Bill was of absolutely no use whatever unless something of the kind suggested by the amendment was done. A certain amount of money should be retained until wages were satisfied, and unless they did that, it was a lien on nothing. They proposed to retain one-tenth of the amount in hand, in order to make the Bill workable. Did not the Public Works Department retain a certain sum of money in respect of their contracts? The amendment was not to provide against reputable firms, but against the very few firms who laid themselves open by speculation with workmen’s wages, and were able to take a contract at a lower rate than a decent contractor, because they did not mean to pay wages.

said that the last speaker had got in his mind only one class of work—that of erecting buildings. A contractor might undertake to build a place in discharge of a debt, or carry out some work of another character, and in that case there was no money due at all, and there would be no protection in such circumstances for the workmen.

appealed to the hon. member to accept the amendment, but the Minister of Public Works said he could not see his way to do so.

said there was a way in which the matter could be met. The Bill could be limited in its operations to those particular trades which were chiefly affected, and upon which the whole debate had been based.

pointed out that on some building contracts extending over a long period instalments were paid. These were not for any definite work done up to a certain point, but represented an instalment on the whole. As the clause was worded, he did not think it would work. It would only work in the case of the last instalment.

suggested that the clause should be allowed to stand over, in order to give hon. members time to consider the matter.

said that they all had the same object in view—that of trying to protect the wages of the workmen in certain circumstances— but they should not introduce a new element and interfere with the liberty of the contractors, by making it an obligatory principle to retain money which, under other circumstances, would not be retained. It was the invariable rule for the principal who had a building under contract to retain a portion Of the contract price for a certain definite time after the erection of the building, and in that way additional security was given to the workmen whose wages had not been paid. To make it seven days seemed to make the Bill unworkable. They must not unduly hamper trade conditions, and that was his reason for opposing that amendment.

said that surely they ought to protect wages in all the other instances, and not only in the building trade. How often was it the case that a contract was finished, and the contractor owed money to the men? He did not see what the use of the Bill was if the Minister would not devote more attention to that clause.

said he must say that seven days appeared much too long, because the workman could not take immediate steps, and he asked whether anything could not be done to meet the workman without unduly hampering the contractor. He asked whether that section could not stand over.

moved that the sub-section stand over, which was agreed to.

On sub-section 3,

moved as an amendment, in line 13, to delete the words “a greater amount than £25” and insert the words “one month’s wages.”

said that so far as the principle was concerned, he agreed with the hon. member (Mr. Struben) and hoped that the Minister would agree to the amendment. The amount of £25 did not suit the Union, where they had so many varying rates of pay, and it would therefore be better to fix a period, as had been suggested. In some cases £25 might mean only two weeks’ wages, but in another part of the Union it might work out, as it did unfortunately work out down here, to twenty-five weeks.

said that he did not feel strongly either one way or another, but why £25 had been inserted was to give the principal a better idea as to what his liability was and the workman what his preference was. Where they were making a definite limit, he thought it was better to have it in pounds, shillings, and pence than to fix a period of time.

said that there ought to be a period set down and also a lump sum. If they limited the period, there was no provision for piece-work. If they fixed a lump sum without putting in a period, they were putting them in a position of one workman only being secured for a small period, while another was secured for a much longer period, as the hon. member for Springs had pointed out.

said that he thought it would be more in the interests of the working-men if they did not put in a period at all, but a certain sum of money. If they intended to amend the Bill by putting in a period, of course, the longer they made the period the worse it would be for the working-man. The suggestion was that the period should be one month, but there were many contracts which did not last a month, and then the workmen would have no protection at all. If the work were for three weeks, he failed to see where the workman would have protection. A month’s salary would have to be due to the workman before he could give notice of attachment. He thought if they wished to protect the working-man, the Minister should adhere to a certain sum of money, without stating any period. The smaller the amount the more protection for the workman.

said he thought there was a great deal of force in what the hon. member for Commissioner-street had said, viz., that they should make it either one month’s wages or £25, whichever was less. He would move after “pounds,” in line 13, to insert “or one month’s wages, whichever is the smaller sum.”

withdrew his amendment.

The amendment of the Minister of Public Works was agreed to.

