from M. E. C. Schoones, teacher, for condonation of breaks in her service.

from T. E. O’Hare, retired from Cape Postal Service, owing to ill-health, for relief.

from the widow of J. McEvoy, who served in the Cape Police Force, for a gratuity.

from inhabitants of Alberton, for legislation prohibiting Asiatics from trading within a said distance from any township where Asiatics or coloured trading is prohibited.

from residents of Uitenhage, for removal of the “colour bar” from the Transvaal Mines, Works, and Machinery Regulations.

from W. Ryneveld, railway labourer, retired in 1915, for a gratuity.

from J. W. Howcroft, postal clerk, for a gratuity in respect of his service in the late Orange Free State Republic, or that the said service be added to his present term of employment.

from the widow of H. F Kielblock, who was employed as telegraph linesman, for increase of pension.

from D. Murray, Salt River Railway Workshops, for condonation of a break in his service.

rose amidst Ministerial cheers and counter-cheers from the Labour benches, and read the following announcement, first in Dutch, and then in English: I desire to make a statement to the House with reference to the position created by the vote in Committee of the Whole House on the Income Tax Bill last night. This vote involved the defeat of the Government on a question which, although it was one of detail in the Bill, was regarded by us as of considerable importance. In view of both Union and pre-Union legislation on the subject, and of general policy as affecting the financial credit of the country, the Government regarded the exemptions to the income tax under discussion as being both fair and justifiable. The Committee, however, in spite of the clear statement of their views by the Government, after a full discussion, decided otherwise. It must be a matter of grave concern to the Government that they are inadequately supported in the carrying out of important details, especially of their financial measures, and the Government feel that unless they receive a fuller measure of support, they will not be justified in continuing to be responsible for the conduct of public business. It was in view of these considerations that last night the Government moved the adjournment of the House in order fully to consider their position. In coming to a decision we have been influenced by the consideration that the session had almost run its full course, and that a large number of legislative measures have been far advanced towards completion, and that it would be detrimental to the interests of the country if through our action the result of so much useful labour should be abandoned. Under these circumstances we have decided that it is our duty to the country to continue with our legislative proposals.

After that statement it becomes evident to the House that it is no longer possible for a considerable period of time to carry on the Government, in the existing Parliament, with profit to the country or with dignity to the House. Under such circumstances, I think the proper course for the Government to pursue would be to pass as quickly as possible the very necessary measures which have already appeared be the Order Paper, and having done so take as quickly as possible the verdict of the country upon the position at which we have arrived.

Mr. Speaker—

No, no; it is all out of order–

But, Mr. Speaker—

The hon. member may resume his seat.

But I wish to move something.

What?

I wish to move that the House do now adjourn.

The hon. member makes a motion?

I do so, because the Prime Minister, only a week or two ago—

What is the point the hon. member wishes to raise?

I will explain.

No, no; what is the point?

I move that the House do now adjourn.

On what point?

May I not have an opportunity to speak on the question, subject, of course, to the rules of order and—

Does the hon. member wish to move the adjournment of the House?

Certainly.

To consider what?

I move that the House do now adjourn—

The hon. member is in order. (Laughter and cheers.)

said he wished to call attention to several points. It was only right that the House should have some sense of the labours it had had to perform. Only a week ago they had decided on the Prime Minister’s motion to sit five nights a week. Last night, for no adequate reason that he (Mr. Creswell) knew of, that House was adjourned. He would like to point out that they on the cross-benches regretted and deplored the decision of the Prime Minister to carry on the business of the country. They believed, and had been urging in season and out of season for the last two sessions, that it was to the interest of the country that the people of the country should have an opportunity of electing new representatives. (Labour cheers.) He could understand fully the decision the Cabinet had come to. They did not care to go to the country on the statement that they desired to tax mutual insurance companies and let off another large company. Whatever might be the plan for the continuation of the session, he heartily agreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that the business of the session should be brought to an end as soon as possible. Some of the legislation the hon. member had had in mind was absolutely necessary legislation, but he thought other measures should be withdrawn. He thought the House should have time to consider the statement of the Prime Minister and what other plans should be made for the continuation of the session. One of the measures that should be given effect to was the report on the miners’ phthisis. He moved the adjournment of the House.

seconded.

