from landowners and farmers in the districts of Alexandria and Bathurst, for construction of a railway from Alexandria to a point on the Graham’s Town-Port Alfred line.

from inhabitants of George, for legislation providing for the direct popular veto.

from H. Sundstrom, formerly in the Cape Civil Service, for relief.

from A. J. Cumbela, interpreter, Zastron, for a pension.

from J. B. K. Sparks, formerly scab inspector, for a pension.

from inhabitants of Barkly East, for legislation providing for the direct popular veto (two petitions).

from the widow of D. Haupt, late Landdrost of Smithfield, for relief.

from inhabitants of Albany, for legislation providing for the direct popular veto.

from G. Bagley, for condonation of a break in his service.

(for the Minister of Finance): Annual Report of the Commissioner of Excise, for 1913.

moved that Sir David Hunter be discharged from further service on the Select Committee on Report of Public Service Commission, and that Mr. Van der Riet be appointed in his stead. Sir Thomas Watt mentioned that the hon. member for Durban, Central, was leaving for England shortly, and it was desirable that another hon. member should be appointed in his place.

The motion was agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the Registration and Election Laws Amendment Bill, said its object was twofold. Its main object was to do away with a long-standing anomaly of plural voting which existed in Natal and to bring Natal in this respect into line with the other three Provinces. Its second object was to extend the polling hours to eight o’clock, in the evening in the Cape and Natal, and thus to bring them into line with the Transvaal and the Free State. At present in the Cape the poll for both Provincial Council and Parliamentary elections closed at 6 p.m., while in Natal the poll closed at 4 p.m., which did not allow everyone qualified to vote an opportunity of exercising the franchise. Resolutions in favour of the extension had been passed by the Cape and Natal Provincial Councils. The Bill, which was a most modest, unassuming, and yet useful measure, laid it down that every person qualified to vote would have one vote and one vote only. The principles of the Bill had been accepted by the Government in the Electoral Law Bill, gazetted in December, 1912, which, unfortunately, had been thrown overboard. This Bill made the polling hours from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and also provided for the abolition of plural voting. On the grounds of principle, at any rate, the Government could not oppose the Bill. The Government might say that they were bringing in a comprehensive scheme and that they should postpone that measure until such time as they brought forward their own particular Bill. The principles involved in his Bill affected Natal only, and they claimed that the anomalies there should be rectified at the earliest possible date, and he was not going to run the risk of waiting for any Bill the Government might bring forward in the far distant future. The position in Natal as far as plural voting was concerned was this—the law which obtained today was the law which was drafted in the days of the old Natal Charter 60 years ago. It stipulated that a person could vote in any division provided he owned immovable property to the value of £50 or paid rent for immovable property to the value of £10 per year. The result was that there were many hon. members of that House who had four or five votes each at any Provincial Council or Parliamentary election in Natal. For himself, he had two votes in Natal. The result was that it gave a preponderance of voting strength to those who invested their money in properties and who had their businesses scattered about the various electoral divisions. Durban had five divisions, and a business man living on the Berea had a vote by virtue of renting the house he lived in; he might also have a vote at the Point where he had his office, a store in town also gave him a vote in the Central Division, and if he had a bit of land at Umbilo he got a vote there. The same thing applied to Greyville. The plural vote was not what might be called a rich man’s vote—it was a property owner’s vote. A man might be worth £100,000, but if he did not invest his money in scattered property he might only have one vote, whereas the man with £850 in vested in property might have seventeen votes, one in each constituency. There were some of the Natal members of Parliament who feared that by reducing the number of votes on the Voters Roll they would depreciate the voting strength of Natal in that House. But that was not the case at all. The basis on which each Province was entitled to a certain number of representatives in the House was the basis of the European male adult population of the Province. The latest census returns showed that the white male adult population of Natal had decreased since Union and was now 30,454, which would entitle Natal to only ten members on the quota laid down by the Act of Union. If the Natal members thought they were going to increase the number of Natal’s representatives by the plural voting system they were on the wrong line altogether. Neither now nor at any future time would the abolition of plural voting affect Natal’s voting strength. What it would do was to take away the preponderating political influence of the property owners. Why should men in Natal who had a little property here and there have more voting power than most of the hon. members of that House? The Bill did not alter the qualification of voters in any shape or form. It merely said those who were qualified should vote once and once only. The matter struck at the very root of democratic Government. He did not know whether the Government was going to oppose this Bill as a Government, but he felt certain that if it allowed its members to vote as they felt, they would have no hesitation in carrying the Bill, and Natal and the Cape would be brought into line with the Transvaal and the Free State.

said he thought his hon. friend was unduly pessimistic about the measure, which was one that should appeal to everybody. He thought it time that anomalies in their electoral laws were done away with. He pointed out that it was well known that in these two Provinces although a large number of men were placed on the roll they could not vote by reason of the fact that the polls closed too early. He thought these men should be given a fair opportunity of voting. He knew of cases in Natal where men could not get to the poll either after it opened or before it shut. He believed that in some countries it was criminal to stop a man going to the poll, but they were not asking for as much as that, but they were asking Parliament to afford time for men to vote. They knew that the two-shift system was growing in this country, especially with regard to the coal-miners in Natal, and the result was that a certain section of the men were debarred from attending the poll. He referred to the Provincial Council election in Cape Town, Central, and said that many shop assistants were unable to get to the poll until after six. The other matter was a question of the abolition of plural voting. They should do away with inequalities of voting, so that the country could get proper representation. Electoral reform in this country had been brought about piecemeal, and this was one step.

appealed to members to protect Natal against this Bill. The mover had said that this was a matter that concerned Natal alone, and if they took the opinion of the Natal members, he was confident as to what the result would be. Attempts had been made before to have this plural voting abolished, but without success. It was true that this was an old-fashioned method, but that was the existing system, and there was no desire to have a change brought about. He thought that this point should be considered when the whole question of electoral reform was dealt with, and he did not think they should make this one alteration alone. The subject was one of such importance to Natal that he thought it was a question that should be brought up at the next election, and the sense of the constituencies taken upon it. He pointed out that the National Convening left the franchise and electoral matters alone, the only difference being that elections should take place throughout the country on the same day. The hon. member had pointed out that it would make no difference to the number of representatives for Natal if this was carried, but it would alter the configuration of the constituencies, and would take away the influence of the rural constituencies, and centre it about the towns.

Where the people live.

said that the result would be that the electoral rolls of rural constituencies would become so small that two or more would be made into one, and extra representation would be given the urban constituencies. He thought that no change should be made until the Natal constituencies had been consulted. He thought that when a change was brought about, it should form part of the whole question of electoral reform, and he hoped that the House would not accept the measure.

said he did not think the House could entertain this Bill for a moment, because he did not think that clause 1 was a proper way to effect an alteration of the South Africa Act He thought that a different course should be taken. He did not find much fault with the other clauses of the Bill but he thought that the mover had omitted one thing which would have made the Bill a success. It was felt, he thought, that when they gave a person a vote they should have a certain guarantee that he was going to use his vote in a proper way in the interest of the country. He thought a candidate for a seat in Parliament should have the qualification of possessing fixed property of a value of not less than £1,000.

Make it a million.

added, that if this Bill passed the second reading, he should take an opportunity of moving an amendment in the direction he had indicated at a later stage. If the hon. member accepted his amendment, he (General Smuts) would perhaps help him with the other clauses.

said he thought that the principle they were now discussing was unassailable. He did not think they should consider for a moment the question of whether they should give a vote for a house or a piece of land, or anything of that kind. It all boiled down to one point, viz., whether they were to have one man one vote or one man plus five houses six votes. Why should one man, because he happened to be endowed with a great deal more of this world’s goods than another, perhaps a man of brains and culture who was without property, be given so much more voting power? They should not countenance for one moment the old worn-out principle that they should give votes for bricks and mortar and land. The thing was monstrous and totally opposed to the principle that, to his mind, this House should stand for. He should vote for one man one vote, and he should vote for that principle wherever it appeared and whoever brought it forward in that House.

said he thought the hon. member for Greyville had placed his head in a hornets’ nest. He felt there was not that uniformity in regard to the registration of voters throughout the country which there should be, and he had hoped the Government would have introduced a measure to bring this about. He felt convinced that every man who was to have a vote should have a qualification, and a good qualification. He quite agreed with the point raised by the hon. member for Ermelo that any candidate for Parliamentary honours should have property to a value of at least £1,000. The responsibilities of members of this House were very considerable. They could all vote for the expenditure of money, and therefore they should see to it that every member was a thoroughly responsible person. He was glad to learn that it was the intention of the Prime Minister to introduce a Bill to determine these qualifications.

said he thought it would be useful if they had some information from the Government as to what course they were going to pursue in regard to this measure. If they were not going to give this Bill a chance, the time of the House would be wasted. He thought the Government ought to state their intentions, so that hon. members would know where they were. He imagined that the hon. member who had introduced this Bill must, judging from the speeches they had heard from the other side, be becoming rather nervous that the tendency might be rather to curtail the franchise than to put it on a more democratic basis. Some of the hon. members on that side of the House had maintained the principle of one vote one value. If they gave a man a vote in this country it ought to be approximately of the same value as other votes in the Union. The present system in Natal was an absolute denial of that. It was not a question of property qualification, as appeared to be thought by some hon. members opposite, but it was property qualification in its most unreasonable and impossible form. It did not give a man votes in proportion to the value of the total amount of property that he held. He was glad to hear from the cross-benches of the importance of exercising the rights of citizenship, because, from some sentiments that they had heard from the platform of friends of the hon. member for Jeppe, on the eve of the elections in the Transvaal recently, only those who were going to vote labour were to be allowed to go near the poll. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that this Bill would receive the favourable consideration of the House, not merely in regard to the property qualification, but also in regard to the hours of polling. It was an intolerable hardship that a man should be compelled to register his vote before four o’clock in the afternoon, or lose his vote.