Sub-section 3 as amended was agreed to

New sub-section 4,

moved a new sub-section (4) as follows: “In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the entire amount of wages due and payable to any workman employed about any work shall be paid to such workman at intervals of not more than one week.” He said that it was being more and more felt that it was in the interests of all concerned, the workman on the one hand and the business man on the other, that the weekly payment system was the best thing for this country. There was no doubt that a very large number of bankruptcies on the Reef were due entirely to the credit system, which was due in turn to the monthly payment system. The weekly payment system was in effect a cash system. If any shopkeeper, with this system generally in vogue, allowed any individual customer to run up a big debt it was his own fault. They could, by the weekly payment of wages, bring about a state of cash payment right throughout the Union. He knew that in some cases the workmen did not want the weekly system, but in those cases the men had not sufficiently studied the question. In the larger proportion of cases the men employed wanted the weekly payment system, especially on the railways. At Salt River Works 95 per cent, of the men voted in favour of the continuation of the weekly payment system.

said he did not wish to go into the merits of this question, but he could not imagine any contract of service in which there was no stipulation as to the rate of wages and as to how the wages were to be paid. It seemed to him that the amendment really touched no case at all.

said it was a curious thing that so-called daily-paid men were paid once a month. There were many men on the railways who were called daily-paid and were subject to 24 hours’ notice, but whose wages were paid once a month. For years he had raised this question. The question had been before the Salt River workmen, and there was some divergence of opinion, but the properly so-called daily-paid men, he thought the vast bulk of them, were in favour of payment at least once a week. He was certain that the wives of 99 per cent. of those men were in favour of it. It seemed to him that this amendment would come in much better under clause 3. It was very difficult to say “any workman.” He did not think they could go further than apply this to daily-paid men. It might perhaps be useful if he read his suggested amendment to clause 3, viz., “The wages of any workman who is employed as a daily-paid workman shall be deemed to have become due and be demandable at the latest on the completion of each week of such employment.”

thought that the amendment was a perfectly good one, and he could not understand why it had not been accepted. After the explanation of the Minister of Justice, why could it not be accepted? It was the first time that it would be provided that unless otherwise provided weekly wages would be the rule. That was an important declaration to place in an Act or Parliament. What possible harm was there under the amendment?

said he thought that the word “workmen ” was too wide. Did the man who acted overseer come under this? He thought the Committee should insert “manual” before “workmen.” He strongly supported the amendment, because the weekly payment of wages was in existence in most countries:

asked why it should be confined to manual workmen? He thought that the Minister’s argument had already been answered by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. They were asking for very little, and they should really have asked for more, because it placed tremendous power in the hands of the employer.

said that if they got into values they would soon get into a quagmire. He could not see how the Committee could agree to the amendment of his hon. friend, seeing that they had already dealt with the question of the period. It seemed to him that hon. members were too anxious to manage the businesses of other people, and they should be very careful to see that they did not interfere with private bargaining between employer and the person who is employed.

moved a simplified amendment to the following effect: “In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the entire amount of wages due and payable to any workman employed about any work shall be paid to such workman at intervals of not more than one week.”

said he was willing to accept the amendment.

was understood to say he did not think the amendment went as far as some of them would like to go. They should give every workman the right to demand his wages.

Apart from the contract.

Apart from the contract. Continuing, he said that all this trouble arose by allowing these extended periods.

said that if they came down with a cast-iron amendment they would meet with a blank refusal, but if they took half a loaf they would establish the principle that such a scheme was desirable.

said he thought the definition of “work ” was far too wide.

said that he had accepted the amendment in the hope that he would be facilitating the passage of the Bill. The acceptance of the amendment would not materially disturb business affairs.

said he hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment. Hon. members on the cross benches only spoke for one section of the people, whereas they were dealing with a measure that affected the whole of the country. Why should men not be allowed to make their own agreements.

said he would like to point out to the hon. member for Umlazi that this amendment did not disturb any private bargaining.

The amendment of the hon. member for Springs was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, agreed to.

On clause 2, Assignment and attachment void as against workmen,

moved the following new sub-section 2 to take the place of sub-section 2: “When any moneys payable to a contractor by a principal in respect of work are attached or charged by such other person aforesaid, a sufficient sum shall be retained by the principal to satisfy the amount due as wages to all workmen of that contractor in respect of that work, provided notice of attachment has been given in terms of section 3.

moved that after the word “section,” in line 17 of sub-section 2, the following be inserted: “or any agreement for setting off money becoming due to the contractor against money due or becoming due by the contractor to the principal.”

asked whether the principal under sub-section 1 was debarred from protecting third parties as it did at the present time.

was understood to say that if they were going to allow the contractor to sign away his interest the whole object of the Bill would be defeated. Under no circumstances could a principal be called upon to pay more than he was liable to pay. There was no difficulty whatever.