The motion for the adjournment was negatived.

said he would like some information with regard to clause 1, which dealt with the solemnisation of marriages. Was it the intention that after an Indian was married under that law he could go to the ordinary Courts of the country for a divorce?

said one of the incidents of the marriage was that divorce could only take place according to Roman-Dutch law.

said he was informed that in the event of a man taking a second wife he would not be committing adultery. Under Roman-Dutch law divorce could be taken on two grounds—of adultery or malicious desertion. Therefore on the ground of adultery the Indian could not obtain a divorce.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 was verbally amended.

On clause 6, Powers to grant free passages to India at request of Indians,

said that under that clause an indentured Indian could re-indenture for two terms of two years each. If the clause was passed it would induce Indians to break their contract and not re-indenture, in the hope of getting a free passage from the Government. He moved to add at the end: “Provided that this section shall not apply to any Indian who, after the passing of this Act, forfeits his rights under Law No. 23 of 1391 (Natal).

said he thought the object of the amendment was to make it as difficult as possible for Indians to return to India of their own free will. They had heard of the disabilities Natal was suffering under owing to its large Indian population. He hoped the House would not take up the view adopted by the mover of the amendment.

He did hope that the hon. gentleman would really feel himself shamed into withdrawing an amendment of this sort, which was not in the interests of the country, not in the interests of Natal, and not in the interests of the Indian population.

said that this amendment was in the interests of the few and directly against the indentured Indian. He thought the people of the country would gratefully endorse the principle that the State should pay the passages of Indians who wished to go back He hoped the amendment would not be accepted. What he wanted to know from the Minister was as to how much he proposed to place on the Estimates as a fund to draw from for the repatriation of these Indians. This was an important point, because the Minister the other evening expressed the desire of the Government to give the fullest expression to this clause.

hoped that the amendment would not be accepted, and trusted that facilities would be put in the way of Indians so as to induce them to return to India. He moved to insert in section 6, line 49, after the word “purpose” the following words, “the sum, of three pounds to be paid in India, and.”

said he could not accept the amendment, as it meant an increase of expenditure.

said that he opposed the clause, but not on the ground put forward by the hon. members for Jeppe and Fort Beaufort, who had forgotten that this clause ought to be read in conjunction with the right given to any Indian, who had not a wife, to import one from India. It was decidedly wrong to adopt any inducements which would give an Indian the right to go to India and bring back a wife, and then also say that he would have a passage paid for himself, his wife, and their children when they went back to India. There was not much religion about these marriages; it was mostly a question of £ s. d. He would tell the House that in Natal the upset price of a wife was £10. The Indian ceremony of marriage in Natal, so far as he knew, was largely of the jumping over the broomstick order. So long as a marriage was not registered they gave the inducement to the Indians to get another wife. He moved the deletion of clause 6.

was understood to say that the law at present entitled an Indian after his term of indenture of five years to get a free passage back to India.

said that with regard to the question which had been addressed to him by the hon. member for Jeppe, he would say that inquiry was being made at the present time as to the likely amount that would be required for the repatriation of Indians.

said he hoped the hon. member for Umlazi was proud of his position as a citizen in the British Empire. If he was he should study their duties towards the 300,000 of these people who were also British subjects. He should not stand up and insult the religious ceremonies of these people. He was sure that the ceremony was as sacred to those people as any the hon. member had ever attended. Some Europeans thought it was all right to make money out of the Indians, but they did not want to respect them as human beings.

rose and said that the class that he was referring to was the indentured Indian class in Natal.

Are they not human beings?

said he would repeat what he said about these marriages in Natal, as far as he had known them.

wanted to know what action the Minister was going to take to see these contract obligations on the part of the employers towards indentured Indians, so far as their passages were concerned, were not turned over upon the taxpayers of the Union. It had been asserted by people, who he imagined ought to know the position, that the indentured Indian was not exactly encouraged to immediately return, and he was told that a certain amount of obstruction was placed in the way of the Indians.

said that a great deal would depend upon the quarters where the Minister made his inquiries as to the amount of money that would be necessary to carry out the scheme of repatriation. He believed that the employers paid in a good deal of money for the return of passages of indentured Indians, who had been induced to stay in Natal. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that the amendment of the hon. member for Umvoti was not in the interests of the country, of Natal or the Indian population, but he would remind the hon. member that the amendment was in the interests of the wattle growers and the sugar planters, and that that was the attitude the people of Natal had to face during the last twenty years. The hon. members for Umvoti and Zululand were typical of the people they had had to put up with. The Indians in Natal were not satisfied with the way in which they were treated by their employers, and it would need very little inducement for them to go hack, and he thought they should adopt every possible means of encouraging these Indians who wanted to return, to go back to India. He hoped that the Minister would not be carried away by his camp followers on his left. He pointed out that the Indian Immigration Board had a considerable amount that could be used for repatriation purposes.