said that before Union, Natal was in the position of not having either one man one vote or one vote one value. For some years there was a considerable struggle going on by the towns to obtain the reform of one vote one value. There was no logical argument against this reform, or of that of one man one vote. In the other Provinces this right had already been given and Natal was the only Province that did not possess it. He did not see how the request that had been made that Natal should be placed on the same footing as other Provinces could be reasonably refused He was not in favour of tinkering with the Act of Union, if it could be avoided. The objection had been raised that this Bill would take away from men an opportunity of expressing their views in accordance with the property they possessed, but that was not the case in Natal. A man who possessed property in all parts of the Province had got voting power over those who possessed property, even though of equal or greater value, in only one part. To a large extent that anomaly had been done away with by having all the elections on one day. He thought that generally this Bill would be approved of by the majority of the people in Natal. The early closing of the poll in Natal prevented many people from exercising the franchise.

said the time was perhaps inopportune for such a measure to be brought forward. (Labour laughter.) At the same time the Bill did not go far enough. The House was rather inclined to run away with the idea that it was a very fine thing that everybody should have the same political say, whether they had property or not, but a section of the community wanted to put the property of others into their own pockets. (Ministerial cheers.) When the vote was being made use of by a certain section of the community for taking the property of others the question had two sides. He represented a constituency in which there was a large number both of town and country residents, and he found that his country constituents were practically disfranchised by the distances they had to travel in order to get to the poll. Sometimes they had to travel 30 miles by cart and horses over bad roads and had to neglect their work. Let the introducer of the Bill consider not only the interests of the people who were likely to vote for him but the interests of people who were likely to vote on the other side. (Ministerial cheers.) In Australia voting by post was allowed, and he did not see why that should not be permitted to country residents here. As it was, the South African farmer was practically disfranchised, and it might cost him £50 or £50 to register his vote, while the townsmen could do so simply by walking round the corner. The Bill was, to a certain extent, class legislation, and to that extent he did not approve of it, and therefore he was afraid he would have to vote against it. When they were considering a measure of this sort they must go a good deal further than the present one did.

said he could assure the House that the country districts of Natal never had favoured and would not favour such a Bill. He asked those inclined to support the measure to remember the unfortunate position Natal was in. It was only in the small minority in this House. If plural voting were so objectionable as some hon. members tried to make out, why was it not done away with when the Constitution was passed? That was not done then because if such a clause had been inserted the Act of Union would never have met with the approval of Natal. He did not think it was right that faith should be broken with the people of Natal in this matter. Nor did he think it right that the Act of Union should be amended by a side issue. If the Bill were passed, this would be the first time that the Act of Union had been altered. (Cries of “No.”) It would be a bad day when private members by a motion in this House could alter the Act of Union. For these reasons he would oppose the second reading.

said that, being a democrat, coming from a democratic race and belonging to a democratic religion, he had no objection at all to the principle of one man one vote. The information of the hon. member for Zululand was not quite up to date on this matter. Durban ran an election on this very subject and the candidate who was in favour of it was returned to Parliament. There was, however, one objection to the proposal—the mover did not seem to have acquired sufficient information. He thought it would have been well if the mover had preceded the measure by asking for a return from Government, showing what the alteration would mean. He (Sir David Hunter) went somewhat further than the hon. members on the cross-benches, for he believed in a man being the captain of his own soul, a principle which they had forgotten. (Hear, hear.) He would vote for the second reading.

said certain members had been very anxious to know what the Government thought of this little Bill. In the past the Government had been blamed, especially the Prime Minister, for seeking to dictate to the House on private members day. (Hear, hear.) On this occasion the Government was on the side of the angels and was in favour of principles laid down in the Bill. At the same time he did not think any good case had been made out for dealing with that particular question only and excluding a large number of other questions which ought to be dealt with. It was common knowledge that the Government introduced a Bill two years ago in which many important branches of the subject were dealt with. There was the question of having the law brought up-to-date in the various Provinces with regard to the registration of voters electoral procedure, and having a uniform nomination day throughout the country. In Natal they had no such thing as a nomination day. The abolition of plural voting had been discussed in the Natal Parliament and it was because several of the crusted old Tories like ins friend the member for Umvoti objected to it that the law in Natal was not brought into line with the rest of South Africa. He did not think it could be true that there had been any serious inconvenience to the electors of Natal, because the polling hours had been shorter than other parts of the Union. The number of voters in South Africa who had recorded their votes at previous elections was about two-thirds of the total number of voters on the roll, and they had had that number in Natal during the various elections. The Bill which had been introduced by the Government two years ago dealt not only with the registration of voters, but also with another important matter, and that was corrupt practices. Their law in Natal was very defective in that respect. The position the Government took up was this: they did not oppose the principles of the Bill, and they hoped that the hon. member would withdraw it, and allow other business of a very important nature to go on, with the assurance that the Government would bring in an all embracing Bill during the next session of Parliament. That Bill, he hoped, would become law before the next General Election. He did not think his hon. friend’s anticipation that an election would be held in the near future would be realised. If the hon. member would allow other important matters to come before the House first, he would not be doing any injustice to his friends in Natal. He agreed that they ought, with all reasonable haste, to make election laws uniform throughout the country.

said he was sure the House had listened with pleasure and rapture to the statement of the hon. Minister. The Prime Minister must have been extremely pleased to hear the Minister’s statement that the Government wished to hear the views of the House before they expressed an opinion on an important measure. He supposed that was the principle on which they had forced the closure through the House. (Laughter.) The Minister who had replied on behalf of the Government first excused himself for not having expressed an opinion before, because it was a measure introduced by a private member on members’ day. He had always understood that Wednesday was an Order day.

For private members.

said the Government had constantly had measures down for Wednesdays—it was an Order day for everybody. If that was to be an excuse for the Government in desiring to hear the views of the majority of members before expressing an opinion, he thought the Prime Minister would not be particularly pleased with the efforts of his colleagues. When the hon. Minister, holding lovingly a Bill in his hand, an example of “Love’s labour lost” of two years ago, which was introduced into the House and then run away from, that could hardly be an excuse for voting against the principle which they themselves said they should adopt.

We are not going to vote against it.

Another split in the Cabinet! The other Minister has said they cannot accept it, because it is a piecemeal measure.

I said we were not opposed to the Bill, but I asked the hon. member, in view of the assurance I gave, to withdraw his Bill.

My hon. friend is going to adopt another attitude. Because he is in fear of being in a minority, he is going to vote for it.

That is what I said.

said that when the Bill was introduced two years ago, it had been pointed out that there would be no means of locomotion, and that voters would have to go to the poll in an ox-wagon. Since then hon. members used motor-cars, and they took up an entirely different view. (Laughter.) There was no doubt there were considerable anomalies in the election laws of this country, which ought to be altered. If they had not been altered by the House, where did the blame lie—it lay with the Government, They (the Opposition) had always maintained that they should not have plural voting. He could understand the attitude of the hon. member who had introduced the Bill. He thought he was going to improve the voting power of certain people. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) did not see how they could depart from the principle that a man should only have an opportunity of recording his vote for one candidate and at one place only, and he did not see any reason why the House should not adopt that principle. That was a fair, reasonable, and logical attitude to take up. He was informed that the poll in Natal closed at 4 o’clock, and he thought that was an unreasonable hour. Every voter had a legitimate right to say that regulations should be made of such a character as to see that he had an opportunity of casting his vote. When the Bill went into committee they would have an opportunity of discussing whether 8 o’clock was too late for the poll to close. There was the question of checking impersonation, which would be more difficult while voting was going on in the dark. With regard to Natal, it would make no difference in the number of members, because the return of members was laid down as 17 for a period of ten years, but at the expiration of that period, when the number of members in the House reached 150, the representation of Natal would not depend on voters, but on the quota of European adults throughout the Union. So that by a Bill of this sort they did not interfere with the adequate representation of Natal in that House. Therefore he did not think the Natal members should be nervous, especially if they agreed that each man should have an opportunity of casting his vote once. There was only one difficulty, and it was not insurmountable. If it came into law it would alter the system of the delimitation, because it would alter the quota of voters. He did not know whether he was correct in this view, but he thought that would be the case

said he wished to ask the Minister who had spoken what he meant when he said that all were of one mind in the matter of the vote. He could assure him that there were a good many different views on the subject of the franchise. He listened with great attention to the Minister’s speech, and he reminded him of that beautiful line of the poet: “’E dunno where ’e are.” (Laughter.) He (Mr. Merriman) did not really know now what the Minister meant. What was he (Mr. Merriman) to do? (Laughter.)

You are a humble musket-bearer—follow the leader. (Laughter.)

But I can’t find the way the leader is marching. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that Natal occupied a curious position, because, undoubtedly, it got its representation on the basis of the voters. Only later it dawned on their minds that one gentleman could vote seven times, and was, therefore, seven voters. (Laughter.) He was again reminded of the lines of the poet—whenever the Minister spoke he brought to his mind some poetical quotation, he did not know how it happened. “I see the lords of human-kind pass by, Pride in their port; defiance in their eye. ” (Laughter.) Now it appeared that at the present time the motto of Natal was “Vote early and often.” (Laughter.) Well, it was a very good motto, too, if one could carry it out. (Laughter.) He was inclined to leave this Bill to be dealt with by the Natal members. (Laughter.) It was a domestic matter. When they came into Union they did not hear a word of the plurality of voting, and now when he supposed they wanted to shift the basis of society they wanted things altered.