failed to see why the contractor should be singled out as the only man who was to be responsible for his workmen’s wages. Why should not every employer in the country be made similarly responsible? Such legislation as that under discussion was liable to stir up suspicious distrust between the employer and employed. What proportion of the workmen of a country were employed under contractors as compared with the total number of workers? They were attempting to protect the wages of but a very small proportion, and until they were prepared to introduce a proper Bill to secure a lien for workmen’s wages, they had no right to single out contractors as the only men whose interest were to be interfered with. It was practically class legislation, and the Committee should lay the matter well to heart before they agreed to it.

instanced the case of a contractor before sending in his tender going to a merchant and arranging for the merchant to supply him with goods to be used in that particular structure. Assuming he got the acceptance and got the principal to make himself liable to the merchant for the goods utilised in that particular building; things might go smoothly for a time, say until the middle of the contract. What would then be the position of the merchant who had assisted the contractor to tender? He would be in jeopardy. The hon. member for Caledon was to be congratulated for drawing the attention of the merchants to that Bill.

wanted to know if the workman had not as much right as the merchant to his money? One result would be that more work would be put into the hands of the substantial builders. Principals would want their work performed without the danger of being called upon to find the money.

said the effect would be to reduce the amount of contract work that was going on. That was what the hon. members on the cross benches were working for. The House had to look after the small man; it was not only the workman who ought to be considered. The tendency would be to drive the small contractor out altogether.

said the amount of the contract would be reduced by so much by the payment by the principal for the goods, and that would make no difference to the workman.

was understood to say that the principal ought to be debarred from making the reduction.

said that under the clause as it stood, he feared that all the work would be given to the large contractor, and the small contractor, who could not tender for work unless he had the support of the merchant, would fall out. The object of the Bill was to protect the workman only, but there were others who were just as closely concerned as he was. The effect would be that more work would be done by the large contractors, with the result that the small contractors, and the workmen working for the small contractors, would be the sufferers.

said that one of his experiences had been that a contractor, after having paid his men, handed over a building which might be quite useless and quite spoiled. Very often the workmen had got large wages and were well provided for, but the people who were closely concerned, such as the owners, were not taken into account at all. They were at present engaged in continually introducing legislation to help the workman, whilst the owners were simply left in the lurch. He feared that under the Bill the small contractors would suffer.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

was understood to say that the Bill was for the protection of the wages of the workmen. Now it was said that the principal was responsible for the wages to the workmen, and that, in his opinion, was not right.

Mr. Sampson’s amendment was negatived.

said it was impossible for the principal to know what wages were due to the workmen.

was understood to say that the section was to provide that principals should not pay over to the contractor what was due to the workmen without the latter being safeguarded.

said that he thought it would only be necessary to call upon the principal to retain moneys only after such notice had been given that the workmen had not been paid. Referring to the attitude of hon. members on the cross-benches, he said that they were now really working in the interests of the wealthy contractor, because the small contractor would not tender under these circumstances.

said that they on the cross-benches were not concerned as to whether the contractor was a wealthy or a comparatively poor man. What they were concerned with, and what that Bill was intended to safeguard, was that a man should get his wages, and if the hon. member (Mr. Heatlie) dragged in the question of the wealth or otherwise of the contractor, that was beside the point. He thought that side issues were being dragged in to prevent the passage of that Bill.

disagreed with the last speaker, and said that it was not the intention of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) to delay the passage of the Bill, as he was a fair-minded man. Proceeding, the hon. member pointed out that, in the case of a small contractor, the workmen were more in touch with him; but it was the case of a large contractor they should look to. In the case of a small contractor, the principal knew whether a man was being paid or not.

said that the difficulty lay between the principal and ‘the contractor, which they could overcome by giving power to the principal to pay the employee. The Minister’s amendment would not meet the case, and left the door open. Let the principal pay out to a man before any money was handed over to the contractor. The Bill was one he heartily welcomed and supported, and he was of opinion that power should be given to the principal to see that the labourers were paid. Although the Bill would place the contractor in a peculiar position, he should be very sorry to see it wrecked.

said that his hon. friend had pointed out the peculiarity from the point of view of the contractor. There was another peculiarity in this Bill, and that was as far as the principal was concerned. The principal, as a rule, called for tenders. After the contract had been let, the principal then had only to deal with the contractor. He might object to have to deal with workmen. Under this clause they placed upon him the duty of receiving notice from workmen. Had they a right, he asked, to lay this burden upon the man who gave out a contract?

said that the magistrate might be a long way from the principal or the workmen and the principal might be placed in a very awkward position.

said that the suggestion of the hon. member for Humansdorp that the obligation of finding out whether money was owing to workmen for wages would in the case of large contracts on which perhaps a few hundred workmen were employed, place upon the principal what he considered would be hardly a fair burden to impose. The only way in which the workmen should be protected by the principal would be after he had received notice from the workmen of any overdue wages. He did not see how, in justice to other people, it was possible to protect workmen beyond that.

said that he intended to meet the point which had been raised. He had added a few words to his amendment which would only make the principal liable to pay the workmen’s wages in the event of his having received notice. In regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Humansdorp, he did not think it would be quite fair to the contractor to let the principal judge as to the amount of wages that were due to the workmen.

said that the Committee would no doubt find itself in a morass in this matter, but he must say that the hon. member for Humansdorp had shown the cloven hoof very clearly in his speech. He had said that it did not matter what regulations they enforced against the contractor, as long as they left the farmer alone.

