brought up the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on the taxation proposals on Customs duties.

It was agreed that the resolution be now considered.

moved that the resolution be adopted.

Agreed, to.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Neser a Committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bill to give effect to the resolution now adopted.

brought up the report of the Committee appointed to draft and bring up a Bill to give effect to the resolution now adopted, submitting a Bill.

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

brought up a Bill to provide for the taxation of the unimproved values of land.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Wednesday next.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Working of the Miners' Phthisis Act of 1912.

The report was set down for consideration on Monday next.

in moving the second reading of the Matches Duty Bill, said it simply supplied the machinery for the working of the Excise on matches. He thought they had better discuss the details in Committee.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the Committee stage set down for Monday.

moved the second reading of the Income Tax Bill. He said the same remarks he had made on the previous measure applied to that Bill. The principle had been fully discussed in Committee of Ways and Means, and the contentious points in the Bill arose on detailed provisions. It would be undesirable to have another general debate, and he moved the second reading now, so that they could deal with the details when they went into Committee of the Whole House.

said there were one or two points he would like to mention. On clause 4, referring to the period of the tax, he thought the tax should be definitely allocated to the services of the year. In the same clause, sub-section (6), with regard to incomes on farms, it seemed to him that it would open the way to great difficulties. The point of that section was with regard to incomes on farms, and he thought it would be difficult to arrive at those incomes on the basis laid down in the sub-section. He did not want to discuss that matter fully now, but he wanted the Minister to take it into consideration before they got in to Committee. Limited companies were exempted now on the first £1,000. That was a new exemption. Under the old law a limited company paid on the whole of its income. He did not know why the Minister was so generous to the companies. Clause 5, sub-section (m), was curiously worded, and he supposed that if a man had an income partly derived from dividends and partly from other sources, he would have to pay income tax on a higher scale—on the scale of his whole income, and then have deducted from that what had been paid on dividends.

said these were matters for Committee.

said he only wanted the Minister to take them into consideration. Under the old Act, a man would return the whole, and then deduct what had been gained from dividends. Another point of importance was the constitution of the court. In the Cape they had had a court presided over by a barrister of over fifteen years’ standing, and that court had won the confidence of the country. The Minister now proposed a court presided over by a magistrate. He thought that in dealing with matters of that kind a magistrate would not have sufficient experience, and he thought the Minister would be better advised to adopt the old system. He asked the Minister to consider the case of these financial companies—banks, insurance companies, and so on—that did already pay very large taxes in this country. He knew of one institution which already paid 2½ per cent., and if the further tax of 7½ per cent. was put on, it would be paying over 10 per cent.

said the Minister could hardly expect that Bill to go through in the same way the Excise Bill had gone through. Some important principles were involved in the Bill.

The principle has already been discussed in Committee. This is a Bill embodying what was agreed to in Committee. We cannot go into the different sections and the machinery of the Bill—that can be dealt with in Committee.

said the Bill gave power to levy taxation to the extent of £450,000. The attitude the Opposition had taken up right through had been this that if the Government would only conduct the business of the country in an economic fashion that taxation would not be necessary at all. In that they had been supported by some of the hon. members on the other side of the House—

I must point out that this was the subject of an amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, and was disposed of.

We are going to oppose the second reading, and surely I may show cause why the House does not agree with the second reading.

Not on grounds already disposed of.

said that with proper economy there was no necessity for the Bill, and he thought they were right in pointing that out. The Minister of Finance had pointed out what the remission of taxation had been since Union. The Government had remitted the parent medicine tax, the Natal poll tax, the Cape income tax, including the profits tax; they had remitted the Orange Free State diamond tax—a total remission of £739,000 since Union. He (the speaker) gave full credit for that, but it was only one side of the story. New taxation had been imposed since Union. There was the cigarette tax and super tax—£146,000 fresh taxation; there was the diamonds’ profit tax and the base metal tax in the Cape and the Free State—£400,000. Add those together, and they had a total of £546,000 fresh taxation since Union. The proposals of the Government meant fresh taxation to the extent of £500,000 since Union. They had fresh taxation in the Cape Province, such as the amusement and totalisator tax, of £25,000. If they deducted that from the transfer dues, it would be seen that they would be levying fresh taxation to the extent of £170,000.

He came to the conclusion that their charge of extravagance was amply justified, and further, that they were justified in opposing the second reading of the Bill. Let them take the exemption. The holders of Union stocks or the stocks of any colony prior to Union—

said he did not think the hon. member was right in going into the details.

said he would like to ask for a ruling on the point. When they were in Committee they were told that Bills would be laid before the House dealing with the taxation proposals, and would go through all their stages in the usual way. Here they had a Bill dealing with the imposition of the income tax. Was it not within the province of every member, because the income tax was not law until the Bill had been passed, to discuss every detail of the Bill if he so desired? Was it not within the province of every member to move amendments so long as taxation was not increased? If that was not so, then he put it to Mr. Speaker that it was useless for that House to proceed with the Bill.

said the hon. member must not make a speech.

I am only making these few remarks to show—

The hon. member must put his question.

said he thought he had a perfect right to ask Mr. Speaker for a ruling for his own guidance, and for the guidance of other members. He wanted to know if they had any power to deal with the Bill, and if they had, had they not the power to debate it in every detail?

The House at the proper time has every right to deal with this Bill in every possible detail, but on the second reading of the Bill is the time to discuss the principle of the Bill. The House has the right to reject every clause if it so desires, but the right time to discuss the details is in Committee on this Bill.

submitted that he was not dealing with the details of the Bill. There were certain exemptions which were of the greatest importance, and he submitted, with great respect, that he was in order in dealing with this important principle, because many members did not know of these exemptions. There were three exemptions That he wished to deal with. First, Folders of Union stocks and stocks or securities of any of the colonies prior to Union were exempt from the payment of the tax. In addition, the holders of securities of local authorities, municipalities, and so on were exempt. In the past—he referred to the Cape Colony—they exempted the holders of stock when the holders lived abroad. This proposal of the Minister, which was an entirely new principle, would mean a great deal of injustice. Under this exemption any man having an income of £5,000 a year from Union stocks or local Government stocks was exempted from the payment of the tax. Then a man might have an income of £1,000 from Union stocks and £500 from other stocks. He did not know whether that man would escape, but, at any rate, the scale would be reduced in his case. What justice was there in exemptions of that kind? Why should the) man who had an income of £2,000 a year from Union Stocks, who was domiciled in South Africa and held stocks which originated in South Africa, be exempt? He could understand the expediency of exempting the holders of stock who lived oversea. He did not object to that, simply and solely on the grounds of expediency, but in the case of the man who lived here the circumstances were somewhat different. True, it might reduce the value of his stock, but every property on which income tax would be paid would be reduced in value in the same proportion. Another point that he wished to draw attention to was the exemption of mining profits. What justification was there for such a proposal?

said that if he allowed the hon. member to proceed he would be placed in an awkward position if he had to stop other speakers who wished to discuss the same point.

But why—

said that it would make it very difficult for him to prevent other members speaking on these points.

said that these were principles which had never been discussed before. They had had nothing to do with them.

was understood to say that the course followed with regard to the exemptions was the ordinary course.

said that these exemptions were not mentioned in the resolution put before the Committee of Ways and Means. That Committee did not discuss them. It knew nothing about them.

They can be raised on the Bill—

said that when in Committee of Ways and Means the proposal was that everybody should pay. Now there was a new principle introduced that certain people should not pay.

said that the exemptions were always deferred until the Bill was before the House. The only question before the House was whether the House was going to accept the principle of the income tax or not.

said that when in Committee they were told that these matters would be put in the form of a Bill, and that, that would be the right time to discuss them.

said that that was so, but the hon. member must know that on the second reading of a Bill only the principle of a Bill was discussed and not the details. There could be a full discussion in Committee.

We have no guarantee that such will be the case. (Laughter.)

The Committee can take care of itself. (Laughter.)

said that unless they had an opportunity of discussing the principles of the Bill, how were they to know whether they were going to vote for or against the Bill?

asked whether it was not possible to discuss the basis of the assessment of the income tax on the second reading? He would also like to ask whether it was not possible to argue that this Bill required so much consideration and amendment that it was not desirable to proceed with it under present circumstances.

The hon. member is at liberty to reject the Bill if he likes.

Can I give my reasons?

answered in the affirmative.

said he thought, with all respect, that he could proceed with his arguments. He wanted to show in which way the Bill was unjust. There was the case of the Premier Mine.