excepted to the statement that the employers might try to shelve their responsibility in connection with the return of indentured Indians on to the shoulders of the taxpayers. He would point out that they had already subscribed the necessary money for the return of these Indians.

hoped that the Minister would take advantage of the funds which had been mentioned by various speakers

was understood to say that in clause 5, which they had already passed, they gave an extension of 12 months to the coolie in which he could be returned by the Indian Trust Board. He took exception to the attack made on certain members by the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, and said he had closely followed the debate, and he must admit frankly that the attitude of the Natal members had been most reasonable. He thought there was sufficient safeguard in clause 6, and he appealed to the hon. member for Umvoti to withdraw his amendment.

said that, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw his amendment.

This was agreed to.

said he did not quite understand the lecture which the Minister delivered at the hon. member for Durban, Greyville. From their point of view the wattle-growers and sugar-planters, and those who had been responsible for bringing in these Indians, deserved a great deal of hard talking to.

The people responsible for bringing them in are dead.

asked what about those who were brought in two or three years ago? It was the Indian Government who put a stop to this immigration.

said it was not fair to attack the hon. members for Umvoti and Zululand, and pointed out that Indians were employed in almost every walk of life in Natal.

said that the reason why he referred to the hon. members for Umvoti and Zululand was that at the time they held the balance of political power. He recognised the statement that had just been made, that Indians were employed all over the colony, but the hon. members he had referred to were members of the Government of the day. He did not think that the Minister really took exception to what he said, but had given him the lecture in order to make a show and thus get the amendment withdrawn.

The clause was agreed to.

moved a new clause 7, viz.: “If in the administration of any law any question arises as to whether an Indian who produces a certificate of former residence or domicile in Natal is identical with the Indian who was lawfully entitled to obtain that certificate, then if the thumb impressions placed on that certificate, when it was issued by the immigration officer, are identical with the thumb impressions of the Indian who produces it, the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of such Indian’s former residence or domicile in Natal.”

Agreed to.

On clause 8, Repeal of provisions of laws relating to yearly passes or licences of ex-indentured Indians,

said that the immigrant Indians were thoroughly aware of the terms of the contract, and he understood that they took no exception to them whatever. The indentured Indians themselves, if they had been left alone, would not have gone out on strike. They were used by agitators from India in order to exert pressure on the British Government so as to secure their own ends. He did not think the Indian strike should have the weight attached to it that Government was placing on it. The great danger in Natal, at present, was that the Indians were becoming too numerous and were increasing so rapidly that they were becoming a danger to the European community. (Hear, hear.) That was not only a danger to Natal, but to other parts of South Africa, and so long as Indians were confined to Natal, the friction would increase. We had had trouble over this matter and we should have it again. It was to the advantage of the Indians and the Europeans that this state of affairs should be brought to a stop as soon as possible. If anything were done to make the lot of the Indians more pleasant there would be very little inducement to them to leave Natal. He objected to the tax being taken off, as it would encourage the Indians to remain. (Hear, hear.) The Indians voluntarily incurred the tax, and it was agreed to by both the British and Indian Governments, and he failed to see why it should be removed. If the Union Government, however, was going to force the Indians to remain in Natal it should give to the Natal people an opportunity of dealing with the trouble. The Bill repealed a part of Act 39 of 1905, one of the clauses of which stated that no hawkers’ licences in Natal should be granted to Indians and that Indians should not be allowed licences to trade in Zululand. If this Act were repealed there would be no means of preventing Indians becoming hawkers in Natal or traders in Zululand, and there would be the same trouble in Zululand as in Natal, where Indian traders had ousted the Europeans and captured the native trade. In conclusion, Mr. Henderson said he must express his strong objection to the clause.

said he desired to support the hon. member for Berea more especially in regard to the opening up of Zululand to Asiatic traders. Hitherto this was a matter which Natal had always been able to keep control of. Stores in up-country towns and villages in Natal were now in the hands of Asiatics and Indians.