On a point of order, the hon. member misunderstood me. I said it did not matter very much to the farming community, because I do not think it will affect them very much.

said that the hon. member could cherish that notion as long as he liked, but it wouldn’t be very long before the farmer would also be brought to toe the line in the payment of wages in this way. Another statement of his was, it was right that the principal should be allowed to deduct the wages of workmen from the amount payable to the contractor. What in the world was there to prevent a contractor from making a provision of that sort in his contract today? That was the proper way to deal with such a matter as this, and not by class legislation of this kind. If this were class legislation, as they had been told, then he said it must be equally enforced against everybody else.

said that under this Bill a big contractor would be able to carry out his contract, while the small contractor would not be able to carry out his contract. Any man who gave out a contract did so because he did not want to be troubled with the work. (Hear, hear.) This Bill was bringing in a new principle, because they were making this man responsible for a thing that hitherto he had had nothing to do with. When he got notice from the workpeople, he would have to go and see that they got paid. Although they must guard against the labouring man not getting his due wages, they must see that they were going cut of their way to place a hardship on people who gave out contracts.

said that the hon. member was wrong. The principal had no responsibility whatever except to this extent, that if he was told by the workmen that their wages had not been paid, he said, “Very well, I am not going to pay the contractor until I know that these wages have been paid.” He was not liable for anything except what he owed the contractor.

said he understood the clause to mean that the principal had to ask the contractor whether he had paid all his workmen before he paid him. If he received no notice from the workmen as to arrear wages, was he then responsible ?

said he would like to reassure the hon. member. If the principal got no notice of any wages being due, he was at perfect liberty to pay out to the contractor, and would have no responsibility.

referred to the difficulties of people in the rural districts. Contractors there had to ask for an advance before they could start any work. A rather awkward position was thus created under the Bill.

said the Bill was not intended to deal with all contractors but only dishonest contractors. So long as the contractor paid wages it would not apply to him. The Bill would only come into operation when a contractor did not pay the wages of his workmen. This did not introduce any new principle, but allowed the workman to gain his legal rights in an inexpensive fashion.

said he wished to know how the principal was to know that the contractor still owed money to the workmen. Did the workmen have to give notice? If they gave notice, he understood that the principal was only allowed to pay the contractor the balance.

pointed out that it was quite clear that the workmen had to give notice that the contractor owed them money.

referring to remarks of the hon. member for Gape Town, Castle, said that if there were as many contractors as working-men in the country they would find a different tone adopted in that House. It was because hon. members thought they could play up to the working-men that they argued as they did, but he would tell them that it was too thin and the working-man would not be taken in. (Labour cheers.) By introducing class legislation at this time they were treading on dangerous ground.

pointed out that the hon. member for Umlazi led members to suppose that this Bill would apply to all contractors in South Africa. The Bill was directed against the small man who did his duty.

said he thought that members should allow the clause to go through as the Minister had fully explained the security of the position.

said the amendment of the Minister made the position quite clear. Sub-section (a) explained that moneys already due would form a fresh charge, so long as the necessary notice had been given. If the amendment of the Minister was agreed to no principal would be responsible until he had been given the requisite notice that money was due to the workmen.

Sub-section 2 was deleted and the new sub-section proposed by the Minister inserted, and clause 2 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 3, Workmen whose wages are in arrear may serve notice of attachment on principal,

moved in sub-section (1), to omit the words “for forty-eight hours,” to omit the words “the time at which,” and to insert after “demanded” the words “orally or in writing.”

raised the question of the men who were paid monthly, and said that a dishonest contractor might be able to play ducks and drakes with the money of the workmen to whom two or three weeks’ pay was due. He thought that the hon. Minister should make provision for those by providing for the men who had already earned a portion of their wages. Neither should the word “demand” be in the clause; opposing a contractor had gone, how could one demand the wages? It might be impossible to make the demand. The Minister should also leave out the solemn ceclaration which would introduce legal formalities and put the workmen to unnecessary expenditure. He moved as an amendment, to omit sub-section (1) and to substitute: “(1) any workman whose wages remain unpaid in whole or in part may serve upon the principal a notice of attachment, which shall as nearly as practicable be in form “A ” set out in the schedule to this Act, and the workman shall also serve upon the contractor a copy of such notice.”