It had always been maintained that the Union were full partners in that concern, and that they had a share as owners so far as the Premier Mine was concerned. The State took 60 per cent. from that concern simply as part-owners. What he wanted to point out was that the other 40 per cent. was in the hands of private individuals, who were the other partners. Under this Bill those private individuals were exempt from taxation. They were exempt from the profits tax and they were exempt from income tax. If that mine were held by a company, his hon. friend and everybody else in this House knew that the company would have to pay profits tax. Where was the justification, because the Government happened to be partners, for exempting the other part-owners from payment of income tax? Another institution exempted under this Bill was the Land Bank. He knew it would be said that this was a Government institution and they could not tax it in the same way as other institutions, but this institution made a profit of £30,000 last year which did not go into the State coffers. That money went into the reserve fund, and when that reserve fund had been accumulated to the extent of £500,000 the rate of interest on the advances would be reduced. In that case where was there any justice? Other moneylending institutions like the National Bank, the Standard Bank, etc., had to pay income tax. Then there was also the tax upon companies which remained very much as it was. An ordinary shareholder in one of these companies might have an income of only £300 a year derived entirely from a company whose profits amounted to over £24,000 a year, and under this Bill he would have to pay income tax on the highest scale. As far as exemptions were concerned, this Bill was grossly unjust.

said he had on the Paper an amendment to this motion, which read as follows: To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House disapproves of the action of the Government in issuing instructions permanently excluding 299 citizens of the Union from any future employment in the Railway Service, thereby arbitrarily inflicting on those citizens, without charge or trial, a punishment and permanent disability not provided by any law in force in the Union.”

I must point out to the hon. member that when he gave notice of this amendment yesterday I indicated to him that it was out of order. The subject matter of the amendment was fully dealt with when the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Bill was under consideration by the House. The hon. member cannot now move an amendment dealing with a question the subject matter of which has already been disposed of by the House during the present session. I therefore rule the amendment out of order.

said he was sure Mr. Speaker was labouring under a misapprehension of fact. The subject which his hon. friend brought up was not dealt with in that Bill at all. It was an occurrence which had taken place since that Bill, and which was not provided for in that way.

These may have been occurrences which arise out of that Bill, and the hon. member will have every opportunity of dealing with them upon the Estimates of the Minister of Railways. I rule that the amendment is not in order.

said that while he cordially agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, in the remarks he had made in regard to the lack of any necessity for this Bill and the introduction of this tax and the effect it was going to have, he thought that was a matter they had discussed very thoroughly and had really voted upon before. (Hear, hear.) The other questions raised by the hon. gentleman were of great importance, and he did not know that it was altogether inappropriate that he should state them on the second reading, so that they might think them over when they came into Committee. What the hon. member said about the Premier Mine raised an extremely nice point. He should say that these people ought to pay income tax, but with regard to profits tax they were naturally exempt.

said he did not think this was a matter on which they would be well advised in going into Committee at all. With regard to the principle of taxation at the source, he wished to point out the absolute unfairness of the whole system if they did not have an elaborate system of rebates. It was a most unjust and almost a cruel provision they were putting into this Bill at the present time.

This clause cannot be eliminated at this stage. If it cannot be eliminated at this stage it cannot be debated at this stage. The hon. member will have every opportunity of raising his arguments in Committee.

said that the Bill required so much further thinking, out that it was not desirable to go on with it at this stage of the session. There were some good points in the Bill, and he recognised that there were some improvements in it on the Cape Income Tax Bill, but there were other matters which made him feel very strongly that it was not desirable to continue with this Bill at the present stage. Some 47 out of the 50 clauses, with amendments in details, were taken over from the Cape Act of 1904. He rather wished that some more had been borrowed, because when the Minister had started out on new lines he thought he had been unsuccessful. As far as he understood, this Bill proposed to tax the Provincial Council because it exempted local authorities, but in the definition of “local authorities,” which was taken over from the old Bill, Provincial Councils were not included. If it were not intended to tax Provincial Councils, that clearly showed that the Bill had not been properly looked into. He desired to call the attention of farmers to the extremely risky principles which they were asked to accept in regard to the taxation of houses. No machinery of any kind had been devised for the application of this clause. He also desired to call attention to the way in which the Minister had watered down the safeguards as to secrecy which they had in the old Bill. The Minister proposed a new principle— the right of entry to any premises in order to ascertain facts. He was going to be more inquisitorial than ever before, and there were to be less safeguards for secrecy. The whole of the position in regard to insurance companies required reconsideration. The Bill was full of clauses imposing imprisonment. In view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling he (Mr. Fremantle) could not say what he intended with regard to the enormous number of detail points which required reconsideration. In order to put the Bill in order a fortnight or three weeks’ work would be required. (Cheers.) He did not think it was in the interests of the country that the House should proceed with the Bill now.

said he wished to move an amendment because he had never heard such a preposterous suggestion that the income of a married woman for the purpose of the Bill should be added to her husband’s. He moved that the order for the second reading be discharged, and the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

seconded.

moved to omit all the words after “that” and to substitute “in view of the existing inequitable distribution of the burden of taxation, and the growing evils accompanying the absence of proper taxation of the site values of all land, this House declines to proceed further with legislation imposing an income tax until a Site Value Taxation Bill has been passed by this House.”

ruled that he could not accept this amendment, as it anticipated a discussion on the Land Tax Bill, the second reading of which has been set down for Wednesday.

I shall move another amendment in that case.

The hon. member cannot move two amendments.

But if you rule it out I have not moved an amendment. An amendment which is ruled out of order is not an amendment. I submit, sir, that you are curtailing the rights of hon. members.

The hon. member got up to move an amendment, and I have ruled it out of order.

I desire to move a further one. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that the House had not been treated fairly over these taxation proposals. First of all the Minister had said: “Go into Committee of Ways and Means and you will have ample opportunity of discussing the whole matter.” Then after some discussion the House took the income tax resolution first, against the wish of some hon. members. They were willing to forgive a good deal to the Minister in connection with the land tax for introducing a principle which they approved of, but when they came to discuss it the Minister stopped the discussion. What guarantee had they got that when this was passed that there would be a Land Tax Bill?

The hon. member cannot discuss the Land Tax Bill.

I am not discussing it.

The hon. member cannot make reference to a Bill set down for second reading next Wednesday.

May I not refer to the fact that the Minister may not bring it forward?

No; the hon. member can make no reference to it.

Then in accordance with rules I move that this House do now adjourn, because I think it must be patent to every hon. member that we require some time to adjust ourselves to carrying on our business in accordance with the ruling given this afternoon. When we find that the Rules of the House do not permit a certain latitude of discussion I think it is wise that we should adjourn our proceedings to-day in order to proceed with more deliberation and with some clearer appreciation of the exact limitations within which we may discuss measures than it is possible for any member to have this afternoon.

seconded.

The motion for the adjournment was negatived.

called for a division.

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

declared the motion negatived.

asked if it were competent for a member who had moved an amendment on any particular question to second or speak to a motion for the adjournment of the House?

No. He can speak, but he cannot second.

said that without going into the details of the Bill, he wanted to say why the Opposition objected to it. The Opposition did not object to an income tax. (Hear, hear.) As part of the well-thought-out scheme, they thought the income tax was a fair form of taxation. But they felt that the Minister of Finance had not taken any steps to spread the burden of taxation equitably. The Minister was keen on piling up the burden of taxation on the industrial section of the population, and leaving the wealth which had gradually accrued from the ownership of land practically untouched. If the Minister wished to spread the burden more equitably, he ought to have combined with the income tax a real land tax, and not a mere shadow.

The hon. member is not in order in making any reference to the land tax.

said that evidently, when they were discussing the income tax, they could not refer to the land tax, and when they were discussing the land tax, they would not be allowed to refer to the large burden which was being imposed on the country by the income tax. If that was so, he would confine himself to the income tax, and try not to refer to the land tax, but it did not impose a tax on the property owners of the country. He wanted to refer to that form of capital which did not produce income.

The hon. member must see that he is referring to the land tax.

said that in other countries the annual value of land was regarded as part of a man’s income. He suggested that the Minister might modify the Bill so as to bring in Schedule F of the English Act, whereby the value of land was taxed.