said he must also raise his voice against the clause. When Zululand was under the Imperial Government a proclamation was issued preventing the Indians from entering the country. It would be unfair to allow Indians to do so now, and at the same time to keep them out of other parts of the Union. He had telegrams from Natal stating that Indians were refusing to reindenture.

said there seemed to be some misapprehension with regard to the Act of 1905. Surely the House had threshed out the position in regard to the £3 licence. (Cheers.) He thought the Natal members had taken their beating on that point honourably and well. It was urged that the repeal of Act 39 of 1905 would open Zululand to Indian traders, but Zululand to-day was open to the Indian.

Nonsense.

said the only condition was that the Indian should take out a three months’ pass. There had been no bar against those traders going to Zululand as long as they got a pass from the Licensing Officer. The door was open now. It simply meant that they were taking out those annual passes. They had abolished a licence under the tariff law.

said that under that law they would be allowing the Indians further freedom in Natal. Why not therefore give them freedom over the whole of the Union? That would only be fair.

said he had made a number of inquiries from people qualified to give opinions on the matter, and he maintained that there was the danger from the effect the Indians would have on the natives. The poll tax had had a great deal to do with the Natal native rebellion. Now that tax had been withdrawn, and it would open the door to the Indians to advocate something of the same kind. His information went to show that there was a danger, and that was a great danger. It was a danger which the Government was facing very carelessly.

said they had had a long discussion on this subject, and the verdict of the House on a previous occasion had been emphatic. Wrong as he thought that verdict was he did not intend to go in for anything like obstruction now. They said that the clause was inserted for the purpose of getting the Indians out of Natal as far as they could. He hoped the Minister would look very closely into the question of Zululand. During the government of Zululand by the Imperial Government the Indian was excluded. Hitherto Zululand had been strongly safeguarded against any incursion by Indians, and he hoped it would be in future.

said that on the second reading of the Bill they had had a long discussion on the £3 tax and other provisions of the Bill. They were not prepared to support a system such as that of the £3 tax in order to keep indentured labour in the country. He wanted to point out the futility of any such device as that as a safeguard against an evil which had been set up. The £3 tax was a measure which it was practically impossible to carry out. The Indians in Natal had taught a lesson to many men in this country of the tremendous power that could be exercised by passive resistance and cooperation, and they would find the same thing in every case where they were up against the people whom they depended on for their labour. The Labour members were not going to support the proposal to delete the clause. The main effect of the clause would be that the wages for labour would be increased in Natal.

supported the clause as the most humane and sensible in the Bill. They had been told again and again that the traders invariably followed the indentured Indian. If they did not want traders in Zululand let them cease to have the indentured Indian there. Very few ex-indentured Indians became traders or general dealers. He could understand certain hon. members wanting the indenture system to continue —if he wanted to employ indentured labour at 10s. a month he might support them. The hon. member for Berea had suggested that the agitation which led to the strike was engineered from India. But in 1904-5-6, there was a very strong protest against these taxes in many parts of Natal, and particularly in Durban. Personally, he thought the clause was a most sensible and humane provision. The whole position was wicked, base and unjust, and as the planters asked for free labour let Parliament give it them.

said he had listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member for Roodopoort, but he found in a report of a Natal Commission which sat in 1909 the following statement: “Opening for whites. With reference to the objections that the employment of indentured labour will interfere with white labour, the employment of indentured labour has provided opportunities for whites which otherwise would not have existed. The Commission could not recommend that the importation of indentured Indian labour be discontinued.” Among the signatories to that report was the name of C. H. Haggar. (Loud laughter).

Read further on.

I do not know who this C. H. Haggar is. (Laughter.) He certainly cannot be a follower of the hon. member for Jeppe, and he cannot be the hon. member who addressed the House just now. (Laughter.) Under these circumstances I hope we shall take arguments of this sort for what they are worth. I hope the Minister will retain the clause in the Bill, because it is a fair settlement, and will remove the grievances which Indians consider exist, and one of the main principles of the Bill, which it is hoped will bring about a satisfactory settlement. I hope after this the House will hear no more speeches from the hon. member for Roodepoort. (Hear, hear.)