said he thought the hon. Minister could not accept that. The wages were not due until the end of the month—why then should the workman be in a position to demand them before they were actually due?

pointed out that the workman was simply trying to protect himself. He did not get the wages, and he was not asking for something he had not earned. If he had done a fortnight’s work he had earned a fortnight’s wages.

thought that a more dangerous doctrine was never preached. There, was the possibility that a spiteful workman might invent a story and serve a notice upon the principal.

was of opinion that the object of the amendment would not be achieved, because the wages were not due before the end of the month. The amendment as it stood referred to a case where a man who was entitled at the end of the month to £10 was only paid £5, and that the remaining £5 would be the sum unpaid.

urged that he did not say the wages were due; in the amendment it said wages remaining unpaid in whole or in part.

said the whole thing arose from the wretched practice of paying the men monthly—a rotten system, which had been introduced into the Transvaal. Supposing at the end of a fortnight the workmen found that things were going wrong. They did get to know such things, but they could do nothing. They might have worked for nearly three weeks, but their hands were tied until the end of the month. They might see there was a great probability of being done out of their wages, but they could take no steps until the end of the month, when their wages became due. The amendment would give such workmen their opportunity, and they would thus be able to protect themselves. The amendment would only affect the dishonest contractor. If a workman acted spitefully the honest contractor would promptly get rid of him.

hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment. The amendment laid down that the workman must make a declaration. They must protect the principals to a certain extent.

agreed with the Minister of Finance that the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, would not achieve the object desired. They had passed a clause that wages must be paid weekly, if they were paid monthly it was by agreement, and a monthly salary did not become due until the end of the month. The moneys did not therefore “remain unpaid” that were not due. The amendment was a dangerous one.

appealed to hon. members to accept the clause as amended by the hon. Minister.

said that the men in receipt of monthly wages would not be so easily got rid of as is anticipated by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. They would want a month’s notice from the end of the month.

also pointed out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth that he could not easily get rid of the workman just because he demanded his wages. If he sent a man away for that he would have the Trade Unions to deal with. (Laughter.)

The amendments of the hon. Minister were agreed to.

then put the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, and it was negatived on the voices.

Clause 3, as amended, was carried.

On clause 6, Attachment to become void if workmen failed to serve order on principal within a prescribed period,

moved, in line 17, to omit “he” and to substitute “or within such further period as the magistrate may direct, a workman.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 9, Right of action by workman against principal who fails to pay in accordance with order,

said that that clause saddled the principal with the whole responsibility of the workmen. Under what right could a principal come into the work and interfere between, say, a contractor and his workmen if he were satisfied that the body of men were not earning their wages ?

Clause 9 was agreed to.

On clause 11, Special jurisdiction of magistrate’s courts.

said that there were no penalties provided in that Bill, and he thought that there ought to be. (Labour dissent.) They were giving considerable powers to the workmen, and that was all right if they were used in their proper spirit, and were not used vexatiously or were not inspired by malice. He thought that the Bill should provide certain penalties for the misuse of these very considerable concessions which the House was giving to workmen. He would move as a new sub-section the following at the end of the clause: “If at the trial of any action under this Act the court hearing the same shall come to the decision that such action is vexatious or inspired by malice against the contractor, or has been brought well knowing it to be false, the court may, in addition to dismissing the same with costs, impose a fine, not exceeding £5, upon the workman bringing the same.”

How can an action for wages be vexatious?

said that he hoped the hon. member would not insist on his amendment. A sworn declaration had to be made by a workman, and if he made a false statement in that he would be liable to be charged with perjury. Should they impose a penalty on the workman and allow the principal and the contractor to go free? If they had penalities they should have penalties all round. (Hear, hear.) He did not think that any penalty was necessary at all.

said he hoped the hon. member would not press his amendment. The hon. member spoke to the same effect as the Minister.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause 11 was agreed to.