No, no.

said he objected to the income tax, because it was part of a financial system which was fundamentally wrong, and because it had not been introduced in such a form as to ameliorate that system. That was the reason of the Opposition for opposing the Bill, because it added to the inequitableness of the system of taxation in this country.

said that when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means it had been decided that incomes under £1,000 would not be taxed. But now that the Bill was before the House they found that incomes were being built up in all possible ways so as to bring them under the tax. He had always been opposed to this tax, seeing that it was quite unnecessary, but in view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, it seemed that discussion of the subject was impossible. It appeared to him that farmers especially would be the sufferers, they would have to state how much they derived from their wool and other products, and even their houses would be taxed. Many who thought themselves exempt would find they would fall under the tax. In the circumstances he wished to say that he would oppose the second reading.

said he had refrained from speaking in Committee of Ways and Means because of the assurance of the Minister that full opportunity would be given for discussion when the Bill was introduced. He felt very strongly that to tax life insurance companies was to tax thrift. The capital of those companies consisted of money subscribed by people to provide for their families after death, and not for speculative purposes. He did not see savings banks mentioned in the Bill, but he was glad to see that building and friendly societies were exempted from the tax. He thought savings banks funds and life assurance societies, especially mutual life insurance societies, should be exempted. The Minister had said that annual premiums would not be included in the income that would be taxable, and it was that which had satisfied him and others not to move in the matter until they saw the Bill. The objection to taxing even the income from the investments of the society was this—if they took a big life society, it was likely to be taxed to the tune of the 1s. 6d. rate. That would fall on all the individual members, even those with a small policy, because even though no dividends were paid, the benefits would be proportionately reduced.

said the hon. member was now going into details.

said that the matter had not been dealt with in Committee of Ways and Means, because the Minister of Finance had told them to wait till the Bill was introduced. He hoped the Minister would consider the advisability of exempting the societies mentioned altogether, and if necessary he would move in Committee in that direction.

agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that they could not support a Bill that did not discriminate between earned and unearned increment. He noticed that a lot of unearned increment in that country was being left untaxed. They saw what occurred under the Cape Bill, and they should be careful in laying down principles to which they might have strong objection in the future.

said the House found itself in great difficulties through not being able fully to discuss the Bill with sufficient freedom. It had been decided that during a second reading they could not compare one clause with another, which made things very difficult. He strongly objected to the provisions of the measure which brought under the income tax many people whom it was never proposed to tax. Farmers especially would suffer, and would have to pay income tax on matters from which they derived no income at all. He regretted being unable to deal with the details of the Bill.

The details can be discussed in Committee.

That might be so, but when in Committee he wished to say something about clause 10. While clause 8 was under discussion he was ruled out of order. He for one would certainly vote against the measure.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis. He thought after the procedure that afternoon most of them would be in favour of that. He thought they should know what legislation was going to be brought forward before taking this important step. It seemed as though the title of the Bill would have to be amended, because it said that all incomes should be taxed, while the Bill said that only special incomes should be taxed. He went on to point out that after £24,000 was reached there was no sliding scale so far as the tax was concerned. Did the Government want to encourage people to build up unwieldy fortunes that they could not manage?

then put the question that the word “now” in the original motion, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

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

Ayes—56.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George.

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

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

Noes—46.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell. Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess. Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Yan der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

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

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

The motion for the second reading was then put and the “Ayes” declared to have it.

The Bill was read a second time and set down for Committee stage on Monday next.

asked why the Government should insist upon this land being subdivided and sold?

was understood to say that it was proposed to use the ground for the erection of a dipping tank.

The item was agreed to.

asked for further particulars with regard to this land and whether any condition would be imposed upon the grant.

said that the land was part of the catchment area of the reservoir, and he believed it was going to be used for the mountain railway scheme. It was situated just on the precipice of the mountain and was of no use to anyone.

said that the Cape Town Municipality had always been under the impression that they were the owners of this land, which was used for the purpose of keeping the water supply of the city pure. It had been thought that this part of the mountain had been granted to the municipality for this purpose.

said he understood from the Minister that this land was to be used in connection with the mountain railway scheme.

I believe it is.

said he supposed that the Minister was in possession of all the information with regard to this ground. He understood that this mountain railway was to be run by a company.

Oh, no.

suggested that the land should be put up to public auction.

said that the catchment area was granted to the Cape Town Municipal Council, and it was not discovered till afterwards that the whole of the catchment area had not been included in that grant.

said he could understand that the ground might be required in connection with the reservoir, but he did not see how it was wanted for both the reservoir and the railway. He would suggest that the Cape Town Corporation should contribute something to the funds of the Union for this ground.

said that the Cape Town Corporation seemed to get better advantages from the Government than other bodies. Here it was proposed to alienate to the Corporation a valuable piece of ground. He thought it should be put up to auction.

said he was surprised at the arguments adduced by the hon. member for Humansdorp. He thought the great argument that weighed with the Committee was that the Corporation were under an impression that this was their ground. It was found that it was not their ground. The ground was to be used for a public purpose and for the public good.

The item was agreed to.

said he would like to know why such a roundabout method of leasing this land should be adopted. He found that the ground was to be leased to Messrs. Stephan Bros for ten years, subject to the further condition that they handed the ground over to someone else. There was nothing to prevent Stephan Bros. exacting their own conditions when they re-leased the land. Why did not Government let the land direct?

said this was a case which the Select Committee took a considerable time to come to a decision. In 1908 application was made by two members of the North Bay Canning Company for the land. Objection was raised, and subsequently a factory was erected, partly on Soldaten Post and partly on Stephan’s land. Stephan Bros. claimed the right of access to the sea, and said they had a prescriptive right to the foreshore, and legal proceedings were threatened. However, the differences were settled, and the Select Committee decided that Stephan Bros. should have the land and let it to the Canning Company at the same rental.

suggested that Stephan Bros. might lay down all sorts of restrictions.

said the hon. member for Springs should give the Select Committee credit for exercising a little common sense. The rights of the Canning Company had been amply safeguarded.

said there was a tendency all over the country for people who had acquired rights to land in more or less out of the way spots to take more land than they were entitled to. Then the people to whom they sold the land wanted the title to it, and stated that they themselves did not steal it.

The item was agreed to.

said he would vote against any alienation of Crown land.

said the outspan measured 340 morgen, and the land proposed to be sold was useless for settlement purposes. Government was not going to give the land away.

I don’t want to give it away or to sell it, but for the State to keep control of it. £5 per morgen is low, as the land is near a furrow. Let the Government wait for a rise in values, as other speculators do.

asked whether there were to be any conditions necessitating long periods of occupation on the land?

replied that it was to be an out-and-out sale.

said that with the extension of railways the day for outspans had gone. Surely it was better to sell the land than to allow it to lie idle.

said they did not find in some parts of South Africa that because they had the railway there was no further necessity for an outspan.

said that the land was no longer an outspan. The Government had to sell the land or pay an annual contribution towards the expenses of the Irrigation Board, and it was not getting a penny return for it. A high water rate would have to be paid. The best thing the Government could do was to sell the ground. He thought the price that would be obtained was extremely high.

said that what he wanted to be sure of was that the State did not lose that land. Why should the Government not lease it? They had all over this country people who could not get on to the land. There were thousands of people—20,000 in the Transvaal alone—who wanted land. The more land they got rid of, the more difficult would it be to deal with the question in the future.

said the land had to be put up for auction, and it was possible the Government might get more than the actual value of it. He wanted to point out that the purchaser would have to pay one-fifth of the price, and the remaining four-fifths remained on mortgage for perpetuity.

said it seemed to him that any man who took land on a lease for 99 years would work it just as well as if the land actually belonged to him. He thought the idea of selling land on really long leases was a sound one.

said he was not in favour of long leases. It was entirely wrong to say that people would not improve the land when they took it on lease. On the Witwatersrand, for instance, there was a great deal of land which was not being mined on the north side of the Reef. On one estate, in particular, 40, 50, and 100 morgen lots were being let out on leases for two years. Those people were improving the land.

The item was agreed to.