He thought the Natal members should be shut in a Committee Room upstairs and allowed to fight it out, and then the remnant might bring out their little Bill (Laughter.) No doubt the remnant would be headed by the hon. member for Dundee waving the little measure in his hand. (Laughter.) He hoped some day they were going to take up the question and have a proper qualification for the whole of the Union, because at the present time there was a most anomalous condition of affairs, and he thought that everybody felt that if it had not been too difficult to go into at the Convention they might solve the question by having a good high qualification coupled with property qualification. As for his hon. friend preaching about democracy, it was absurd in this country, which of all countries was a close aristocracy. As for this Bill he did not care two pence whether it was carried or not, because he wanted to see the Government bring in a Bill settling the franchise for the Union. The point was that though they all thought the same they were afraid to say so, because they were afraid of offending the voters. That, he thought, was the humiliating position.

said that his hon. friend had simply taken two provisions out of the Government’s Bill of three years ago. He pointed out that most members were agreed that there should be an extension of the polling hours. He appealed to the Government to go a little further. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had said that the Government was not going to vote against it, but the whole objection seemed to be that the Bill did not deal with a number of other things. They had had assurances such as had been given before, and why could not the Government not only give assent, but give the Bill a cordial welcome. The Bill would go through in Committee in one afternoon. So far as the objection of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort with regard to impersonation was concerned, he did not think there need be any fear on that score.

said it was a great pity that the hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill was not able to give them the number of plural voters. This matter of the plural voter was one that, to his mind, should be dealt with in a general measure. There were certain inequalities in the franchise laws of the various Provinces to-day. In the Transvaal they had practically manhood suffrage. In the Cape no man was allowed to be a voter unless he could write his name and address. That was a small standard of qualification, it was true, but still it was a kind of education test. He was also reminded that there was a salary qualification and that persons owning property of a certain value were also eligible for registration. In this debate they had heard the old cry of town versus country raised. The town members from Natal who had spoken were in favour of the single vote, while the members from the country districts were in favour of more than one vote. In regard to the question of polling hours, he had always been under the impression that the hon. members on the cross-benches were in favour of the eight hours’ day, but under the proposal in this Bill they were not to have an eight hours’ day.

An eight hours’ working day.

said that under this Bill they were going to make the polling officer work twelve hours, unless, of course, he obtained relief shifts. He quite thought that the town voter should be allowed to record his vote later than six in the evening, but he did not think that a later hour was necessary in the country. His own feeling was in the urban constituencies the poll might well be opened at ten in the morning and close at eight in the evening, in fact, twelve noon till nine p.m. would be more in accordance with his views. He did not think there was much fear of personation. He would suggest to the hon. member (Mr. Boydell) that he should withdraw the contentious part of the Bill, clause 1, and content himself by retaining clause 2, in which event, he thought, there would be no opposition to the Bill. The question of voting powers might very well be left to the general measure that the Government, he understood, had promised to bring in by next year. If this Bill passed the second reading, he thought the hon. member would be well advised if he withdrew the first part and retained the second.

said he could not see why there should be such a hurry about the Bill before the House. If there were one matter which should be carefully considered it was the electoral law, and why they should now alter the law in one Province only was a matter which he could not comprehend. The Government had introduced a Bill dealing with the whole subject in 1912, but it could not be dealt with owing to lack of time. Who was the cause of the Government having been unable to pass the old Electoral Bill? No one but the party which was continually bringing unnecessary matters before the House and taking up considerable time. He certainly would not vote for this Bill, but hoped the Government would introduce a uniform Electoral Bill. Why had the Government been forced to introduce the closure? Simply because hon. members on the cross-benches had forced the House to listen to their long speeches. He was glad the old Electoral Bill had not been put into law, because circumstances had so changed that an altogether different Bill might have to be introduced. Every man with a vote should be obliged to register his vote, or else lose his right to vote. The Transvaal Provincial Council had introduced that principle in connection with municipal elections. The present position under which many people refused to vote was a wrong one. He would like to see the old republican principle re-introduced, so that every man, after having been fourteen days in the country or in a district, would have to hand his name to a certain responsible official. At present there were great difficulties in people going from one district to the other. The present Bill was another example of that system of self-advertisement which was being indulged in by members on the cross benches. He agreed with the proposal that the polling hours should be from eight o’clock till eight o’clock, because in working-men’s districts most of the voting took place between 5 and 8 p.m. As far as the other principles of the Bill were concerned, he wished to emphasise that he did not object to those principles, but that he objected to dealing with important matters of this kind in a piecemeal manner. He hoped, therefore, the Bill would be withdrawn pending the introduction of a wider measure by the Government.

said although voters’ qualifications and registration laws were different in the various Provinces, if the Bill were carried Natal would be put on the same footing as other parts of the Union, in regard to the abolition of plural voting. He did not look upon the Bill as an alteration of the Act of Union, which laid it down that one vote, as far as possible, was to have one value. What was the use of doing that if they allowed one man to have more than one vote? Plural voting was a relic of the old days of pocket boroughs in England. The extension of the polling hours was a very reasonable one. If the men at Salt River voted in their dinner hour they would have to give up the whole of their dinner interval, and if they wanted time off to vote they lost their pay. The danger of personation could be dealt with without limiting the hours of polling. At the election in the Central Division in Cape Town for the Provincial Council a large number of men were disfranchised because the poll closed at 6. Voters should be given reasonable facilities, but the early closing of the poll practically disfranchised a large number of working-men. (Hear, hear.) The delimitation question which had been referred to was not a practical difficulty. He regretted that the Government wanted to kill the Bill which was practically what it was doing. If the Government was really desirous of the Bill passing, why did it not give facilities? The Bill was a very short one and could pass through Committee in one sitting. He hoped the Bill would not be withdrawn, and it would not in any way conflict with subsequent electoral legislation.

said as things now stood in Natal a man having the necessary qualifications could, by the aid of a motor-car, vote in one day in no fewer than 12 different constituencies. As to the statement of the hon. member for Umvoti (Colonel Leuchars), either the hon. member had a very poor memory or very little knowledge of Natal. The question under debate was thoroughly discussed in the last session of the Natal Parliament, and in every town meetings were held, and in every case resolutions were carried in favour of the principle embodied in the Bill. The hon. member for Umvoti had referred to the National Convention, but did he see the draft presented by Mr. Morcum? He (Mr. Haggar) was convinced that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had somewhat fallen from grace in this matter. The injustice of the present system was admitted all round. Why should we continue an acknowledged injustice, when it could be remedied so easily? For years Natal had asked for this little concession. The Minister had stated that he was not aware that any serious injury had been inflicted on the Natal electorate. But in Durban, 1906, 60 men arrived from the Point to record their votes at the Town Hall, but owing to the early hour at which the poll closed, they were unable to do so. Again, in the South Peninsula, a large number of men recently found themselves too late to vote. In Durban in many cases men had to travel some distance into the suburbs in order to record their vote, and they could not do that during the dinner hour. He could understand the attitude of the hon. member for Zululand, because he heard the boast that six men in Natal—three on the North Coast and three on the South Coast could control two constituencies—Zululand and Umzimkulu. Those were facts he hoped the Government would take notice of.

said that, although he represented a country constituency, he had every intention of supporting the Bill. He knew that there was a very small minority of voters in his constituency who were entitled to vote in other parts of the country, but the bulk of the people objected to such an out-of-date principle. Nobody had ever accused him of being a plutocrat, but for many years he had had three votes in Natal. That was a ridiculous state of affairs. Those people who were so anxious to uphold the rights of property should look at the qualification under the Natal Charter. They would find that a man owning property to the value of £850 spread all over the various divisions could vote in every district in Natal, and for an annual amount of £170 he could get a vote for every district. He found that with a powerful motorcar a man could vote in no fewer than fourteen divisions in one day. That brought the thing down to a huge absurdity The hon. member for Ermelo said that that was not a proper way to alter the south Africa Act, but almost every year there had been objections made as to portions of the Act being repealed by implication. Nearly every Bill passed by that House had already touched the Act of Union in some respect. He was surprised that the hon. member for Fordsburg had said that, unless the Government agreed to the measure, it was not worth while arguing. That was becoming too frequent a saying that they should not discuss matters because the Government would not agree to them. Had they not to educate the people? Had not the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs done more than anybody else to show the absurdity of the present election law in Natal? He was sorry that the hon. member for Zululand had taken up the line of putting property before persons every time. He (the speaker) had intended to raise an argument in favour of the retention of the hon. member for Zululand’s division with a single representative, because while there were only 1,500 white voters in Zululand, there were something like 280,000 natives. It was intended by the Act of Union that the interests of those natives should be looked after by the European members of the House who were sent to represent that division. He thought it was a blot on the Act of Union to take away any seats from Natal, and he thought the 17 seats Natal at present possessed should be entrenched and safeguarded, because there was that huge native population that required some representation. The natives in his own division numbered 74,000, and he hoped they were satisfied that he had done something to forward their interests in that House. On the question of polling hours, he pointed out that in a division like his it took the mail train 5 hours to travel through it. The night clerks at the various stations were practically disfranchised, because the poll closed at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. There were many instances where country divisions needed a 12 hours’ poll as much as the towns did. He assured the House that if the Government and their supporters voted against the Bill the hon. member for Greyville would be entitled to make political capital out of it.

expressed his surprise that such an important matter should be introduced in a manner such as had been done. It should be remembered that they should take into consideration not only the quota of voters in town and country, but also the position of party towards party. If the Bill was accepted, the Delimitation Commission would have to restart all its labours. A matter like this could not be dealt with piecemeal. If an alteration had to be made in the present system, he would certainly favour a similar qualification for voters, to that existing in the Cape, being imposed on the other Provinces. Regard ought to be paid to density of population in any given district, and a voter should earn not less than £75 per year. He would also like to see a property qualification for members of Parliament, who should at least be owners of property to the value of £1,000. If that was done there would be no waste of time. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the one vote one value principle would never be laid down here. The past had proved that this was an intolerable principle here, and he personally was most strongly opposed to it. In any case, the principle ought not to be introduced as a sort of side issue. They had to consider that in this country the population in some parts was sparser than in other parts. He was not so much opposed to the Bill, as to the manner in which it had been introduced.

said that whether the Bill was passed or not, it would force the hands of the Government. There was a strong feeling by the people in Natal that that plural voting should be done away with. He himself had four votes and had polled them all, but he would be well satisfied with one, and he welcomed the Bill and would vote for it if it came to a division. He agreed with the extension of the polling hours. People living out in the country should be given an opportunity to register their votes. The idea he thought, was to give every man an opportunity, and therefore if 8 o’clock was adopted it would meet everybody in the towns.