On clause 14, Service of notices and orders,

moved, as an amendment, in line 8, after “principal” to insert “or contractor”; in line 11, after “principal” to insert “or contractor”; and in the same line, after “agent” to insert “or by leaving the same at his said place of abode or place of business.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved as an amendment, at the end of the clause, “Provided that where any notice or order was served by registered letter, such service shall not be deemed to have been effective if the principal or his agent, as the case may be, can prove that he did not receive the same.” The hon. member pointed out that a letter might be addressed to a wrong address.

said that a great deal of responsibility was put on the principal, and it should be made clear that the notice was duly received by the principal.

said he thought there would be no harm in accepting the amendment.

urged that if a workman had got to serve a notice the onus should rest upon the principal, if notice had been given by registered letter, of proving that he had not received the letter.

said that the workman’s responsibility, according to the clause as printed, ceased when he put a registered letter on the counter of the post office.

said he had seen this provision in a number of Bills. If they were going to throw the onus upon the workmen of finding out exactly where a man lived, they would be placing them in a very difficult position.

said he did not see any necessity for this amendment, because, if a letter were addressed to a principal, the sender always got a receipt from the post office with the name and address on the receipt. That was one step in the proof that the letter had been sent. The next step was the receipt given by the principal that the letter had been delivered to him. He did not see that there was any greater necessity for protecting the principal or the contractor where a registered letter was sent by post than where notice was served personally. The question of service was entirely a matter of proof. It was quite a common thing in legal practice to-day for service to be effected by registered letter. If the notice were addressed to the last known address, then the workman had done all that he could be expected to do.

said that they were in this Bill laying down the principle that an innocent party, the principal, was made liable for arrears of wages due to workmen, and the Minister solemnly proposed to effect this by means of notice given by registered letter. The Minister now refused a reasonable amendment to say that the onus must be thrown upon the party sending the letter to prove that that letter was received.

I do not say that. I said if the principal can prove that he has not got the letter.

Yes; that is what I mean —if the principal can prove that he did not receive that letter.

speaking in support of the amendment, said he thought they were going altogether too far. Unless it could be proved that the principal had received the letter, why should he be made liable? Here was a man who was quite outside so far as any dispute between the contractor and his employee was concerned, and it should be incumbent to produce absolute proof that he had got the letter.

said he thought the amendment was a sound one, and the position taken up by the hon. member for Caledon was also quite sound. He considered that the attitude taken up by the Minister towards this amendment was quite untenab.

said that a good deal of this discussion seemed to be very much in the nature of obstruction. Surely, none of these principals was going to be such an obscure individual as hon. members tried to make out. Here they had not an ordinary posted letter, but a registered letter, which, in order to be delivered, had got to be signed for by somebody. The letter would not be delivered if it had not been signed for.

The clause does not say anything about his having got it.

said he wanted to take exception to the moral attitude taken up by the House towards these poor unfortunate workers. (“No.”) If a principal did not receive the registered letter, naturally he knew nothing about it. Hon. members talked about the onus being thrown on the innocent principal, but the principal was the man who was benefiting by the things which these men constructed.

said that if the Minister would not accept the amendment, would he not draft something that would be acceptable to the House?

said there were certain parts of the country where people lived long distances from the post office. The post office sent out a slip for a registered letter, and the man had to sign it, and it had to go back to the post office before the registered letter was sent out. In some cases, that process took two or three weeks.

said the trouble seemed to be that the Minister had not provided for the actual delivery of the letter. He thought he should drop the word “sent” and put in “delivered.”

moved to omit all reference to registered letter in the sub-section.

said that he could not accept such a proposal.

said he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, and deal with the matter at a later stage. He would try and draft a new clause that would meet with the approval of the House.

said the amendment did not meet his difficulties.

said the workman’s wages should be protected, and the clause amended accordingly.

suggested an amendment to meet the difficulty.

approved the suggestion.

protested against the way hon. members on the cross-benches distorted everything that was done in the House. They were trying to protect not only the working-men, but also the innocent third party. Hon. members on the cross-benches, instead of trying to help them, tried to make things as bad as possible for the working-man, so that they could go outside and pose as friends of the working-men. They only looked at the matter from the one point of view, while other hon. members had a sense of greater responsibility.

said that the hon. member must keep to the clause before the House.

said that his hon. friend, who, he believed, was looked upon as a legal luminary had lectured the cross-benches, but he and his colleagues did not mind that. He was surprised at the hon. member for Bloemfontein talking about the danger of paying wages twice. What would he the position of a man who obtained wages twice over. Was there not a remedy? Because hon. members on the cross-benches insisted upon the workman being considered, and he was to be considered under that Bill, they got a lecture from the hon. member for Bloemfontein.

said that the hon. member for Bloemfontein was perfectly correct in his observations.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, was agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, was then agreed to.

On clause 15, Workman in the employment of a sub-contractor to have same rights and remedies against the contractor as a workman in the employment of a contractor has against the principal,

moved, in line 20, after the word “contractor,” to insert the words “or principal.” He pointed out that a landlord could come down on a tenant or sub-tenant, and that the workman should be able to come down on the contractor, sub-contractor or principal.

supported the amendment, and said the workman required protection against the sub-contractor, for it was he who for the most part was a man of straw.

said there was a difficulty in the matter, and pointed out that the principal had not entered into any contract with the sub-contractor. He hoped the hon. member would not insist upon the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause 15 was agreed to.