The remaining items having been agreed to,

moved: This Committee further recommends that the attention of the Government be directed to the number of unauthorised encroachments on Crown land made by owners or lessees of trading station sites in the Native Territories with a view to steps being taken to prevent such encroachments and such owners or lessees being strictly limited to occupation of the sites originally granted.

asked whether it would not be possible for a resolution to be put before the Committee dealing with the recommendations, in order that it might be a guide to any further Committees appointed by the House.

said a lot of those recommendations condoned encroachments. If they condoned those encroachments, would it not encourage encroachments in the future?

thought that by laying down hard-and-fast lines, an injustice might be done to some of those people who, after all, were not responsible for the encroachments. They were being penalised as it was.

agreed that it was obviously hard on the present holder to make him pay a fine which extended over a period in which he was not in possession, but no fine took away from the fact that the ground had been encroached upon.

asked if the Land Department had taken steps to find out where any encroachments had been going on?

wanted to know if a thorough investigation had been made into all those encroachments, or only those which had been brought up from time to time? If an assurance could be given, he thought they might pass the report.

said that if the Committee accepted the suggestion that no further encroachments be condoned, people would be chary of encroaching in future. The addition of the words suggested would not affect those who had already encroached. It would only be a preventative against the encroachment of State-owned land in the future.

wanted to know if the Lands Department was taking any steps to ascertain what was the position with regard to a number of other cases; what steps had been taken to prevent a recurrence of encroachment in the future?

was understood to say that the matter had been properly looked after by the Native Affairs Department.

The motion was agreed to.

The resolutions were thereupon reported to the House.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands, which was at once considered.

moved the adoption of the resolutions.

objected to Item 21 in the schedule as follows: “The remaining extent of certain piece of land situate in Cape Town between Strand and Waterkant streets in block A, measuring as per remaining extent 4 square roods and 11 square feet, as held by deed of transfer No. 5,344, dated the 8th July, 1912, in favour of the Government of the Union of South Africa, £16,000, Messrs. Thos. Cook and Sons.” He objected, he said, because he wanted to draw attention to that particular piece of land sold for £16,000. It was right in the heart of Cape Town, and valuable as it was at the present time, there was every possibility that it would considerably increase in value. He objected on the principle in the first place to their parting with any State property, and in the second place, if they wished to really study the interests of the people, apart from the alienation of waste lands, they should take advantage of any increase in rental which they might be able to charge in the interests of the State. He strongly opposed the sale of any land, especially valuable land, to any private individual. He moved to add at the end “subject to the omission of recommendation No. (21), ‘Sale of properties in and near Cape Town.”

asked the Minister of Lands for some information regarding the item referred to.

was understood to say that it was money which had to be given to the Public Debt Commissioners.

The amendment was negatived.

The original motion was agreed to.

referred to the case of Mrs Lily Hansen, which had been referred to the Provincial Administration. He said that this was a very deserving case and pointed out that by the time the Provincial Council moved, the relief would not be of so much use.

said that the hon. member was wrong. The matter had been referred to the Provincial Administration, which sat at Cape Town where the petitioner resided, and not the Provincial Council as stated by the hon. member. He thought that if the hon. member saw the Provincial Secretary the matter would be expedited.

The recommendation was agreed to.

On paragraph 2,

moved that the case of F. Botha and 21 others be referred back to the Committee for consideration and report. These men were Civil Servants under the old Cape Government, principally in the Post Office. In 1908, when things were bad these men among others were retrenched. Previous to that in the case of abolition of office it had been the custom to add a certain number of years to a man’s service. In these cases the Government decided not to utilise the powers, and, therefore, those entitled to ten years only got five years, and those entitled to seven only got three. He would point out that men retrenched since that time had had the full number of years added to their service.

said he could not conceive of anything more calculated to cause dissatisfaction in the Service than that one body should receive fairer treatment at a later period than men whose offices were abolished during the depression. He supported the motion.

opposed the motion at the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. If there were any new facts to lay before the Committee he would have been in favour, but as there was nothing new the Committee should think twice of sending the recommendation back.

said he would remind the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. T. Orr) that there was a new fact. The new fact was that this House and the Committee might be in favour of reconsideration. If the House of Assembly of the Union felt and recognised that a great injustice had been done in reference to these men that was a new fact, and a new fact that should be taken into consideration. He thought this petition should be referred back to see if there were not some way by which justice, which was in accordance with custom, could not be meted out to these men.

said that this Committee was seriously asked, when a case was put before it of a possible injustice, not to consider that case, because there might be other cases of injustice. That was the logical proposition of the hon. member for Maritzburg. Did not the hon. member understand further that quite a new state of affairs had been stated to exist, viz., that there were other cases subsequent to these where men received more consideration than was given an the cases in question?

said that the motion of the hon. member for South Peninsula placed him (Mr. Currey) in a difficult position, both as a private individual and as a member of the Select Committee. Some of these men were in days gone by his brother officers. He would put it to the hon. member whether it was quite fair to the Committee, knowing what he did, to suggest that this petition should be sent back. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member knew that, at his request, the petition was put down on a particular day so that he might be present, and that the petitioners were asked whether they would like to send a deputation of two or three of their number to give evidence before the Committee. They selected two of their number, those gentlemen were given a very patient hearing indeed, and the Committee came to the conclusion that they did, after hearing that evidence.

He would put it to the hon. member whether it was of any practical value to send back this petition to the Select Committee. The position was simply this, that these gentlemen were retrenched on certain terms and conditions by the Cape Government of the day. Their case was very fully argued indeed in the Cape House of Assembly. The arrangement was come to that these particular officers who were retrenched at that time should have as a supplementary bonus added to their service one-sixth of their service, plus due allowance for any portion of a year. This was agreed to by the Cape Parliament, and he thought the matter was closed once for all by the action of the Cape Parliament, unless some new facts were brought to light. They had waited now for four years, and they had the case here again. It was another matter altogether whether the Government of the day would see their way to bring down the matter in due form for the consideration of this House, but to send the case back again to the Committee, he would not go so far as to say that it was a vote of no confidence in the Committee, but he did say that it was not a practical proposition. He hoped the Committee would not send the case back to the Select Committee. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said, and said rightly, that the law did not impose on the Government of the day the necessity of giving ten years’ service, and he knew of a case during the administration of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort where only five years’ service was given, showing that it was an optional matter to the Government of the day. In this particular case the matter was taken out of the hands of the Government of the day, so to speak, and ratified by the two Houses of Parliament.

said he did not think there was the slightest intention on the part of any member of this Committee to cast any reflection on the Select Committee. There was no means, he should think, now for a special resolution to bring this matter formally to the notice of the Government, this session. If the motion of the hon. member for South Peninsula were accepted, it would then be possible for the Committee to state that it was not a matter they could deal with, and to express their opinion that it should be referred to the Government for consideration The fixing of the periods by the Cape Parliament was entirely due to the depression that existed at the time, and had the funds of the Cape been in the condition in which they were previously, the ordinary practice on the abolition of office would have been followed.

said he agreed that, as far as the Select Committee were concerned, every consideration was given to this case. His object was to bring the question before the House. The Committee considered that, the Cape Parliament having dealt with it, the matter should be closed. These men were retrenched Civil Servants, they had a grievance, and men who had been retrenched since then, who were sitting side by side with them, were now getting better treatment than was given to these men. He thought the opposition to this motion came with very bad grace from the hon. member for Maritzburg.

The amendment was negatived.

moved that No. 19 (H. J. le Riche) and No. 20 (W. J. Smuts) be referred back to the Committee for further consideration. Le Riche was scab inspector at Herbert, and had done good work there. He had been dismissed.

moved that No. 44 (the case of H. A. van der Merwe) be also referred back.

moved that No. 31 (the case of J. H Louwrens) be referred back, and stated that the official concerned had done excellent service as sheep inspector. Mr. Louwrens had reached a high age and he claimed that provision should be made for him. For twenty-five years Mr. Louwrens had rendered his best services to the Government, and he trusted something would be done.

said Mr. Van der Merwe had been in the service of the Government for 18 years, during which he had done excellent work. There were young men who were drawing large pensions and he hoped that something would be done for these old Civil Servants.

moved that No. 32 (the case of H. Meade) be referred back. The hon. member said that Mr. Meade had been 17 years in the C.M.R. Service and had then been transferred to the Native Affairs Department, where he had been a chief constable for 18 years, or 35 years’ service in all. He had been compulsorily retired on March 31 of this year at the age of 58 years. A pension of £79 had been granted for his services as constable. His prayer was that his pension should not be reckoned on the small salary he had been receiving as constable, but that his former service might be taken into account. He would have been entitled to a higher pension of £136, because of his years of service in the C.M.R., but at the time he retired from that he was too young, according to the Act, being under 50 years of age, but he always understood his part of service would be reckoned. He had rendered long and valuable services to the country, and he (the hon. member) hoped his case would be taken into reconsideration. The hon. member moved to refer No. 36 back (the case of W. O. Diplock), which was somewhat similar, who had served in the C.M.R. for 9 years, and altogether for 23 years in military and civil services, and had received a gratuity when he left the C.M.R. in 1902. For the last 10 years he had been chief constable. Seeing that he was compulsorily retired from the chief constableship on the 31st of March of this year at the age of 43, he thought something should be given for his 10 years’ service He had given every satisfaction in both Departments, and it seemed hard that the man should have no recognition of his services for the last 10 years. He moved that No. 36 be also referred back to the Select Committee.