said every man on the register was entitled to a vote and should have the fullest opportunity for registering that vote, but the matter was thoroughly threshed out at the time of the Convention. They were dealing with the matter in piecemeal, but it was a bargain at the time that Union was passed, and if they were going to abolish plural voting in Natal they should consider other inconsistencies in other parts of the Union. It was not a matter to be dealt with piecemeal. But the whole thing should be dealt with when they had the whole question of franchise before them in a Bill which was to be introduced next session, then they would have an opportunity all round of knowing just where they stood.

said that he was unable to see why the plural vote should he allowed in Natal, whereas it was not allowed in any other part of the Union. The hon. member who had last spoken said it was part of a bargain entered into, but surely the underlying principle was that that House should express the will of the people. He did not think they were touching any principle if they took away the excess votes of those who had more than one, so as to place Nataly on the same footing as the rest of South Africa One hon. member had suggested a £1,000 property qualification as necessary to become a member of Parliament; if that principle was to be developed there would be no stopping place except that of having nobody in the House at all. The Bill did not seek to go into the question of qualification. The Prime Minister said in effect they would not accept it, they would not vote against it, but would suggest it was a Bill which ought to be designed on the lines of going into the whole question. That was one way of getting rid of the Bill. The hon. member for Zululand gave the whole reason against making the alteration, and that was that at present it gave Natal more votes than that part of the Union was entitled to. The Prime Minister promised that if the hon. member would withdraw the Bill they would bring in one next year. He (Mr. Fichardt) would fain believe him, but they had had sufficient promises given to them on that side of the House which had never been fulfilled, and the Prime Minister would excuse him when he said they would rather have that little Bill in the hand than half a dozen promises in the bush. The Minister prophesied that there would be no election, but he ventured to say that there would be one long before the Government at its present rate of speed passed an electoral Bill. They did not want promises or prophecies, but they still wanted to know what the Government intended to do. It seemed to him that the Government was “marking time,” which was translated into Dutch in a footnote in what was called the Military Manual as “Maak as of je loop, maar moe’nie, loop nie.” (Laughter.) Until the potential head of the Government returned, the Cabinet apparently could not make up its mind and that being so, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

There was no seconder, and the motion dropped.

said he doubted the sincerity of hon. members on the cross-benches, who always objected to anything the Government did, no matter whether the proposals of the Government would benefit the labouring classes. The Labour members always pleaded for an eight hours day, but now in this Bill they did not mind polling officers standing on their legs for twelve hours. It was not necessary to keep the polling booths open longer than from 9 to 5 p.m. Labour members pretended to do something for the poor, but they really did nothing. All they aimed at was to keep themselves in Parliament. He hoped the Government would next year introduce a comprehensive measure, but would not agree to improve matters only where it pleased hon. members on the cross-benches. There were far more important measures before the House, measures which would be far better for the labouring classes, and therefore he hoped the Government would not allow all this time to be wasted. He was going to vote against this Bill, because he did not want it, and did not see any cause for haste or urgency, especially in view of the fact that the Government was going to introduce a measure next year. Members on the cross-benches did not know anything about the interests of the labouring classes. He had been a worker ever since he was five years of age—and to-day he was fifty-four. (Laughter.) Once he worked for a “baas,” and when he wanted to leave his “baas” had offered him larger wages, and to-day he was his own master. (Hear, hear.) if hon. members on the cross-benches wished to do any good for the working-classes they would advise them to go on with their work, instead of advising them to go on strike. In his constituency all the workers would vote for him, because they knew that he was aware of their needs. Mr. De Beer went on to deal with the question of qualification, stating that he thought this was a matter for the Government to deal with when the time came. The present Bill should be rejected.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member in order in discussing the question of qualifications? Is there not a rule about tedious repetitions?

The hon. member does not often address the House. (Loud laughter.)

concluded by saying that he, for one, was not going to vote for a Bill which he thought had been introduced in an “irrelevant” manner.

said that the hon. members on the cross-benches were urging yesterday that this House was not justified in dealing with important legislation.

Industrial legislation.

said that the hon. members were speaking with quite a different voice to-day, because the hon. member for Greyville in this Bill, which he asked the House to support, proposed very important legislation, and he was supported by the hon. member for Jeppe. Now the question was which voice were they to listen to, the voice of yesterday or the voice of to-day ? He must say he was a bit perplexed. As to the merits of this Bill, there was no doubt a great deal to be said for it, but the hon. member for Greyville, in moving the second reading, said something about consolidating legislation. This, however, was not a consolidating measure. He hoped that the Bill would not be read a second time, but if it was then amendments would certainly be brought in to deal with qualifications altogether in another direction. There were strong opinions all over the Union that they should have very good and substantial qualifications for anyone who desired the franchise. What did this Bill propose?

Read it.

Oh, yes, I will read it. Proceeding, he said that when they dealt with matters of the franchise they always found that one thing was laid down and that was that they should not disturb or take away existing rights. He was not prepared to vote for the taking away of existing rights on the slender information which had been given by the hon. member in charge of this Bill. Yesterday they had been told from the cross-benches that this House was not qualified to deal with legislation. In this matter he would accept that suggestion and vote against the second reading.

said he thought this Bill ought to receive a good deal more attention than the House was able to give to it He did not think the hon. member would have interested himself in this matter, except he had felt that his party would gain by the alteration proposed. If the hon. member’s party would not gain by it, then he must conclude that the hon. member was desirous of doing justice to a certain number of people who had hitherto suffered under a great injustice, inasmuch as they had been outvoted in a certain way, but he could not think that was the reason. When they came to deal with the franchise laws, they found, as the Government had found in a measure they had formerly introduced, that they were face to face with a very difficult proposition, and when a private member attempted to deal with a matter like this piecemeal it was hardly to be expected that he would secure unanimous support in that House. They had also to remember that the next Order on the paper dealt with the franchise laws in regard to making women eligible for the vote. The Natal members were so divided as to be unable to give the House a lead in this matter. The hon. member for Greyville was asking too much when he expected the House to take away existing rights. He (Mr. Oosthuisen) did not think there was at the present time any great need for the suggested alteration, and the House would be well advised to leave the matter alone until a general Bill could be introduced dealing with the whole Union.

said he was absolutely at one with the proposals contained in the Bill. (Labour cheers.) It was an injustice to close the poll at four o’clock. What motive there was behind the Bill, however, he did not know, nor did it concern him, but the right hon. member for Victoria West stated yesterday that the Labour efforts to shift the basis of society would never succeed as long as the rifles were in the hands of the land-owners. Upon which the hon. member for George Town replied that “they, the Labour Party, hoped soon to be in possession of the land.” When that time arrived the hon. member for George Town and his friends would exert every nerve and strenuously oppose any shifting of the basis of society and probably would be the very first to introduce a Peace Preservation Bill. (Laughter.) The Leader of the Opposition had twitted the Government with there being a division among its supporters on the question of this Bill. But he (Mr. Nicholson) did not think he could congratulate the leader of the Opposition on the solidity of his party. In fact, the latter was very much in the same boat. (Labour cheers.) Plural voting was undesirable, and he did not see why it should be continued in Natal. He intended to vote for the Bill, and he sincerely trusted that it would come to a division.

said he had a good many working-men in his constituency and they had been deprived of the opportunity of voting owing to the early hour at which the poll closed, and he hoped that portion of the Bill extending the polling hours would be passed. Time should be given to the working-men to go to their homes, have a bath, change their working costume, and make a decent appearance before recording their votes. Reference had been made to the National Convention, and he thought that Natals representative on the Convention made some mistakes which Natalians saw more clearly as time went on. A large number of his constituents were in favour of plural voting, and he was bound to represent their opinions on this subject. He was inclined to favour the suggestion of the hon. member for Three Rivers and to recommend the mover to withdraw the first portion of the Bill and then in a few months time an Electoral Bill could be brought forward to apply to the whole Union. Since Natal was not inclined to come into Union if it could not retain plural voting, it was his duty to do as his constituents desired.

said the mover had described the Bill as modest and unassuming, but he should have added “useless.” (Ministerial laughter.) It was necessary that there should be a consolidating measure in regard to elections. He admitted that the Natal Election Law was unsatisfactory. The hon. member for Fordsburg had said that the Government ought to give them some indication of what they were going to do. He wished the Opposition would always adopt that attitude. (Laughter.) He knew that the hon. member bad some influence with the cross-benches, and he wished he would toll them oftener not to waste the time of the House. He had also thought that the hon. member for Victoria West would have set an example to them. They of the backveld, although they knew less, represented respectable constituencies and had the same rights as any other hon. members. It was not the Free State’s choice that it was given the one man one vote, one vote one value. They had had to have it. Why was the Free State treated differently in the Bill they passed last year with regard to native lands? Now it was asked why every Province was not treated alike. They could only deal with each Province on its own merits.