On clause 17, Interpretation of terms,

moved an amendment in line 40, after the word “performed” to insert “and shall in relation to any work as defined in sub-sections (a), (b), or (c) of this section include the owner of the land upon which such work is to be, or has been, performed, provided such work is in the interest or to the benefit of such owner.” They found, he said, cases where contractors had undertaken to put up a building for a separate person, the contractors might clear out and the building that was left might be of some value to the owner of the land; the workmen would be deprived of their wages, and if it could be proved that the owner of the land did benefit he should be the person to whom the workman could apply.

said he hoped the hon. member would not press the amendment, it might be unfair to the owner of the land. It was no fault of his. It was a very indefinite liability which the hon. member sought to place upon the owner. They had gone a long way to meet the claims of the workmen, but they could not go as far as that.

said they had gone a certain way in the direction indicated by the hon. member, but it had been by attacking a certain class of man. The hon. Minister looked at it differently when the land owner was affected. He prophesied that the amendment was foredoomed to failure.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street, and instanced a case where a similar provision had worked well elsewhere.

asked for an explanation of some of the words used.

said that nobody had yet shown him where there was any harm in the matter. They did find that in some township companies the building reverted to the company because the person who had leased it had overstepped the mark.

said that the Minister ought to include sub-contractors in relation to workmen. He moved an amendment to that effect.

was inaudible.

asked what was the meaning of the last section. It was very wide.

said it was wide; but he did not think it was too wide.

asked whether they were to conclude that if a farmer placed an order with a wagon builder for the building of a wagon, and if the wagon builder did not pay his men, the farmer had to pay the men? He thought that the clause was far too wide.

said that, after all, a contract did not always mean a formal document. Would not the Minister allow the clause to stand over ?

moved the deletion of par. (e) of the definition “work.”

moved to delete sub-section (d).

said he would appeal to the hon. members not to press these amendments. The object of the measure was to secure to workpeople the money that they had earned. This clause was simply inserted for the protection of the ordinary workman. The cases which had been quoted were never likely to occur.

said that his experience of the law was that when an Act had been passed and it got into the hands of the lawyers, it received applications which were never dreamt of in Parliament. He had no hesitation in saying that a meaning would be read into this sub-section which none of them thought of. Furthermore, this subsection would put so much restraint upon the ordinary transactions of life that it would materially hamper business.

said that, if they struck out these portions of the clause, it would be impossible for a workman engaged on a contract, whether a large contract or a small one, to recover wages which the contractor failed to pay to him. He thought some of the cases which had been mentioned were in the nature of such remote possibilities that they could be safely dismissed from serious consideration.

said that a workman engaged on a building would be protected under this Bill, but his fellow-workman engaged in the yard in making doors and windows would not be protected, and would be eliminated altogether if the amendment were adopted. There was no danger of a man being called upon to pay more than once under this Bill.

said that, as far as he had been able to judge from the discussions on this Bill, the principle of the Bill was to protect workmen’s wages in the event of a contractor disappearing. That was quite right, but now they were told that it was to apply to a workman engaged in making boots, saddlery, and things of that kind in connection with a contract on behalf of an established firm who would always be there. He thought the expression “the repair of any materials” in sub-section (d) was very vague. The hon. member characterised the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, as absurd.

maintained that this clause would not interfere with any ordinary honest transactions.

suggested to the hon. member for Worcester that he should move the deletion of the words “or the repair of any material,” instead of moving the deletion of the whole clause. With regard to (e) there was no necessity for the sub-section at all.

hoped the Minister would retain the clause, because they wanted to make the Bill as wide as possible. He did not think it would restrict business.

withdrew his previous amendment, and moved the deletion of the words suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment. They would like to have other things mentioned, but they did not insist upon them in case they might wreck the Bill The words which the hon. member for Worcester wished to delete were very important. Machinery might be sent up to a farm and get broken in transit. Men who were working on the farm would have a lien over certain monies held by the principal, but fellow-workmen who were taken off the work of erecting to do repairs could not recover.

pointed out that in New Zealand they did not go as far as this measure, because in the case mentioned there were other means of getting redress.

Which way?

Sue.

So can everybody.

pointed out that the manufacturer was not even mentioned in New Zealand legislation.

said that the New Zealand section quoted went on to deal with the supply of material.

That is covered.

Oh, no, it is not.

The amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street was negatived.

put the question: That the words in lines 58 and 59, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

challenged a division, which was taken, with the following result:

Ayes—46.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys. Lourens

Grobler. Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes J.