moved that No. 57 (the case of A. Tennant) be referred back to the Committee for further consideration.

said with reference to the matter raised by the hon. members for Prieska and Humansdorp, the utmost consideration had been given to the cases mentioned. Although these gentlemen mentioned had been excellent officials, there was no law under which they could be dealt with, and if the door was once opened for grants to these gentlemen, the Committee would at once have thousands of similar applications submitted to it. What in that case, he asked, would be the position of the finances of the country?

was understood to remark that he hoped every possible consideration would be given to the cases mentioned. In the case of Le Riche, had the evidence been taken of the Minister of Mines and of Mr. Davidson?

urged that consideration should be given to the case of Mrs. E. L. Nieuwoudt. He held that Mrs. Nieuwoudt had done her utmost to weather the storm after her husband’s death. It had been said that her husband had left about £1,160, but the ground which she had brought her in practically nothing. She had a number of doctor’s bills to pay, and her total income was derived from a few boarders. Many of the old war comrades of the deceased knew what Mr. Nieuwoudt had done for the country, and he thought it was up to this House to see to it that his dependents did not suffer want and privation. He did not ask for a pension, but for a gratuity of some kind. He therefore moved that this case be referred back to the Select Committee.

said he was sorry that members from various parts of the country should wish to refer so many petitions back again to the Committee. He did not suppose there was a more trying Committee in all that House than the one on pensions, grants, and gratuities. They had to sit and hear heartrending petitions brought before them, and although they found it very hard to resist them, still they had to consider the country. The Committee had in some cases reluctantly to deny these petitions. The door, however, was not shut against them, as they could present their petitions again next year, together with any new facts. He did hope that hon. members would not ask the Committee to it consider these petitions.

supported the motion of the hon. member for Kroonstad. He had known the late Mr. Nieuwoudt well. The property left by the deceased was not worth more than £150. In a case such as this he held everything possible should be done. Perhaps members opposite had no sympathy with cases like this, but he thought the Government should do something. This was a House comprising many old war comrades of the deceased, who was a man that had sacrificed his best for the country he loved. By doing his duty to this country the deceased had contracted an illness which had taken him to his grave.

said he could not quite understand the attitude of some hon. members. A Committee had been appointed to deal with matters of this kind, and now that the Committee reported, members asked to have the recommendations referred back. He thought the House should uphold the Committee. In regard to the proposal of the hon. member for Kroonstad, he thought everyone having any humane feeling would have the utmost sympathy with the case mentioned. But it had been clearly laid down which people could, and which people could not, get pensions. To refer this matter to the Government would only create a wrong impression, because the Government had no right to grant pensions which were not provided for by law. He could mention hundreds of cases similar to that of Mrs Nieuwoudt. What he would suggest was that old war comrades of deceased should put something together to help the widow. That was the only way.

said he could not understand the Prime Minister, who, on another occasion, had advised him to refer certain petitioners to the Government. If the Prime Minister could do nothing, then he had brought him (the speaker) under a false impression. He agreed that the old comrades of the deceased should put their hands in their pockets, but seeing the number of cases like this there were he would say it would be rather hard on people who had to earn their daily bread to have to put their hands in their pockets continually for cases which should be provided for by the State. It was quite true that the question of pensions was decided by law, but if it was impossible to go beyond the law, what was the good of the Committee.

again expressed the hope that the Government would do something in the matter.

said he hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment. The cases mentioned had been carefully gone into.

The motions were all negatived.

On petition No. 46, W. H. Stephens.

said he thought it would be hopeless to move to refer that case back to the Select Committee, but he hoped that something might be done. The petitioner asked for two things—he asked to have an inquiry made into the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Railway Department, or, failing that, to have an amount equal to what he paid into the Superannuation Fund. He had been discharged under a cloud of suspicion, and was merely told that his services were dispensed with. The departmental report tried to make out that he had been a party to certain thefts which took place in the Railway Department. He was entitled to an inquiry; he had appealed to the Grievances Commission, but they said the matter was not within their province. He (Mr. Boydell) was not defending the petitioner, whether he was in the right or wrong, but he was certainly entitled to have his case inquired into.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

again referred to the case of H. W. Stephens, who had been dismissed from the railway works at Durban. The hon. member stated that an inquiry was held regarding a person who had taken more timber from the railway works than had been paid for. Three or four months later Stephens was informed that his services were no longer required. When he asked for a reason the Department refused to give him one, and so he wrote to the General Manager, asking for an inquiry. The money he had paid into the Superannuation Fund was returned to him, but he received nothing in addition. Stephens claimed that if he were retrenched through no fault of his own he was entitled to a grant from the Superannuation Fund, and that he had either to be found guilty of the charge, when he would get his own money back, or to be found not guilty, when he would be entitled to a refund of his own money, with an additional amount from the Superannuation Fund. Stephens asked for an inquiry, and was willing to stand or fall by its finding. Mr. Boydell moved that the matter be referred back to the Select Committee in the hope that something might be done.

said it was not for the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, to recommend anything in regard to Government dispensing with the services of officials. It was quite impossible for the Committee to do more than it had done in the present case, and it could not recommend that an inquiry be held. He thought the Committee had gone rather far—and he took full responsibility for it—in some of its recommendations, in having made all sorts of recommendations in regard to the employment of Government servants. He had always understood, however, that the Committee was a sort of Court of Equity to do what it could to rectify as far as possible these grievances.

said he granted that the Committee was deviating a little from the set course laid down, but he would remind the hon. member for George of the case of the coy Parkes, of the Posts and Telegraphs Department, the Committee recommending that the case be referred back to the department with a view to the boy being reemployed. The Committee on that occasion had gone out of its way to recommend to the Government that the man be re-employed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If it was right in one case it ought to be right in another. He was not defending Stephens against the charge. What he asked was that the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee should allow the matter to be referred back to the Railway Department, with a view to the Department establishing some sort of inquiry. If the charge was not true, the man was entitled to a gratuity. He asked the Chairman of the Pensions, Grants and Gratuities Committee to reconsider his position

said he did not think the hon. member could accuse him of want of courtesy. He had nothing to add to what he had already said and would record his vote as he thought right. There was no need for them to go on discussing the question.

said he would like to point out that they had a specific case brought by petition before Parliament. In that House times out of number the Labour members had asked for some sort of court in which those cases could be tried, but they had been told it was inadvisable, and their request had been refused. Nothing could be more unjust than to send a mart away from the Department with a slur on his character and refuse him a fair and open trial. In a case of that sort he thought the functions of the Committee should be strained in order to deal with it.

moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

said he wished to protest against that motion. He thought it scandalous that that step could be taken. (Cries of “Order.”) He wanted to see justice done to every man who asked for it.

said he thought the hon. member for George had moved to report progress on a misunderstanding. He thought that Mr. Boydell was insulting him, but that was not the case. He asked the hon. member to withdraw his motion to report progress, because it would not take long to get through the rest of the report. There was a case on April 1—

That is not part of the subject-matter of the motion,

on rising to speak again, was received with cries of “Order.” He said they on the Labour benches got tired of the hon. members on the other side of the House constantly interrupting. They (the Labour members) were up against a brick wall of prejudice in that House, and he thought they ought to have more courtesy shown them.

said he could not understand the attitude of the hon. member for George. His own report was before the House, yet he wanted them to report progress. They had very nearly got to the end of the report. He appealed to the hon. member to withdraw the motion. That impatience was not good for the House, and was not likely to bring about the desired effect. They should continue until they had dealt with the whole of the report on pensions, grants, and gratuities.

said he had been going to ask the hon. member for George to withdraw the motion. The hon. members on the cross-benches were asking that the matter should be sent back. The consideration of the report would not take much longer, and he (Mr. Nathan) would help in dealing with the merits of the case.

said that the debate on the matter was practically at an end.

Will the hon. member give an assurance that the debate is at an end?

How can I give the assurance? (Ministerial cheers.) It was obvious that the debate was almost at an end.

rose to speak.

I move that the question be now put.