said they did not want Indians in Natal at all. The industries in Natal could get on very well without Indians. He was getting rather tired of the hon. member for Jeppe and his constant attacks on representatives from Natal, and his sneers at them, and his statements that their desire to do away with the £3 tax was that they wished the Indians to re-indenture. That was not so. If the hon. member for Jeppe were logical he would advocate, instead of the remission of the £3 tax, that it should be placed on Indians who re-indentured in Natal. The hon. member for Jeppe had stated that he would take care of the artisan class, but he (Mr. Fawcus) did not know in what way. If they were content to trust themselves to the hon. member’s tender mercies they might find themselves badly misled. How did the hon. member propose to protect farmers against Indian competition? The hon. member wanted a minimum wage for workers, but you could not arrange a minimum price for mealies—(laughter)—and the farmer was subject to competition from Indians. His (Mr. Fawcus’) impression was that there were no Indian hawkers or coolies in Zululand, because they could not obtain licences, and that position the Natal members wished to make secure. He wished to protect the natives from the unfair way in which the Indian traders carried on their business, and it was for that reason that he was opposed to Indians entering Zululand. He found in the report which had been quoted by the Leader of the Opposition the following further statement: “Absolutely conclusive evidence has been put before the Commission that several industries owe their existence to indentured Indian labour, and that if the importation of such labour were to be abolished the industries would decline and in some cases be abandoned entirely.”

said prior to the passing of the law of 1895, which imposed the £3 tax, it was almost impossible for Indians to get traders’ or hawkers’ licences in Zululand, and that state of affairs existed today. When Zululand was annexed to Natal in 1897 the restrictions placed on Indians with regard to trading licences were changed. In 1905 an Act was passed stating that no Indian could obtain a licence to trade in Zululand without the production of a receipt for the payment of the £3 tax. At present the restrictions were not so great that Indians could not get licences to trade in Zululand. It would be ridiculous to insist on the production of a receipt for the payment of a tax which had been done away with. Hon. members must not think that they would flood Zululand with hawkers or traders of Indian extract, because they would not.

said he was prepared, if necessary, to defend every word in the report from which the Leader of the Opposition had quoted, but it was not necessary. He would advise the hon. member for Fort Beaufort before he read a report again to go to school and learn to read, or to go to church and learn honesty. (Cries of “Order.”) When he became a member of the Natal Commission he did so to report according to the evidence and not according to any personal conviction. (Laughter.) Ninety-five per cent, of the evidence given before the Commission was from one side.

Why did you not call the other side?

said that without this indentured labour the hon. member for Umlazi would not be a farmer, and the hon. member for Zululand would not be a planter. The industries in Natal were so absolutely dependent on indentured labour that had it been stopped the industries would have been crushed. In conclusion, he said he would apply to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who had been interjecting so much, the scientific definition of the ancient Briton: “A great lack of cranium and abnormal development of the jaw.” (Laughter.)

I am the last man in the world to quarrel, but I recognise the definition which the hon. member for Roodepoort has given of himself. (Laughter.)

said he also had the idea that this tax would check the Indian coming into competition with the white worker, but from the evidence he had come to the conclusion that the tax had failed to effect the purpose for which it was brought in.

Make it stronger.

said he felt sure the hon. member had not gone into the question or he would not talk like that. He pointed out that the Indian Government refused to allow Indians to come if the Natal Government passed a law whereby Indians were imprisoned or sent back to India for not paying the tax.

Sue him.

Shoot him? (Laughter.)

I said sue him.

Well the other word is in keeping with the hon. member’s attitude towards the black man. (Laughter.) Mr. Boydell went on to say that very little of the tax had been collected, and to all intents and purposes the law was a dead letter. He said that behind this agitation for the £3 tax was the idea on the part of the employers to get their labour cheaper than ever. If they wanted to protect the white worker, why did they not have a minimum wage?