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer. Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

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

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Morris Alexander and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—161.

De Waal, Hendrik

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

E. Nathan and M. W. Myburgh, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie negatived.

said sub-section (e) clearly included carriages and carts. He thought the clause interfered too much with employers. He quite agreed that the workmen should be protected where the building trade was concerned, but he did not see the necessity of interfering with the construction of traps or articles of that kind. He could not see why a farmer should be responsible for the payment of wages to a coachmaker’s employees.

reiterated that the section was not necessary.

said that if that was so, why did the hon. member make such a fuss about the section? The work was done, and the man should have some claim to the wages he was entitled to. It did not matter whether the work was building wagons or houses.

said a subsection like this would only have the effect of handicapping business. They would only make themselves ridiculous by this sub-section. Surely there was no cause to protect workmen employed in established business places. He would support the amendment.

said that, in order to relieve the minds of some hon. members, he would move the deletion of the words “alteration or improvement,” so that the sub-section would read, “The manufacture of any article of movable property.” The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, seemed to be very pleased to legislate for other people, but where the matter had to do with the manufacture of merchants’ goods, then he saw no necessity for it at all. (Hear, hear.) He (the Minister) thought there was just as much necessity for protecting the workmen who might be engaged in the industries he had mentioned as there was for protecting workmen engaged in erecting a building.

said he thought it scarcely accorded with the dignity of a Minister to attribute motives. That was more worthy of the cross-benches. His point was that there was no necessity for the proposal in regard to manufacturers, and that they were legislating for something in respect of which there was no grievance at all.

said he agreed with the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) that there was very little likelihood of any workman having to take advantage of this Bill who was employed in the manufacture of these articles, because he was likely to be employed by a comparatively large firm. The hon. member, however, had got a wrong view of the position of the workman when he took refuge behind the plea that he could take legal action. They wanted to avoid, as far as they could, workmen having to incur the expense that was inseparable from instituting an action. How could a worker in a wagon-shop, say, incur large expense to recover £2 or £4? It inflicted no hardship on hon. members opposite or those whom they represented. There was no hardship set up in this clause on the shoulders of the principal.

said this clause would have the effect of the poor, struggling man, for instance, the poor wagonmaker, never getting any work, as people would go to the large firms, preferring to avoid the risk of being called on to pay the men’s wages.

said he could not see any objection to the clause. Neither could he see that the principal would be greatly troubled by the provisions of the clause. The workman was just as much entitled to protection where it concerned movable as immovable property.

supported the clause, and said there was not the least danger of anyone having to pay twice over. Most people paid some time after the work was done, and what was therefore the objection? They could only be called on to pay once.

said he did not fear having to pay twice, but his objection was that one might be bothered by so many people as to who should be paid, and in the end one would not know whom to pay.

The amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works was agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), was negatived.

said with regard to his amendment no far-reaching principle was involved, and he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment.

said that the man the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) had in mind was amply protected—the small man. He did not think it was necessary to protect the sub-contractor, who very often was a large man, and who did not need protection. The amendment would mean the recasting of the Bill.

said that most works were done by sub-contracts, and if the principal disappeared, the sub-contractors did not get their money

said that surely the definition of workman would cover the case mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Alexander). He did not understand the hon. member’s attitude.

said it seemed to him that there was a danger that a contractor might get outside the Bill by employing a lot of sub-contractors to do the whole of the work. He hoped the Minister would consider this point at the next stage.

said that this was a Bill to protect wages and not to protect lump sums payable to sub-contractors.

said it seemed to him that there was distinctly a loophole through which an injustice might occur. Some protection ought to be afforded to men who were employed by sub-contractors to go over the head of the contractor to the principal.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On the schedule, form B,

moved to insert “at the expiry of seven days from the date of the service of this order on you, but not earlier ” after the word “plaintiff.”

Agreed to

moved in line 6 of form A after “hands” to insert “out of.”

The amendment and the schedule as amended were agreed to.

The Committee then reverted to clause 1.

Does the hon. member for Commissioner-street press his amendment?

I don’t see the use of the Bill without it. There was no hardship for the contractor.

appealed to the hon. Minister to allow the clause to stand over. It would only mean half an hour at some other time. The matter had not been properly considered.

urged that the matter should go to the vote.

said that in the report stage the Minister could meet what he admitted was a grievance.

said he would discuss the matter with a view to meeting the hon. member.

thereupon withdrew his amendment.

The amendment previously moved by the Minister of Public Works was also withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, was agreed to.

The title was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, and the amendments were set down for consideration on Thursday, April 23.