When they were dealing with a right of 60 years’ standing the matter should receive the most earnest consideration of the House. He admitted that there was room for improvement in the election laws of Natal, but if there had been a mistake that mistake had been on the right side, because a man could get the plural vote only if he had vested interests in the Province. He hoped that House would take that view into favourable consideration, and that it the election laws of the country were to be changed it would be done in one comprehensive Bill. He was going to vote against the Bill.

said he had listened to the Natal members, and he felt much in the position of a judge who gave absolution from the instance, so as to leave it an open question. A great deal of blame had been attached to the Government. An important question like the franchise had been only very lightly dealt with by only one of the Ministers. They were not told what would be the effect of the Bill or whether it entrenched on the rights given by the Act of Union. They were not told whether it would be necessary if the Bill was passed to have a delimitation. He thought the Government had left the House in a dilemma. In 1912 the Government had introduced a Bill to provide for the registration of persons qualified to vote for elections, etc. That Bill never got beyond the second reading stage, and he thought the Government should deal with it in a more serious vein. He had difficulties with regard to clause 1 of the Bill before them, and denied that the Bill was a consolidating Bill. They had been told that the industrial measures were not before the country when the members of that House were elected. The same thing applied to the measure now before them. They were asked to follow the advice of the hon. member from Natal; the hon. member for Victoria West was right when he said the Natal members should be formed into a Select Committee and left to see what they would produce.

was understood to say that they should first know the feeling of the people of Natal on the subject. The Government were going to introduce a consolidating measure which would involve the present Bill and would deal with the matter on a much wider basis. In view of that, he thought the hon. member for Greyville would be well advised to withdraw the Bill. He thought the Bill was unnecessary, and he would vote against it. To his mind, the question of the extension of hours should have been introduced as a separate matter so that they could have voted with a clear conscience. He urged that no one had abused plural voting in Natal, and he hoped that the House would not pass the Bill.

said it appeared to him that even hon. members coming from Natal were divided among themselves. That was one of the reasons why he could not vote for the Bill; then in view of the fact that Natal entered the Union under a system of plural voting, he thought it would be wrong to pass the measure, especially after Natal had taken a reterendum on the question of Union, He thought the principle was too great to allow of being dealt with by a measure of that kind. The Government had promised to introduce a consolidating measure next year. Why then should there be this hurry? The constituents in Natal could meanwhile meet and instruct the Parliamentary representatives. Before agreeing to Union, Natal had stuck to the plural voting principle, and in the circumstances he would be one of the last to do, what he considered, might be an injustice to a small Province.

It being five minutes to six o’clock p.m.,

stated that in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 23rd instant, he would now adjourn the debate.

The debate was adjourned to the 6th May.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that the unfortunate manner in which the Government arranged its business, so that the House had to jump backwards and forwards, resulted in there being no continuity of discussion. He could understand the Government’s view, and as a humble member of that House he had to follow its lead, but he was not forced to follow the Government in respect to legislation. He joined in the protest against that Government bringing in legislation so closely affecting industries. His hon. friend the member for Jeppe had pointed out that the Government was not competent to introduce legislation of this description, and that the remaining members of the House were out of touch with the industrial population of this country. The House had no moral right to embark on legislation which affected so closely the industries of the Union. The debate on that Bill had shown that their contention in this respect was correct. Moreover, the House knew nothing about these matters, while members on the Government side dare not speak at all, because they knew nothing at all about these questions. He need only Point to the fact that the Minister of Mines was the only member on the Government benches who had yet said anything about the Bill, and he had said very little—that was, with the exception of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, and he had opposed the Government on every point of the Bill except the conciliation chapter. They on the cross-benches joined with him in that respect. They on those benches were particularly anxious to see this method of dealing with disputes or difficulties carried out, because they had so much experience or the great success that followed a policy of conciliation.

The right hon. gentleman smote the Government hip and thigh on the proposals in that Bill. He asked those who had listened to the right hon. gentleman’s indictment and agreed with it to vote against the Government and throw out the second reading of this Bill. They on the cross-benches wanted the matter threshed out with a view of amending the Bill or throwing it out altogether. He thought it unkind for the hon. member for Germiston to criticise, however mildly, because he had a strong suspicion that the Minister had drafted the Bill in collaboration with the hon. member for Germiston and other members on the Opposition side of the House, The hon. member for Fordsburg laughed. The hon. member for Fordsburg was evidently not acquainted with the secrets of the old Unionist Party, though he might know something about the young Unionists. The larger part of the criticism of the hon. member for Germiston was based on the argument that the Bill was too complicated and in that respect they on the cross-benches agreed with the hon. member for Germiston. They also wanted simplicity, and if the hon. member for Germiston was sincere he should be prepared to support them. They wanted a Bill that would simply state in unambiguous terms that the Government would compel the recognition of Trade Unions by the employers and let them add the conciliation chapter, and the whole thing was done. That Bill was a misleading Bill, a designedly mis leading Bill. It had been designed with the idea of giving the industrialists of the country the idea that the Government was legislating in their favour, whereas the policy of the Government was diametrically opposed to them. The Government were hand in glove with the employing class for the whole and sole object of downing the working-classes, and the whole object of that Bill was to crush Trade Unionism and nothing else, because they feared the growing power of Trade Unions. The Minister in the course of his speech, asked members on the cross-benches to help him to make the Bill a workable measure.

Also when it was being drafted.

I don’t remember any interviews.

You are only one.

But I am one of them. Continuing, he said that he ventured to say that he had the confidence of the working-classes, which the Minister of Mines had not, and he (Mr. Madeley) claimed that he knew infinitely more about the aims and aspirations of the working classes than the Minister of Mines and members on both sides combined. They were anxious to help the Minister if he would accept their help.

Ask your leader.

said the rules of debate, unfortunately, did not allow him to put a pointed question to the hon. member for Jeppe or allow the hon. member to reply. What did the Minister of Mines mean by suggesting that he (Mr. Madeley) should ask his leader? Did the Minister mean anything at all? He had a vivid recollection of being present at an interview when Labour members were consulted about another measure of great concern to the working-class, and though they explained clearly what the workers desired their proposals did not come to anything. But the suggestions of the Government’s friends on the other side were accepted. The Bill purported to prevent strikes. It did nothing of the sort. It did not even induce men to think about stopping strikes, and he went on to point out that in spite of the direct recommendation of the Economic Commission the Minister had decided that the Federation of Trades should not exist.

He wished to ask the Minister whether he was riding for a fall? He (Mr. Madeley) strongly suspected he was. The Minister might make the laws, but he would never be able to enforce them. Why did he try to prevent Unions federating? It was because if they were united he could not break their power. Again, why did the Minister devote his attention only to the Trade Unions? The Minister might try to attack the Trade Unions with worldwide ramifications like the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, but he would never attain his object. Once the Prime Minister tried to start a Trade Union; it was contemptible on hit part to stir up racial feeling. After July when it was known that there was a large number of Dutch working-men on the Rand who were members of the Trade Unions—men who came out and fought side by side with their British brothers—the Prime Minister considered what would be the best way to combat that. He got a coterie of them, misled them, and proposed that they should form a Dutch Trade Union. He even went so far as to suggest that they should get the farmers to join them. He graciously approved of the rules, and he (Mr. Madeley) believed he had some hand in drafting them. The Prime Minister laughed.

I am laughing at the definition of knobkerrie.

He will have a very different kind of knobkerrie placed on his political head in the near future. I wonder what nationality he belongs to when it takes him so long to see a joke? Continuing, Mr. Madeley said that the rules of this Dutch Trade Union provided for the representation of employers on the committee, and the Prime Minister informed the individuals who formed the Union that he would arrange for their recognition by the mines. Unfortunately for the success of this project these individuals came to him (Mr. Madeley)—(laughter)—a foolish thing to do, and together with that firebrand McKerrell, and upon their recommendation it was resolved to proceed very little further with that union, and the portion already formed was quite willing to join the Federation of Trades. If the men were not allowed to federate by joining their unions together, why was a body like the Chamber of Mines, which was a much wider embracing federation than any the men could hope to form—allowed to exist? If the Chamber of Mines were not a federation of the worst possible type he would like to know what it was? Did the Minister propose to disband it? Trade Unions always tended to put a drag on strikes, invariably acted towards peace, and never advocated a strike except as a last resort. The Minister insisted that every employee, whether a Trade Unionist or not, had the right to participate in a ballot before a strike could take place. The point of view had been put that Trade Unions naturally desiring to strike, would overwhelm any opposition by the non-Trade Unionists. But the first application for the appointment of a Conciliation Board in the Transvaal was caused by the hot-headedness of non-Trade Unionists dragging the Trade Unionists into their quarrel.

Mr. Madeley went on to relate an instance where it had been attempted to introduce a clock on a certain mine and he, as a Trade Unionist, together with two or three other Trade Unionists, had at a meeting, pointed out that the employers were doing them a service by putting in a clock, and they said that there was no objection that they could see to the introduction of a clock in that mine. A number of non-unionists refused to accede to their request, and there had been a strike immediately. In the heat of the moment the non-unionists, who far outnumbered the Trade Unionists, had gone out on strike, and as they were in a majority the others also had to go. Where they had non-Trade Unionists working in conjunction with Trade Unionists, there was a very grave danger of the Trade Unionists being dragged into a quarrel prematurely. The Federation of Trades would further tend to put a drag on strikes, because there they had an Executive body of delegates representing interests, coolly and calmly discussing matters in a room. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) and the Minister of Mines had pointed out that the Trade Unions as they were at present constituted in South Africa were being misled. He wanted to point out that whether the Trade Unionists were being misled by their leaders or not, was no business of that House, but it was entirely a domestic affair. These leaders were invariably elected by ballot, and not by show of hands. As to the voting of Trade Union funds, they were never in the ordinary way used for political purposes, and the ballot was invariably taken. They bal lotted afresh upon a levy, and in spite of what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) had said, it was always competent for a member of a Trade Union to, object to that levy. When a vote was passed allocating money for any particular purposes, such as the expenses of the candidate—their own candidate, of course—they sent out letters to their own members, and if any member had an objection to that particular levy he had the right to claim exemption. Dealing with the objections of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) to the Bill, Mr. Madeley said that the hon. member’s main objection was that the Government would not recognise the principle of the forming of associations of that description among Civil Servants. Had the hon. member known of any association at all sending ballot papers to all its members? At company meetings only the shareholders present and the proxies they held were allowed to vote. They did not insist upon a two-thirds majority there. They wanted the same thing for their Trade Unions as they wanted for company meetings. So far from placing Trade Unions above the law, they did not want special laws for Trade Unions. They wanted to be treated equally with other people. The Minister of Mines had made a great point of Trade Unions compelling people to join. The Minister laughed. He did not know anything at all about it. (Laughter.) The Minister knew quite well that forced members were a menace to Trade Unions. Mr. Madeley referred to the case of J. B. Robinson being forced to rejoin the Chamber of Mines with, he said, the assistance of the then Minister of the Interior of the Transvaal, when the weight of the Government had been thrown on the side of the Federation to make that individual join, and he (Mr. Madeley) did not know that it was a bad thing. When they had a strong body of the workers and a body of the employers, they could meet on equal terms. Trade Unionism was a good thing; it kept up prices, he did not say all were worth it, but he would point out that so far as his own Union was concerned, at any rate, anyone who wished to join had to be vouched for by two other members. It was a testimonial of a man’s abilities and character, therefore, for one to belong to that Trade Union. There was a sharp dividing line between employers and employed, and that would always exist until they brought about the emancipation of the workers, a real state of Socialism, and abolished commercialism. Regarding the conciliation clause, the hon. member said that invariably—at all events in South Africa—the workers showed a conciliatory spirit, whereas the employers showed a spirit quite the reverse. There had been sufficient proof of that in connection with the few years which the Transvaal Industrial Disputes Act had been in force. They had invariably the organised workers endeavouring to bring about the existence of a Board, and the organised employers endeavouring to resist that, and when one was formed and they were asked whether they would accept the findings, the workers had invariably said “Yes!” and the employers “No!” Taking everything into consideration, he was whole-heartedly in support of the conciliation chapter of the Bill, and whole-heartedly opposed to the principle of the Bill, that was, its repressive character so far as it applied to Trade Unions.