I will be in favour of it any day.

put the clause and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—77.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Bekker, Stephanus

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodowyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolphus 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

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

J. Hewat and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—15.

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Keyter, jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

C. T. M. Wilcocks and M. W. Myburgh, tellers.

The clause was accordingly agreed to. New clause 9,

moved the following new clause 9: “From and after the promulgation of this Act it shall be an offence for any employer in the Province of Natal to employ any labourer under indentures who enters this Union after the first day of July, 1914. Any employer guilty of a contravention of this section shall be liable on conviction to a fine of fifty pounds in respect of each such labourer or in default of payment to imprisonment for six months.” The mover said it was quite ridiculous for the House, in pursuance of the policy of excluding the Asiatic labourer, to have no such provision. Already during the past three weeks they had had the admission of the Prime Minister that the law had been overridden in the Province of Natal in connection with the Hlobane Coal Mine. He wished again to call attention to that matter. The effect of that legislation was that labour on the cane fields, wattle estates, the coal mines, etc., was going to increase in price. Influence would be brought to bear on the Government to enable some other form of indentured labour to be brought in Last December, with the full concurrence of the Government, certain natives were brought to this Hlobane Coal Mine.

asked whether the hon. member was in order in referring to that matter.

said that the hon. member was moving a new clause, and was using the arguments as an illustration.

said that they had been told that these natives had gone to the mines voluntarily. If that happened in December, it was a moral certainty that when the pressure of demand for indentured labour became acute, pressure would be exercised on the Government, and the same thing would be repeated. They simply wanted that in Natal they should not have any indentured labour after July 1, 1914.

read the title of the Bill, and submitted that the amendment was not in order, as it might refer to Indian, European, or native labour. It had nothing to do with the redress of Indian grievances.

said the Bill was one to redress grievances and to remove disabilities, and he submitted that the motion just made was to impose disabilities. Therefore he contended the motion was out of order.

I submit that the removal of the £3 tax creates a disability as it prevents the native paying the tax.

The clause is not strictly covered by the title of the Bill, but it certainly appears to be germane in view of clause 8.

said this opened up the whole question whether it was possible to carry on the industries of Natal without Indian labour. It would be improper to accept such a proposal sprung on the House at a moment’s notice. He hoped the Government would not accept it.

said he understood the hon. member for Jeppe to say that Government last year told the House that it had decided to stop the importation of natives from north of latitude 22 degrees south. He (Mr. Duncan) wanted to know whether the laws of this country were being deliberately set aside in order to bring these prohibited natives down to work in a Natal coal mine. Had the Government’s policy been abandoned? It was a very serious matter for Government to connive at an evasion of an Act of Parliament.

said that the Minister for Native Affairs last year had made a statement in the House that as a result of the high death-rate among tropical natives, natives from north or latitude 22 degrees south would not longer be imported into the Union. The policy laid down then was being carried out, but a somewhat different position had since been created. He (the Prime Minister) a short while ago had replied to a question by the hon. member for Jeppe that a number of these natives were employed on the Hlobane mine. The hon. member for Jeppe was always somewhat suspicious without any reason, and he was always thinking that the Government were trying to get behind their promises. As usual, the hon. member’s suspicion was again based on bad information. The position was that latitude 22 was, in many instances, on the Transvaal border, and many natives living there were accustomed on their own account to walk into the Transvaal to look for work, and to go to Johannesburg. He had thought at the time when this policy was introduced that to lay down a certain latitude was unwise, and he thought it would have been far better if certain districts had been enumerated where no recruiting could take place. Of course, it was quite impossible to build a ring wall across the border and along the latitude mentioned to keep the natives out. Recruiting of natives in these parts had been stopped, and drastic steps were being taken and would be taken to prevent any recruiting taking place, but the forty people working on the Hlobane mine entered the Transvaal on their own account. When they arrived in Johannesburg the Registrar of Natives stopped them, and they were prevented from working on the Rand.

These natives refused to go back, and it would have been too expensive to send them all back. So they went to Hlobane, these natives went to Natal on their own account, and the Government could not stop them. The reason why he had waited before giving a reply to the hon. member’s question was that in Natal there were no statistics in regard to the class of natives working there, and it had taken a good deal of trouble to arrive at the figures which he put before the House. He wished to repeat that the Government would stand by the statements made in this House last year that not a single native recruited north of latitude 22 south would be recruited for work in the Union. If they entered on their own account it was very difficult to prevent them from doing so, as the cost would be enormous. Steps were at present being taken to do everything possible to keep these natives away from the Rand, and no recruiter would be paid a single penny for any such people.

said he was glad the Prime Minister had given the House a candid statement. He had kept the House waiting a long time.