A lot of schoolboys. Why don’t you play marbles?

put the motion that the question be now put, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

put the motion of the hon. member for George, to report progress, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—56.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl. Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

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

Noes—28.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William-

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

J. Hewat and C. L. Botha, tellers.

The motion was accordingly agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again.

When?

Tomorrow.

moved that the report be considered that day six months, because they could easily have finished the report and there was no necessity to have reported progress or to have applied the closure. (Opposition and Labour cheers.) As far as he could see there was a genuine attempt on the part of certain hon. members to try and get what they thought was justice. He had not the slightest sympathy with hon. members on the cross-benches, but they had as much right to get justice in that House as anybody else. He objected to the way the Government was treating members of that House. Whenever it suited them they applied the closure, and he was sorry to find so many of his friends opposite willing to back the Government in its course. He protested strongly against the course that had been adopted, because they could have finished the report in a few minutes. He was sorry the hon. member for George had lent himself to these methods, because he was one of the strongest objectors to the Oriental despotism of the Government.

seconded the amendment.

said that when the House was in a state of excitement hon. members occasionally lost their opportunities, and he had risen before the question was put so that there should be no mistake. He rose principally to ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein to alter his amendment to Monday. His reason for doing so was that otherwise they would be committing an injustice to the people whose cases were to be considered. The Minister of Mines had been in Parliament a long time, and it would have been more becoming if he had kept his cheap jeers and have recognised the humiliating position in which the Government had been placed by the Prime Minister moving the closure.

The question is, when is this matter to be resumed?

said he moved that the consideration of the question be resumed on Monday as a protest against the Government’s action.

also appealed to the hon. member for Bloemfontein to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

May I withdraw my amendment?

The hon. member must not interrupt.

said he wanted to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the old adage: “More haste, less speed.” If the Prime Minister would study ordinary courtesy—

The matter before the House is the question of the date when this discussion should be resumed.

I was giving a reason why I preferred Monday.

said that if the amendment had simply aimed at postponing the resumption of the Committee stage until Monday, he would have had no objection to accept it, but seeing that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that the amendment was proposed as a protest against the Government’s action, he could not accept it.

said the Prime Minister stepped in before he need have done so. There was a good deal of truth in what the hon. member for Jeppe had said about trying to take short cuts.

supported the amendment that the matter should be held over till Monday.

withdrew his amendment.

The amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was negatived, and it was agreed to resume in Committee to-morrow.

on rising to move the second reading of the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Bill, was received with loud Ministerial cheers. He said the provisions had been before hon. members for a considerable time, and he took it that every hon. member was anxious to have a calm discussion on the principles laid down in the Bill. The Bill, he went on, had had a great deal of flattering attention in certain parts of the country, and he had watched those attentions very closely. They reminded him very much of the old adage, “If you have no case, abuse the other side.” He had seen very few arguments against the Bill, and he would try to show hon. members that so far from the principles being revolutionary they were very conservative. The first part of the Bill dealt with the question of unlawful public assemblies and gatherings and the dispersal thereof. The object of the Bill was to define clearly the powers that might be exercised at all times by the Government and its officers in the prevention of such gatherings as were likely to lead to serious disorder and to lay down certain rules for the dispersal of such assemblies. Comparing the provisions with the common law, he quoted from the report of the Disturbances Commission, where a concise summary of the common law appeared. They would admit that the two learned Judges who sat on that Commission were men who must be listened to with respect. Our common law provided that the public had no right to hold a public meeting unless it had the permission of the public authority. It made no difference if it was for a lawful purpose or not That was the common law in three Provinces. In the Transvaal it had been modified so that only if they wanted to meet in the open air they must get permission from the Government or the local authority. And if the public refused to obey they could be dispersed by force and by the use of firearms. That law of the Transvaal was not an antiquated one, but one which was based on modern law in force in several European countries.

Russia.

That was a remark which was often used in connection with outside platform speeches, but it was out of place in that House. (Ministerial cheers.) It was an argument which always appealed to the public, but as a matter of fact, in 99 cases out of 100 the speakers had very little idea what the law of Russia was. The Bill which was at present before the House proposed to modify the common law. In what way? It laid down certain provisions giving the authorities the power to prohibit a particular gathering when that gathering was likely to seriously endanger the public peace. It was difficult to enforce a provision that the consent of the authorities must first be obtained before meetings could be held in the open air or in any public place, and therefore part I. of the Bill did not contain such a provision but repealed the common law and the law of 1894 of the Transvaal, and it took power to the authorities to prohibit particular meetings which were in the opinion of the authorities likely to lead to serious disorder and serious breaches of the peace. It laid down, secondly, that power should be given to the magistrate to cause access to be barred to the place of meeting before such meeting is held. That was a very necessary provision, for the weakness of the English law was that they could not prevent access to a place where a meeting was to be held even if they felt sure that bloodshed was going to take place. They must first wait for the riot to commence. The Bill laid down certain penalties on those who convened such meetings, and defined who should be held to have convened the meeting or have taken an active part in making the arrangements. When a place had been barred and people insisted on going to it penalties would be inflicted. The curious spectator, who was generally the person who shouted the loudest afterwards should there be any bloodshed, also rendered himself liable to punishment if he insisted on going to such a place.

Is that Russia you are reading about? (Laughter.)

No, it is England.

Read the “Pretoria News.”

My case is so strong that I really don’t need arguments, but I would like to quote from the Economic Commission’s report. Continuing, the hon. Minister read paragraph 89, which stated that the State must be careful to put no pressure, direct or indirect, on non-unionists to join the Unions, and that all privileges conceded to Trade Unionists should be conceded to non-unionists… Non-unionists should be protected from violence … and any such act should be heavily penalised. (Cheers.) It was equally within every man’s right to consort, or not to consort, with whom he would.

That’s not Australia!

went on to quote from the Act in question, which showed that any person who used violence, followed other persons about, hid his tools, watched his house and the like, was liable, on summary conviction, to be punished. That was peaceful picketing, said the hon. Minister, and that Act was the last word in modern legislation in New Zealand. (Labour interruptions.)

Order! Hon. members over there will get their opportunity.

went on to say that he would quote from the South Australian Act of 1912, where they had the same thing about peaceful picketing. He quoted from the Act, to the effect that any person who attended at or near any workshop, factory or work place where a dispute was taking place, or was pending, and induced or attempted to induce any person to take part in such industrial dispute— in other words peaceful picketing—would be liable to a penalty. He was aware that in South Australia there had been a proviso in 1878 on the model of the English Act, but that proviso had been practically done away with in the Act he had been quoting. They had found in South Australia that peaceful picketing was a tragical farce—a very dangerous farce, as his hon. friend there said. In addition to these offences which were laid down for a person who intimidated, for violence, and for causing serious and physical annoyance, clause 12 dealt with the utility services, and there were certain penalties laid down for persons engaged in these utility services who left their service without notice. There were certain further provisions contained in that chapter which gave the Governor-General the right, under special circumstances, to make certain regulations with reference to the conveyance of explosives from one place to another or to particular areas. It was very difficult to lay down a rule for all time. In a place like Johannesburg a large amount of explosives were being used and carried about in the ordinary course of business, and it was difficult to prohibit that, but in times of industrial unrest special powers should be given in regard to carrying certain dangerous explosives, such as dynamite.