said that at first sight one became rather scared at the Bill, and asked oneself whether legislation of that kind was necessary? Only when one carefully considered recent happenings in South Africa, and when one looked at the general industrial position of the world, one realised the necessity for legislation of that kind. History was being made rapidly in this country, especially in industrial respects. Who would a year ago have prophesied a revolution such as they had recently experienced? Who would have prophesied the necessity for legislation of this kind, yet the revolution in industrial matters had been such as had not been experienced anywhere else in the world. Therefore he realised that under the abnormal circumstances of this country legislation of this kind was required. It was in that spirit that he viewed this Bill and welcomed it. He agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that the Bill was a complicated one, as it provided for so many peacemakers. A simple man could easily get mixed up in regard to all these provisions. But it should be remembered that even if the legislation provided for was fully used, the cost? of administration of the country would be greatly added to. In regard to the remarks made by the right hon. member for Victoria West, he wished to point out that the Boards provided for were of a voluntary character, and were not in any way compulsory. The voluntary system was fully maintained, except that no strike could be started until the provision in regard to the Boards had been used. But it was essential to have a compulsion such as was laid down in this regard. As to the arbitrators, he agreed that if thousands of people wished to strike they would not take much notice of the findings of an arbitrator, or of any order of the High Court for that matter. Clause 15, the hon. member went on, was of the utmost importance, as it provided that the union of employers might consist of two persons and a union of employees of seven persons. Farmers would have to be very careful in entering into contracts for all sorts of work, as they would not be able to change working hours or wages except by giving fourteen days notice.

The principle laid down might have farreaching effects. In chapter 5, Mr. Krige asked what was the object of having Trade Unions registered, seeing that unregistered Trade Unions received practically the same rights. The former practically obtained incorporation rights. He was not opposed to Trade Unions, which he held had come to stay. Besides, it was easier for the settlement of disputes to deal with the unions than with the men at large. But if this status was given to Trade Unions, he asked, did it not mean that all free labourers would be driven into the Trade Union ranks? The Bill should make it clear that the rights of every individual in the Trade Unions were to be duly protected. The individual might have certain political views—were the rights to the individual going to be protected? If a Trade Union was formed chiefly for political purposes it should not be given legal sanction, he held. If the Trade Union took part in politics, it would use all the money that was paid in, including that of members who did not share the political views of the unions. They should be careful not to provide certain machinery which would greatly strengthen a certain political party, and they should be careful lest they might force people to join a political union which they did not agree with. (Hear, hear.) Quoting from the report of the Economic Commission, Mr. Krige said it was clear that that Commission was against political power being wielded by the Trade Unions. Many hon. members might ask: “What is the good of this Bill, seeing that people who wish to strike will do so, the Act notwithstanding? ” That might be so, but the fact remained that if people struck without availing themselves of the machinery of the Bill, they would take a great responsibility on their shoulders. Besides, public opinion would go against such people—and with public opinion against a strike, it could never succeed. In the circumstances, he (the speaker) heartily welcomed the measure.

said one might have expected from hon. members who claimed more particularly to represent the views of the working-classes a rather more satisfactory treatment of this Bill. (Hear, hear.) The House had heard a vast amount of explanation that the Bill was intended to crush Trade Unions, which were a necessity of modern industrial organisation, and on the latter point most hon. members entirely agree. It was quite easy to see why that picture was being painted. It was not intended for consumption in this House, but in parts of the country where Parliamentary proceedings were not so well known. If those hon. members were really actuated by a desire to build up effective criticism, the House might have rightly expected that they would have picked some serious holes in the Bill, found some serious fault with it, and put their fingers on the places where they saw it was going the wrong way to deal with industrial disputes. But of that practically nothing had been heard, and there had been no serious criticism of the Bill from these hon. members. They were not entitled to come here to keep other hon. members listening to declamations about the spirit of the Bill and the spirit of the Minister in introducing it. That was not what the House wanted to hear. That was all very well for platforms on the Rand and the Market-square. What was wanted here was definite criticism, and that was not what the House had had He (Mr. Duncan) supported the Bill, although he fully recognised that it was open to serious criticism. The measure recognised three very important principles—the principle of voluntary Boards, the position of Trade Unions in the adjustment of industrial disputes, and it introduced a system of dealing with industrial disputes by Boards of Inquiry. For these reasons, it was the duty of hon. members to accept these principles, and to try and improve the details. He thought the relations between the employers and the employee on the Rand were, unfortunately, bad, and ought to be improved. The initiation of these voluntary Conciliation Boards would certainly be a means of improving these relations. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) had given the reason for these bad relations. He pointed out that the representatives of the men pursued the policy of blind vituperation against the employers of the mining industry. That was a reason why the relations were so bad as they were now.

The hon. member for Germiston frankly admitted that the blame was not all on one side, because the employers on the Rand had shown a spirit of hostility to all the organisations of the men. But we had a right to expect the employers to take the first step, and not easily to be deterred by the bad reception their approaches might meet from the other side. The present state of relationship between the two bodies constituted a danger to the peace of this country—(hear, hear)—and if neither the men nor the employers would put them right, it was the duty of Government to take earnest steps to see what it could do. (Hear, hear.) The appointment of voluntary Conciliation Boards would tend in that direction, but the objection he had to the Bill in this respect was that there was a tendency to over-regulate these Boards. (Hear, hear.) The whole merits of the Boards consisted in the fact that they were voluntary, and nothing should be done to interfere with their voluntary character. It was a mistake to make a settlement by these Boards a binding force in law. That was all very well in a case of arbitration, but these Boards worked in an informal way, and very often for that reason with success. He referred the Minister to the Report of the Industrial Council of the United Kingdom on the question of how industrial agreements could be enforced. This Council found that it would be undesirable to attempt to force these agreements on either side. It found that as a rule, and more particularly in the trades which were highly organised, that these agreements were honourably observed by both sides, and when they were not observed it was generally in the trades which were not highly organised. The Council reported that it would be inexpedient to substitute some other methods based on other than voluntary consent. He would suggest that as far as these voluntary Conciliation Boards were concerned, they should be let alone, apart from registering them. It should not be laid down that they had to elect their chairman in a certain way and from among their own number, for that would give the side from which the chairman was elected an unfair advantage. The Railway Conciliation Boards in the United Kingdom did not have a chairman at all, but what were called leading members, one from each side, who took it in rum to preside. If the Boards were left to themselves and were given reasonable freedom they would do good work. A good deal had been said about the registration of Trade Unions.

A Trade Union was given a certain definite status, and for that they wanted to have the unions registered. Sometimes they had rival unions in the same trade, and they wanted to know what unions they were dealing with. He thought it was necessary to see that the registered Trade Union was accepted as a party, which would give the union a standing in that industry that it would not otherwise have, and would attract men to it. At the same time he would suggest that the registration in the Bill was made too complicated, and that it should be simple. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) had given an account of his union with regard to the finances, which, he must say, was entirely new to him. They did not in the least object to a Trade Union acting politically in a way which it might deem fit to do, but what they did object to was that a man should be excluded from a Trade Union because he did not wish to subscribe towards a certain political party. (Hear, hear.) If the rule was as the hon. member for Springs said it was—that any member who objected to a levy for political purposes was exempt from it—that was all they wanted. That was what had been put in the Bill which had been passed in England after the Osborne judgment. In reply to the hon. member for Jeppe, who said something which was inaudible, Mr. Duncan said that a Trade Union represented a particular trade and should represent all the workers of that particular trade who wanted to join, and not exclude arbitrarily a worker who wished to join the union, but refused to subscribe to a particular political party.

said let them form a union of their own.