I have explained it now.

said he could not understand the necessity for keeping it dark at the time. They happened to know that some gentlemen came down from Natal during March to inquire into this matter, and it was well into April before the Prime Minister could tell them what had happened. Curiously enough, one of these gentlemen that came down was the local manager of the Bullard King Line, the famous line that owned the “Umgeni.” He did not know whether this was an additional something nice that they were allowed to bring these natives in One of the gentlemen who came down happened to mention to him (Mr. Meyler) that he wondered who let the cat out of the bag, These gentlemen were very much annoyed at it getting out, and they wanted to keep it dark, just as the Prime Minister managed to keep it dark for three weeks. Was it feasible that these natives were so attracted by the conditions that they came down 400 miles?

There was only one mine of any importance in the whole district, and although they had about 100,000 natives living round about there they seemed to be short of native labour. They did not want those people coming in, for they came from districts where there was a dangerous disease, amongst them, sleeping sickness.

said the hon. member must confine himself to the amendment before the House.

said he wished to support the amendment, because there was a danger of people being brought from outside the Union from districts where there were dangerous diseases. Why should they have people who were not considered good enough for the Transvaal going into Natal? Of all parts of the Union which should be kept free from additional imported labour Natal was the one.

expressed his approval of the remarks of the Prime Minister, and said there were large numbers of natives at present living in the Transvaal who in the pre-war days were forced beyond latitude 22 by the exorbitant charges which the agents tried to collect. Many of those who were living north of latitude 22 came down without being recruited.

said he entirely accepted what had been said by the Prime Minister; when certain gentlemen came to this country of their own accord he supposed the Prime Minister would take the same view. But once they had got the stream going it was difficult to stop. They must draw the line somewhere. The Prime Minister no doubt held the view that they came voluntarily, but it was as clear as daylight that those voluntary comers would very soon be reinforced.

said he was very pleased to see there was no intention to depart from the course previously laid down. That matter had a direct bearing on coolie labour in Natal. The hon. member for Zululand had said that it brought up the whole question of indentured coolie labour. There was no more fitting time than the present to discuss the matter. When they decided to repeal the tax which was brought into vogue by that very indentured labour system then it was time to consider the idea of abolishing the indentured with it at one and the same time. He was surprised to find hon. members on the Opposition side of the House absent when an endeavour was made to abolish indentured Indian labour. As a matter of fact they really wanted to make the Indian re-indenture. Surely if their idea was to get rid of the Indian they should be there in their might to support that amendment with a view to do away with the indenturing of the Indians. It should go side by side with the repeal of the £3 tax on the Indian.

said he entirely accepted the statement made by the Prime Minister. The hon. member was understood to say that there had been an assurance last session that a stop would be put to that system of indentured labour. He understood when the House passed that clause of the Immigration Act prohibiting natives from coming into the Union from north of latitude 22 south that it was a step in the direction of gradually diminishing the importation of indentured labour from outside the Union. To his mind, while stopping recruiting would have a material effect, and he was glad to hear that steps were to be taken to stop recruiting, the natives would soon come without recruiting. Just as they excluded Indians he thought they should exclude the natives who came from beyond the borders. He thought they ought to put on record the determination of that House to put a stop to that system of indentured labour.

said he was glad to hear that the hon. member for Fordsburg supported the amendment. In his opinion, the indentured labour system was just as degrading to the employers as to the employed. In Natal and Zululand they had a million natives, and the Minister ought to support the amendment and let the employers utilise the native labour which they had got at their doors.

The natives in Natal preferred to go to Johannesburg and other centres because the employers in Natal would not pay them sufficiently high wages. Seeing the Minister had accepted the principle in regard to Indians, he did not see why he could not accept the proposal which had been put forward by the hon. member for Jeppe.

said he was surprised that hon. members from Durban were not taking more interest in this amendment. They were extremely vociferous in informing the House the other day that they were very solicitous as to the welfare of the artisan in Natal. They could quite understand the reason that animated them; but if it was bad for the white man that encouragement should be given to the Indians to stay and become free men, it also applied in the case of the native from outside the Union. There seemed to be something hollow about their statements. He considered they did not care a hang about the white worker, but were very solicitous about their own welfare. If the vote of the Natal members did not tally with their vote on the last division, the remainder of the House would be able to draw their own conclusion.

said he believed that the man who introduced white men into South Africa, whether they came on agreement or not, was a benefactor of the country, and yet hon. members on the cross-benches said that this was not so. He would have supported the amendment if it had been confined to Asiatics, but as it included Europeans he would not do so.