There was another clause to deal with disturbances at public meetings. That, too, was found in the law of various British colonies, but he had limited that clause very much, and had limited it to enclosed premises only. He took the view that if a person convened a meeting in an open-place, after all it was difficult to control persons in an open place, and that person should run the risk of that. In an enclosed place, if they had people breaking up the meeting, that should be made an offence. (Cheers.) There were also certain provisions about attempts to incitement. He thought that under their common law an attempt to commit a crime or an incitement or a conspiracy to commit a crime was punishable, and in most cases was as serious a crime as the crime itself. (Hear, hear.) But there was some doubt as to whether inducement and incitement to commit a statutory crime was a crime. In the Transvaal that doubt had been removed by statutory provisions. The law should be made uniform throughout the Union, and attempts and incitements to commit statutory offences should be made punishable. (Hear, hear.) In chapter III., provision was made for a special court. During certain discussions which had taken place in the House some months ago there was seen to be a strong feeling on both sides of the House that for certain offences there should he a special court. That court could only be created on the request of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. Why that had been done was because the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, under their Constitution, stood in a semi-judicial position. They were responsible to Parliament, and not to the Government. No member of the Government had any right to order the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to institute a prosecution, or to desist from a prosecution which had been instituted. That power was placed in the hand of an independent person, who could in case of offences created under that Act and sedition or high treason—generally connected with times of uproar and unrest—ask for a special court to be constituted, and the Governor-General might institute such a court, which would consist of not less than two judges. Provision was made to extend the powers of the Government to deport offenders under certain circumstances. As hon. members knew, the Immigration Regulations Act laid down that persons convicted of certain offences, theft, rape, and various others, as well as contraventions of the liquor laws, the diamond law, the immorality law, and so forth, could be deported under certain circumstances. Section 20 of the Bill proposed to extend that list of crimes by adding the crimes of high treason, sedition, and public violence. (Labour dissent.) The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) shook his head. These offences, however, were in their essence more dangerous to public safety than a contravention of the liquor laws—(cheers)—or an offence against the insolvency law—to make an appeal to his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central. (Laughter.) The reason why these offences had previously been left out had puzzled him, the reason was, he thought, that it had probably been considered that they were obsolete crimes in South Africa—but they were by no means as obsolete as one would wish in South Africa, and under those circumstances it could not be said that these crimes were one whit less serious or less deadly than the crimes already enumerated, and therefore it had been decided to add them to the others on the list.

In conclusion, the hon. Minister said that he thought he had quite convinced the House that in that Bill there was no radical departure from any principles known in their laws, British law, and the law known in the British Colonies; and in certain parts it was codifying the common law. Where it laid down new provisions on the question of interfering with workmen, it rested on principles which formed the very basis and the very foundation of their Roman-Dutch Law, as they did of every civilised law. (Cheers.) He moved the second reading of the Bill. (Cheers.)

repeated his remarks in Dutch.

said that last night the Minister of Justice moved the second reading of a Bill which had appealed to all the members of the House. The keynote of the Minister’s speech on that occasion was that he wanted to provide a measure which would prevent so many poor people being put in prison. That night he had introduced a Bill which would result in a large number of deserving people spending time in gaol. He would move an amendment to the Bill, that it “be read again this day six months.” (Ministerial laughter.) He was sorry to see that so many people in that House regarded that matter with an air of amusement. Was it a small matter—a matter to be dealt with in a jesting spirit? Their (the Labour members’) protest was against the policy of which the Bill was the outcome, as much as it was a protest against the Bill itself. The policy of the Government would lead to unhappiness and bitterness in this country. He wished he had the necessary eloquence to place before the House how bitterly they felt a measure of that sort. He did not believe the Government desired that state of things to come about which would be brought about by that Bill. They said that the Government required no further powers for keeping order. They said that when they had a Government whose only idea was to increase repressive and coercive legislation that that Government was a bad Government. That was their charge against the Government. Instead of all that repressive legislation let them, if they disliked rioting as they on the Labour benches did, let them then investigate the causes. For everything there was a cause. When they saw men going about their work peaceably for years and then in a state of anger overstepping the mark, let them inquire into the causes that made men take those steps. Let the Government turn their back on their past course of conduct and seriously investigate those things which were causing that violence among a large section of the population, and set themselves unselfishly to investigate what were the causes which brought about grinding poverty and injustice, which caused men to break out in ways which would lead at times to public violence. He might not be as conversant with Continental history as the Minister of Justice, but his memory carried him back to many episodes in English History. Take the Chartists—the main demands of the Chartists were on the Statute Book of England to-day. (Hear, hear.)

Continuing, he said that the measure was not worthy of the Minister, and he thought it was just as distasteful to the Minister of Agriculture and other Ministers as it was to them if they only knew it. There were none so blind as those who would not see. The Ministers and their supporters were blinded by this, that they saw it was inevitable in the future that there was to be some diminution of the privileges of the positions which they had enjoyed in the past. He referred to the privileges founded on the labour of other people. What need had there been for this Bill? In veiled terms the Minister of Justice had referred to the events of last year. The fact was that it was the introduction of violence on the part of the Government that had led to all the trouble. (Laughter.) That was an historic fact. The Minister said that the weakness of the English law was that one could not prevent people assembling, but that one had to wait until they had assembled. He did not think that was weakness at all. He asked whether the plan of trusting the people which had been the case in England had not answered very well. The better way for the Minister to go about the business was to turn their backs on their past policy. Let them, if they desired the law to be observed, set an example to the people by not breaking the law themselves. It seemed to furnish some amusement to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Lands, but they sat behind the Prime Minister, who informed the House the other day that he had broken the law on behalf of certain friends of his. His story of prohibited immigrants was too thin. If there was anything that convicted the Prime Minister of a want of candour it was the circumstances under which he made that statement to the House. The Prime Minister did not obey the law. If it suited the Government to break and strain the law, they did it knowing that they would be indemnified for anything they did by the commando behind them. Did they expect that they would be allowed to break the law when it suited them and then come down on the man who broke the law when it suited him?

What respect could the people have for the law when people in high places treated the law as something to be set aside. He suggested that the Government should take no rest until it had tackled those problems of poverty which were in the long run responsible for such scenes as had occurred. But the Government had elected to take the wrong way, and he would endeavour to show that it was dangerous and bad for the House to proceed with this legislation. They could not say that the Bill had not been long before the public, but how many public meetings had expressed their entire disagreement with the Bill? The Minister pooh-poohed these public meetings.

Who were the leaders of those meetings?

said that apparently weight was to be given to the opinion of all people except those who assembled under the auspices of the South African Labour Party, whose opinions were to be set aside. This Bill was not inspired by the needs of the Cape Province, the Orange Free State, or Natal; it was entirely inspired by what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance thought was required in the Transvaal. By an overwhelming majority in the Prime Minister’s own Province the Government was in a minority in that Province, and now, because of that, the Government desired to have more power. The Government told them on those benches to be constitutional. They on those benches agreed, but when a constitutional verdict did not suit the Prime Minister then he said it must be disregarded. His primary objection to Chapter I. was that it placed the right of free speech at the discretion of a magistrate. He (Mr. Creswell) preferred the principle of the English law, which the Minister treated with contempt, that they should wait until something occurred to taking the risk of a magistrate’s decision inspired by his Minister, putting a stop to a meeting at the last minute. The fact that there was first a notice to be inserted in the newspapers showed that the thing would be done with deliberation. If there was no time for that, then leaflets could be circulated, trusting that they would fall into the right hands. If there was not time for that, then they could go to the meeting place, and tell people that they must disperse, and if they did not go then they could bring out the dragoons. They believed that the Prime Minister had a patriotic desire to see things go smoothly, but this sort of thing would result in the reverse taking place. Dealing with the penalty laid down, he suggested whether it would not be advisable to hang a man at once. He could conceive of a position where a man would consider it his duty to attend a meeting to show how bad the Government was. He was of opinion that it was a dangerous thing to stop people talking. Dealing with subsection (3), he said that the method adopted of closing a meeting place was merely inviting trouble, and touching sub-section (4) he thought that something more than a mere oral proclamation was desirable. It was a small point compared with the other points he had mentioned, but before bringing their weapons into play there should be the fullest possible warning, instead of that for making provision for prohibiting meeting before there was any trouble, merely because in their judgment people might incite public violence there. Then they came to Chapter II., which, as the Minister said, was the most important in the Bill. According to section 8, if he (the speaker) were to sell the clothes of the hon. member for Commissioner-street in order to try and persuade him to join a Trade Union, he would be liable to a fine of £200, or an alternative of two years’ imprisonment. Why not penal servitude? A man who joined the Trade Union was doing a service to the State, and with regard to one who encouraged him to do so, it should be considered a mitigating circumstance. The question of peaceful picketing was the next. That was one of the tragedies of the situation. Ministers who spoke on that subject had to refer to various authorities to find some sentiment to suit their books. Why did they not get the “Clarion”? Certain hon. members, including the hon. member for Victoria West, who was busy writing, pretended to be very anxious for the interest of the free labourer

Might I not write? I am a free labourer. (Laughter.)