said that he was surprised that the hon. member suggested splitting up a union on political lines. If that was the ideal of the champions of the unions, he was afraid that they were leading the men on a wrong path. Proceeding, Mr. Duncan said let them recognise that they were dealing with industrial, and not with political, disputes, and that the men must be organised on industrial, and not on political, lines. With regard to the question of Federation, the hon. member for Springs had made a great song about it, and first of all wanted them to believe that the Minister in his Bill was forbidding a Federation to exist altogether. There was nothing whatever in the Bill forbidding federation, and preventing a union from joining a federation. What was in the Bill, and rightly so, was that when a dispute arose and the question arose who was to represent the men, it was the union of the men which should do so, and not a federation entirely outside of the particular dispute. If they wanted to employ an advocate, let them bring him in, but he was not a party to the dispute. The party to the dispute should be the union; and the federation, if it existed at all, should exist outside. Do not let them be influenced by all that rhodomontade of the hon. members on the cross-benches of the Minister desiring to suppress these unions, because there was nothing of the sort in the Bill. Dealing with the provisions of section 40, Mr. Duncan said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) had rightly said that there was no reason in the world why a Trade Union should be above the law. There was no reason, in the nature of things, why a Trade Union should not answer for the faults of its servants or agents. He did think, however, they might go some distance in protecting Trade Unions against actions and being sued for acts in the ordinary course of a trade dispute, because it must be recognised, and it was recognised, that in these industrial disputes, a strike must be ultimately sanctioned by a union when all other methods had failed. He thought it was not reasonable that a Trade Union should be liable at law for inducing an employer’s servants to go on strike. In so far as an employer should have a cause for action, for the officials of the Trade Union persuading its members to go on strike, the Unions should not be liable at law. To that extent the Bill should follow the lines of the English Bill of 1906, and he thought that only reasonable. With regard to the requirements of a ballot, a point which the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews) had made, he referred to section 19, that practically made a strike unlawful, until the majority of an employer’s men had by a ballot voted in favour of going on strike. The section struck him as being unworkable, because a Trade Union dealt with members of a particular trade as a whole, and not with a particular employer, and that section said a particular employer. How was it going to work? The Minister knew quite well what amount of trouble and expense was necessary to get a ballot of the men in connection with the election of their representatives on the Railway Commission. How were they going to apply that to a particular industry? Even if it did work, it was not fair to say that a strike should be illegal unless it had been sanctioned in that way. He knew that in times of excitement men were pulled out, who did not want to go on strike, and who would not in cold blood vote for a strike. Let them not do a thing by legislation which they could not attempt to do by legislation. (Hear, hear.) It was better, he thought, to leave such matters to the good sense of the men rather than to endeavour to provide machinery in that Bill. In conclusion, he would like to say that there was a great deal in the measure worthy of consideration even by members on the cross-benches, because it brought in the principle involved in the Industrial Disputes Act of the Transvaal, which was generally considered to be a good method of dealing with these questions. There were admittedly some faults in that Act, but the present Bill endeavoured to set them right.

One of the objections, however, against the present Bill was that it took away the right of the men to strike how and when they pleased. They wished to retain the right to come out when they liked. There was even some talk of a strike coming off in July next. This Bill, however, also provided against employers bringing about changes without notice having been given. Such a matter was to be placed to the credit side of the Bill. The legislation in the Bill was in the right direction, and it was evident that the Government were desirous of preventing the recurrence of these industrial disturbances. They heard about the educative value of strikes. It was one of those catch phrases, he supposed, which were of very little value. If it had any educative value it would be in the way that they had learnt something from the past. Of course they could do that from an earthquake. He thought they could learn in some other way from the experiences of other countries without passing through the experience of industrial warfare. This Bill, he thought, might go far towards bringing about a better state of affairs, and members on the cross benches ought to support it, unless they could bring forward something likely to bring about better results.

said he could not understand the attitude of the Labour members who, after admitting that the conciliation clauses in the Bill were good, proposed to throw out the measure without first trying to make a good Bill of it. He thought the House and country might congratulate themselves on the progress that had been made in these matters. He was only sorry that these proposals now being made had not been made a year ago. He regretted that the strike should have intervened between the feeling now experienced and the feeling of twelve months ago, since when public opinion had in some measure gone in the direction of Trade Unionism. He was sorry for that, because it was likely to strengthen a feeling amongst many that the only way to remedy grievances was to have a general upheaval. He was glad to find that they were all of one mind in regard to the undesirability of strikes. Members on the cross-benches were generally made to appear as if they were in favour of strikes. (A Voice: So they are.) Strikes, he might say, were only adopted by Trade Unions as a last resort, and it was common knowledge all over the world that Trade Unions were not in favour of strikes. The member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) had spoken of the special circumstances which existed in South Africa. One of these special circumstances he thought was the extraordinary fact that while South Africa was a young country industrially, yet they had an enormous industry to deal with, and methods, such as compulsory arbitration, which might be suited to small industries were not appropriate. He was glad that the member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) had pointed out that this Bill applied to most farmers, particularly as regarded clause 15. He (Mr. Fremantle) would like to supplement this by saying that the whole Bill affected the agricultural industry. The Bill certainly only applied in the case of farmers employing seven or more men, but there were not many farmers who employed less than this number. Before very long they might have organisations of the kind mentioned in the Bill amongst the coloured labourers, and in that case he did not know how the Bill was going to work. In making a law of that kind he would point out to the hon. Minister that it must be taken into consideration they were not dealing only with intelligent labour, and great difficulties might arise if that Bill were applied to farming operations. Proceeding, he said that the question of conciliation was the most important part of the Bill, and it was the best thing which could be done in connection with the regulation of the relations between employers and employees. Under a scheme of conciliation a great deal of prevention was possible. There did not seem to be sufficient provision in that Bill for forming Conciliation Boards at the proper times, that was when industries were working normally. He did not think it was impossible under the Bill that Boards could be formed before disputes arose, but it was most unfortunate that that was not the main idea of clause 2 of the Bill. He hoped they would get an Industrial Commissioner, who would exercise an influence so that Conciliation Boards might as far as possible be established in times of industrial peace. The most important thing was an appeal to public opinion, because that gave a far stronger sanction than could be given by the law. He thought it a mistake to try to make strikes illegal without a ballot, as this would turn the public opinion of many workmen against the Bill. It was also futile, as they had seen by the strike that took place last July, when the strike suddenly broke out, although the Federation of Trades had declared rather against it than otherwise. Any law which may be passed could not prevent explosions of that kind, therefore, it was most important frankly to be able to say, there was the machinery, and public opinion would expect the disputants on both sides to appeal to that machinery, and leave the matter at it. That was the opinion of those who had the most experience of trying to settle industrial disputes in England, and he was sorry the Government had gone against that principle, and he hoped they would reconsider the position. There was a tendency in England to resist agreements which bound Labour organisations not to strike for a long time. Then why should the Minister insist on a provision of that sort, when there is amongst the men such a feeling? That would militate against the working-classes supporting the idea. With regard to the ballot, the Government should consider whether it would not be desirable to include in the Bill a provision for an impartial ballot. If the Government would offer a ballot of that kind, it would have a beneficial effect on public opinion. He hoped that the clause dealing with the attaching of funds would not be proceeded with, and in regard to recognition he did not see what advantage it was for a union to register. Experience had shown that it would be better for them not to register. If they registered they would only represent their own members in the dispute; whereas, if they did not register they would represent all the employees, as they did in the case of the railwaymen. There would be a good deal of inquisitorial investigation into the Trade Unions, and he doubted very much whether the opinion of the men would be in favour of registration. He was prepared to vote for a second reading of the Bill, for he did not see that it committed them to anything that would check Trade Unions in South Africa. There were certain things in the Bill which did check the Trade Unions, but he did not think they were covered by the second reading. In his opinion, the wisest course the House could follow would be to vote for the Bill, not grudgingly, but with all satisfaction. He suggested that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee after the second reading had been taken, and he thought that it would be a good thing if the Minister would follow this course. He hoped that course would be followed, and that when the Bill emerged from committee it would be generally recognised that it was a conciliatory measure, tending to the relaxation of the present unrest that existed.

said that he supported the second reading of the Bill, not because he believed that the measure was perfect, but for the reason that it embraced the two great principles of conciliation and the recognition of Trade Unions. Dealing with what had been said by the hon. member for Jeppe regarding the Bill stopping strikes, he said that so far as he understood the measure he did not believe that it would stop strikes, but that it would bring about conciliation between the parties before a strike was entered upon, and in that respect he thought that much good would be done by the measure. He thought that the members of Trade Unions themselves were opposed to strikes. Though this Bill would not stop strikes, he thought that it would accomplish good, and do much to relieve the industrial unrest that existed. It seemed to him that for this unrest there were three outstanding remedies. First they had mediation, second they had conciliation, and third they had arbitration. In mediation they had the intervention of a third person to bring the two parties together with a conciliatory object; in conciliation they had the meeting of the two parties to get at a settlement of the dispute, and in arbitration they had an authoritative decision. He thought of the three remedies the best was conciliation.

The speaker paused for a moment, and then addressing the Treasury Benches, said: “If the Minister is finished, will he please give me his attention?”

Am I not to be allowed to speak to one of my colleagues?

When I am discussing a matter dealing with the Department of Industries I should like the attention of the Minister. Continuing, he said that by conciliation the men got to know something of the intricacies of business, while the employers got to know of the views of the men. He thought that conciliation would do much to relieve the industrial unrest in this country. Speaking in support of the recognition of Trade Unions, he said he believed Trade Unions had done much good in the past, not only for themselves, but for the unorganised workmen. He thought it was only right that the unorganised worker should be protected. (Labour “Oh’s.”)

What about the unorganised doctor—the quack? (Laughter.)

The public put them down. (Laughter.) In conclusion, he said he supported the second reading.

said he could not help wondering whether the hon. member for Fordsburg had been reading the right Bill, for it contained ideas quite foreign to the ideas the hon. member had expressed. The Bill was a compulsory one so far as strikes were concerned. The hon. member for Fordsburg and the hon. member for Uitenhage had expressed views very similar to those of hon. members on the cross benches; but the latter had incorporated their views in an amendment. A good deal of the debate had turned on the question of Trade Unions, but it had been overlooked that Trade Unionists would form a very small percentage of the people whom the Bill would affect. Strikes were not confined to Trade Unionists, and more strikes took place among non-Trade Unionists than Trade Unionists. It was to the benefit of those who desired to see strikes stopped that they should encourage Trade Unions. The first thing that struck him in connection with this matter was that we were here in a country with a small European population legislating with a very long and complicated Bill, trying to put into force some latter-day methods which had been arrived at by other countries only after long experience, while in America, with its teeming millions, there was a most simple form of Bill to deal with industrial disputes. The United States had spent more money in investigating this matter than any other country had, and the result had been embodied in what was known as the Erbmann Act, which provided no powers of compulsion, the employer being free to have a lock-out and the workers to have a strike.

The principle is embodied in this Bill.

said no inquiry had been made in South Africa into this kind of legislation. But he did not think this would make any difference in the long run, although that might be called a policy of despair. In the Transvaal there was an Act on similar lines to this, which they had been trying to enforce, but with very bad results indeed. On the other hand, in California there had been a shooting down of strikers. In fact, in attempting to stop strikes they were trying to do the impossible. We were trying to repeat the mistake made in the Transvaal. That was to prevent strikes without any definite understanding of what strikes really were and how they arose. The Minister had pointed to the success of the Canadian Act, but when put to the same test that would also fail. The workers in Canada had been cowed by the in-pouring of thousands of immigrants, and the time was not opportune for strikes, but the stream of immigrants into Canada must stop, and then trouble would ensue, for the workers would try to get better conditions for themselves, the employers would resist, and the inevitable strike would follow.

Proceeding, Mr. Sampson pointed out that Trade Unions were not essentially benefit societies. These had existed for centuries, and any man could get better results from benefit societies than from Trade Unions, although he admitted that some Trade Unions promised benefits in order to get members. The true function of a Trade Union was not for benefits. The true functions were, firstly, to protest collectively against any act of injustice committed, and in the second place to act collectively if grievances were not adjusted. Yet that Bill tried to destroy those very functions of Trade Unionism and to undermine them. It sought to destroy the main functions of Trade Unionism, and that was what they on the cross-benches protested against. The Bill did not in so many words say that it would be illegal to strike, but it did say that it would delay strikes and lock-outs; but, as anyone who knew anything about the matter knew, delaying a strike was tantamount to saying that it should not take place at all. Generally, when a trade was busy and conditions were prosperous, and there was every prospect of getting an increase of wage by striking, that was the time chosen for a strike, and that Bill said that they must not act at that moment. They merely delayed the strike from a busy season to the end of the season or the slack season, and they thus made a strike impossible, and they gave great advantage to the employer, giving him time to make preparations for a strike and get men to supplant the strikers. They were doing the same thing in the Bill as prohibiting strikes altogether, and were not putting anything in their place. They could not proceed to pass legislation of that kind without the assent of the persons whom it chiefly affected, and they had not got their consent in regard to that Bill. They were attempting the impossible. The majority of the men he had consulted were against the Bill, so that meant the Bill was doomed to failure. The remedy was worse than the disease if that Bill was passed without the consent of the men concerned. Referring to compulsory arbitration, Mr. Sampson said that if arbitration was to be based on equity, the judge must be an impartial man, but the judges were inclined to take the employers’ view, rather than the view of the employees, and did not know much about the Trade Unions. He pointed out that workers in other parts of the world had been going away from the point of view of compulsory arbitration. As to the Act cutting both ways, they prohibited a strike, and said it was illegal to lock-out. But it did not cut both ways; they were prohibiting the workmen from striking, and nothing else. With respect to agreements, an employer could sell out, but the employee would be equally bound under the changed conditions. The real question was how far were the Trade Unions prepared to be tied up, not how far the employers would go. Trade Unions were not stationary, and after that legislation was finished, if it ever were finished, how did they know whether it would fit in with the ideas of a year hence? To give a perspective of what was in the minds of the workers at the present time he quoted from a book, statements made by Mr. Barnes, a Socialist and Trade Union officer, and in that connection told the House that it did not benefit a Trade Union officer to cause strikes, as had been suggested in the course of that debate. As a matter of fact, during a strike a Trade Union officer was also on strike, and only got the same pay as the men. When the funds were exhausted he got no salary. How, then, could hon. members say it was in the officer’s interest to cause strikes? Dealing with an interjection, he said he thought this Bill was dealing with the ordinary common or garden strike. He defied Parliament to pass legislation to meet sympathetic or political strikes. Mr. Barnes said: “My experience has been that the only solution in sight is to organise strong militant Unions and equip them with a strong treasury. To be always prepared and command respect by power. Might always makes for right. Peace can be compelled easier by determination than by a display of strength than by cajolery or so-called diplomacy The British Trade Unions are growing stronger and stronger every year. They are federating by industries, and the modern and natural economic method. They are destined to be ultimately successful and equal to all.” Continuing, the hon. member said that while there was nothing prohibitive in the Bill, there was nothing to encourage federation.

At 11 p.m.,

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said one did not want unduly to curb discussion, but for a second reading debate this measure had had its full complement of time. The Government was very anxious to get on with business, for next week financial matters would be under discussion, and if they did not take the second reading now it became a grave question when they would be able to get to it again. It had been suggested that it might be advisable to send the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading. Judging generally from the tone of the speeches he did not think that was necessary, but if that would economise time the Government would be prepared to accept a suggestion of that nature after the second reading. He said that with the object of putting the measure through during the present session. He wished to appeal to hon. members, particularly to those on the cross-benches, six of whom had already spoken on the Bill. If all the parties in the House were to take up the attitude that every member of it must have his say they would not be able to get on at all. He recognised that hon. members on the cross-benches had an interest in the matter which other hon. members had not, but was it necessary for the whole of them to express their views at length? He suggested that the House should come to a vote now and appoint a Select Committee to-morrow.

said the Minister must recognise that in this matter there were only two parties in the House. They on the cross-benches had to defend their position against the rest of the House. As many had been speaking as they thought were necessary to elucidate the position. They had not been speaking with a view to obstruct

That we believe!

went on to say that they could deal with the matter to-morrow afternoon.

Better sit a bit later to-night.

said he was surprised at the Minister’s statement, in view of what the Prime Minister had said about the Labour Party the other day.

supported the proposal that the debate be adjourned. He said that he also desired to speak on the second reading.

said that the intention was to deal with the Rand Water Board Bill to-morrow afternoon.

Sit a little later then.

Rather sit a little later now.

said that on that important Bill, out of 121 members of the House, only nine hon. members had so far spoken.

withdrew the motion to adjourn the debate, and, proceeding, said the matter before the House was a far more important one than the Rand Water Board Bill. Trade Unions, he went on, were developing greatly, but nobody seemed to know exactly in which direction they would ultimately go. He quoted from the current issue of the “Reynolds’ Newspaper,” reviewing the Labour outlook, to show how the position was continually changing. Continuing, he said that the only way to stop strikes was to strengthen their Trade Unions, and pointed out that the Government’s attitude in the measure was such that the unions attached to the Federation of Trades would ignore this Bill. The Bill displayed a lamentable ignorance of the rules of Trade Unions. No union could register under the Bill without amending its rules, and the branches of some societies could not amend their rules, and therefore could not register. Only weak unions wanted recognition, for the strong unions could demand it. But he did not say unions would not register if amendments were made to the Bill. Unions, however, would wait to see what the general trend of legislation was before registering, and if some of the Bills before the House were passed, he was afraid that the Bill would become a dead letter. He knew it for a fact that men had been refused employment on the mines, although the Transvaal Act had a clause stating that it was illegal to refuse to employ employees who had been employed. How about the Premier Mine? Why had the Minister not put the clause into effect, and prosecuted the owners of that mine? The Government was very vigilant when it came to the workers to put the clause into effect, but not when it concerned the employers. The hon. member went on to explain at some length what would happen during an imaginary strike, and said the workers would not gain anything by machinery following the lines of the Transvaal Industrial Disputes Act. The increase to printers’ assistants was the only direction in which the workers had got a benefit under that Act. Should that Bill get into committee some inquiry should be made into extending agreements to a district. They would not stop strikes, but if they went on the lines suggested by the cross-benches strikes would in the main be prevented. Dealing with the use of funds for political purposes, he said that he did not know any union in that country that would take such a retrogressive step as to register under a Bill that contained such a clause as that suggested for dealing with the use of funds for political purposes. He also criticised the two-thirds majority clause, and pointed out the percentage of electors that generally voted at elections. It was an impossible thing. He would not deal with what had been said by the hon. member for Beaconsfield, as he was not present, but he would like to deny the statement put into the mouth of the hon. member for George Town, that the latter said that shareholders’ money was used for political purposes. But there was the little matter of trading accounts, about which members on the cross-benches would have something to say one day when the House was less busy. (Labour hear, hears.) The Government might hold an inquiry into those trading accounts. Finally, Mr. Sampson said the House should hesitate before it tried to enforce legislation for the whole of South Africa on the Transvaal lines, which had proved a failure.

said he would not keep the House long as he had not had the practical experience of this subject which hon. members on the cross benches had He would not support any measure which would hamper Trade Unions, for it was only by making the Unions blackleg proof that strikes could be prevented. (Hear, hear.) In South Africa it was essential, where they had a vigorous population, that they should allow the men to have a strong organisation, to get them out of the servile conditions in which they had fallen. The great mass of the people nowadays were in a state of semi-slavery, depending on a mere pittance, while the few were living in a state of sordid luxury. If a man attempted to break away, what befel him? The only safeguard from industrial slavery was to give the men a reserve, besides their wages. They must have some interest in their work, apart from their wages, and they must make these men feel free again. When they did so these men would not cast their lot with the agitators, and the agitators would have no effect if the conditions were not such as they were. He would vote for the amendment. Let them see how the workmen of South Africa could work out their own salvation. By their combining they had succeeded in costing the country a million pounds and had cost the workmen a week or two of wages. The workers had won hands down. The country might be able to face the loss of another million, but not a third. Then the workers would be recognised; it would be recognised that they had broken away from slavery. It was a new line of thought that had been brought home to him and other hon. members would be similarly influenced if they would look properly into the matter. If that legislation were forced through it would fail. The system was doomed, the men would work out their own salvation and nothing could stop it.

appealed to the Minister to adjourn.

No.

said he wished to give his views on the subject. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

Isn’t the Minister going to accept?

No.

The Minister said he would accept it after the hon. member for Commissioner-street had finished.

Certainly not.

The motion was withdrawn.

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

called for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Fawcus, Haggar, Madeley, Maginess, Meyler and H. W. Sampson) voted against the question,

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell, dropped.

declared the motion agreed to.

The Bill was then read a second time.

moved that the Bill be referred to Select Committee for inquiry and report.

thought the Minister might have given notice of the motion. The Minister had not replied to the debate on the second reading, nor had he given notice that he would move that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee. He was playing with the subject. They on the cross-benches had no more use for a Select Committee than for the second reading of the Bill.

The motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was agreed to.

said that he would give notice of the names to-morrow.