said he was calling the attention of the House to the right hon. gentleman’s untiring industry. No doubt, as a result, they would have a spirited defence of the free labourer. Those hon. members to whom he had referred did not care a brass farthing about the free labourers. They talked of the right to work when a man was out or inside the Trade Union, but to talk about the right to work when a man was starving was, in their opinion, wasting the time of the House. All their asseverations about their consideration for the free labourer were mere cant. Their value for the free labourer as against the Trade Unionist was that he was an ally on their side. He was a tool in their hands, to enable them to lead his fellow-workers. If they wanted to stop strikes, let them recognise there were two bodies to that strike, and it was the engagement of blacklegs which invariably gave rise to violence. In reference to section 10, the hon. Minister had carefully avoided pointing out the little clause which showed it was not the free labourer they cared about. The capitalist employer must be fully protected by the law, and if it was not sufficiently protected, the bonds must be made tighter. In that clause the cords were drawn tighter. Mr. Creswell said he had specifically mentioned the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West, because he did not hide his contempt for the new ideas put forward by the hon. members on the cross-benches, and he had therefore cited him as representing the real, honest, candid type. Then there was a clause which rendered one liable to a fine of £200, or two years’ imprisonment, if one was found without lawful right endeavouring to induce an employee to give notice to terminate his employment. Did not that stamp that legislation? They wanted to see every worker in this country reduced to the status of an indentured labourer. They wanted to see him as ignorant as the native, so that they could bluff him, as the natives were bluffed. In reference to section 11: “Any person who being without lawful right upon premises where work is being carried on, endeavours to induce any person employed there to cease work or leave any portion unfinished, to refrain from working after, or to give notice to terminate his contract, shall be guilty of an offence.” In reading that in conjunction with the Railway Administration, he (the speaker) could not but accuse the Minister of Railways and the Administration with most revolting hypocrisy. On the 25th April the Engineer-in-Chief of the Railway Department circularised every employing officer of the names of 299 men who were not to be given employment at all.

That refers to the same department.

said it was worse in the Minister’s case. The Minister had decided to dismiss men. He had a right to do that.

Proceeding the hon. member said that if it was not blacklisting, he wondered what blacklisting was. While the Minister of Railways and Harbours was guilty of conduct of that kind, the Minister of Justice had the effrontery to introduce a Bill, one of whose clauses dealt with blacklisting! Words failed him to try to describe something like that. It was not legislation to secure public peace, but to try to curb the growth of the Labour movement on its industrial side, and as sure as they sat there that legislation would fail in its object. As to section 15, if the previous clauses were sublime, and he did not say that they were, that clause was ridiculous. Clause 15 provided that the people of South Africa were so like little children that they must be protected from anything that was unseemly in public meetings! That clause, no doubt, would have the hearty support of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt). Do let them pause before they went on with such humiliating legislation. He did not think that the protagonist of Toryism in that House would support that section. In the course of his long public career he had tried to get his own way, or to take his beating like a man. Now, when they were howled down, they came whining to the House and asked that these naughty, wicked people should be fined £25. or be imprisoned for two months. As to what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said, as to the way he and members of his party had been treated at public meetings, surely he could have expected nothing else The leader of the party elected by a deluded electorate, under an appeal to vote British, for the party which was for ever wagging the flag, when that leader turned his back on the principles under which that country had been for hundreds of years—the only chance the people had of showing what they thought of it was at public meetings.

Who worked it up?

We did not I can assure the hon. gentleman that. I have stood up on a platform and have been howled at by organised bands of the Progressive Party, which is now incorporated —or amalgamated, I think, is the proper term with the Unionist Party. We don’t come whining and say fine these naughty wicked men £25 or two months’ imprisonment. The whole of this Bill is directed against the Labour Party. Clause 15 attacks the supporters of hon. members on both sides of the House. If this Bill had been in force some Nationalists in Heidelberg would now have been £25 short, or would have had to serve two months imprisonment, perhaps. (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that in regard to Chapter 3, he protested entirely against the abolition of trial by jury. He knew of the specious arguments which had been used. The Attorney-General had said that in a particular district they would not get a conviction if trial was by jury, but trial by jury was a very good safeguard indeed with regard to the illegitimate use of power. How often had not trial by jury meant the safety of the State? The hon. member alluded to the trial of the seven bishops in that respect, and went on to say that trial by jury might occasionally have let off a guilty man, but it had stood the test of a good many generations, and would stand the test of a good many more.

They now came to section 19—more deportations! (Laughter.) The hon. member humorously referred to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk), and said he might be deported next. He would not give many minutes’ purchase for the hon. member for Uitenhage if that section came into force. (Laughter.) Seriously, one was surprised at the Government bringing in that clause there. If the Government should hear the last of one thing it was that word “deportation.” As to that deportation, he could not condemn it in terms strong enough. It was a sign of wretched weakness on the Government’s part, as if they could not deal with their own internal troubles in their own country and if they could not deal with the most troublesome citizen within their borders. It was a sign of weakness if they had to send men somewhere else, for the paltry crime of sedition.

Paltry?

Does the hon. member know that last year a man was indicted for sedition because he called the Government a donkey? (Laughter.)

The Attorney-General refused to prosecute.

Did not the Attorney-General know about it? The Attorney-General did not go on with the prosecution, but went away for a holiday a little afterwards. To say the Attorney-General Is not a political officer and to say that he has no political feelings is—well, a little difficult to follow. Do they turn their backs upon all their opinions which they expressed in the past? In the past they were loyal henchmen of the party in power. What I call the Bill is “a public discontent and incitement to secret conspiracy Bill.”

The effect of the Bill would be to turn good, healthy discontent to underground channels. He appealed to the Government to return to the ways of constitutional government. Let them turn their backs on their present idea that by force and repression they could cure evil. They could cure nothing by repression. They had been promised remedial legislation and they had had nothing. The Government was opposed to the real spirit of the Constitution and would stick to their offices till the last moment. If they had the spirit of constitutional Government they would have sent them to the country to ascertain the spirit of the country. It was a moribund Parliament. At the outside they could not last more than another session. Africa had got on very well without that legislation in the past. In the one Province, where that legislation was supposed to apply, the people had spoken with no uncertain voice. (Hear, hear.) Let them defer legislating on that matter until they had appealed to the country. He agreed that the Government had had encouragement in bringing in that Bill—the Opposition had practically asked for it. They might be sorry for it now, and if they were they had themselves to thank. That legislation would not promote the peace of this country, and if the desire was to prevent the growth of the Labour movement, he might tell them that they could not go a worse way about the thing. The more they proposed oppressive and coercive measures the more they were providing the Labour members with recruits by the thousand. He moved that the Bill be read this day six months.

seconded. He said the attention of the country was focussed on the Bill. Throughout the length and breadth of the land the people were looking to see what sort of legislation was to be introduced and whether that legislation was to be of a vindictive character. The country was in a state of great unrest. If the Government carried the measure, what would be the reply of the country? It would say that it was a policy of vindictiveness for what had taken place during the past 12 months. If the legislation were passed there would be dark days in South Africa. He reminded them of what was being done in Ulster, and advised the Government to take that as a parallel. The more the Government tried to crush Labour the more the Trade Union and Labour movements would progress.

This movement which the Bill was trying to crush was going ahead by leaps and bounds, and he said that Ministers were not statesmen or they would not introduce legislation that would help the growth of that movement. It had been said that in this Bill was embodied the principle of the right to work. There was no such principle in the world as the right to work; as far as he could see there was only the right to starve. He considered that this Bill placed too much power in the hands of the magistrates of the country. He did not wish to cast aspersions on these gentlemen, but he knew the environment in which these men had been brought up. They did not know industrial conditions, and if this power was given them, they were going to use it against the Trade Unionists of this country. Dealing with the printing of notices of meetings, he asked what this was going to mean to Trade Unions; no printer would dare to print a leaflet for their party. With regard to the provision dealing with leaving work without notice, the speaker asked whether the Minister knew the conditions of employment in this country. If he knew the conditions in the workshops of this country he would know that the thing could not hold water. With regard to peaceful picketing, he was not going to say anything against the gentleman whom the Minister had quoted, but he would point out that if one wanted to support an argument one could get hundreds of authorities. The enforcement of this provision would mean that Trade Unionists would carry on in a way that was not in the best interests of society, and would drive them into subterranean channels. Touching the reference to New Zealand, he pointed out that that country had never been controlled by a Labour Ministry, and added that the rise of democracy would mean that in a few years the laws of countries mentioned by the Minister would undergo revision. The Government he saw was still persisting in this policy of deportation, though they said that nobody of South African birth could be deported. To discriminate, as suggested, would only lead to a revival of that spirit of racialism which they hoped had died down. The hon. member went on to refer to the deportees in England

said the hon. member must not discuss the Indemnity Bill.

explained that he was surprised that the Minister should have introduced such principles. He would support the amendment.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that it be adjourned till to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to.