said that the hon. member for Umlazi was opposed to this amendment because it prevented the importation of white men under Indenture. Therefore the hon. member was in favour of bringing his own flesh and blood into the country in a state of slavery. They on the cross-benches favoured the introduction of whites, but they wanted them to come in as free people and not as slaves.

said he objected to the clause for the reason that it dragged into this Bill neck and crop a subject which had nothing in the wide world to do with the Bill, and it was a clause that might affect them very much so far as European labour was concerned. He was in favour of getting more Europeans into this country even if they came under agreement, and it was to the interests of the Government to see that their contracts were good. Though he saw a good deal to take exception to in the system of native recruiting, that was not the time to go into the matter. This Bill was brought in for a special purpose, and it should be confined to that purpose.

said he hoped that the Natal members would realise how their chickens had come home to roost. This amendment had nothing to do with the people mentioned by the hon. member for Umlazi, because it only referred to the indentured labourer, which had a special meaning. This amendment was confined to the Province of Natal, and the hon. member for Umlazi wanted the House to believe that a European coming on a monthly contract was in the same position as the indentured labourer under this clause. The amendment was devised in accordance with the wishes of members from Natal, and the fact that they had taken so little interest in the matter showed the hollow hypocrisy of the opposition they had advanced against the Bill. He supported the amendment, which he said prevented employers getting behind the provision that no indentured labourers should be brought from India.

said they had been expecting to hear from the Minister whether the Government were going to accept this amendment.

said that the Government could not accept this amendment. The hon. member by his amendment said that no person white, black, or coloured, who came into the Union after July 1, 1914, could serve under contract of service in Natal. He (the Minister) had never heard of such a thing. Natal might deserve some punishment for her folly in the past, but why should she be singled out in this way for punishment? (Hear, hear.) The amendment was entirely foreign to the subject-matter of this Bill. He did not want to wreck this Bill. He could not conceive of any surer means of wrecking this Bill than the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppe, and he would rather appeal to him to withdraw it.

That is so charming, so like the right hon. member for Victoria West. (Hear, hear.) “Why don’t you bring it up some other time?” Unless we take advantage of this sort of occasion, we have not got a chance in this House of trying to bring Parliament down to dealing with these matters. It is absurd to say that if this House accepts the amendment it is going to wreck the Bill. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the reading of “indentured labour” which had been given by the Minister was certainly not the one that was accepted. The most significant speech made against this amendment was the one by the hon. member for Zululand, who had clearly indicated that he objected to this clause, on the ground that at some future time the employers in Natal might be short of labour and that this might be a bar to their getting such labour as they required.

I never said anything of the sort.

Certainly I sat here and listened very attentively, and that was the impression the hon. member gave. Will the Minister tell us where, outside the Transvaal and Natal, there is any tendency to-day to import indentured labour? In a Bill distinctly dealing with evils which have arisen from indentured labour in Natal, surely it would be quite reasonable to provide a clause preventing the recurrence of that evil in the future. If the Minister’s objection is to the form of the amendment, he, with the resources at his command can get a form suitable for dealing with the matter.

said that they were dealing with this Bill because indentured labour had been a curse to Natal. “It is,” he added, “because the labour is too good and we think it is a danger to ourselves if these people are able to spread all over the country.”

who rose amid cries of “Vote,” said that the people of Natal were misled into accepting the Immigration Act in 1895. They did not want Indian immigrants, but certain people for their own interests said they would impose a tax on those Indians. They had now repealed the tax without making any provision in this Bill to prevent the Indians in future from coming into the country under indenture.

put the new clause as moved by the hon. member for Jeppe, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—10.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

H. M. Meyler and H. W. Sampson, tellers.

Noes—79.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Bekker, Stephanus

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Chaplin. Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Runciman, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

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

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. O. Becker and J. Hewat, tellers.

The new clause was accordingly negatived.

On the schedule,

moved to delete section 6 of the Natal Indian Immigration Act of 1895. He said the £3 licence should not be removed, as the Indians should be sent back to their own country, and this licence would assist in effecting that.

ruled the motion out of order, as the point had already been decided.

The schedule was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be at once considered.

I object.

The consideration of the amendments was accordingly set down for Monday next.

moved to delete all the words after “that” and to substitute the following: “This House affirms the right of citizens to assemble in public meeting to discuss any matter affecting their interest, and declines to proceed further with legislation which (1) prescribes special penalties for acts if committed in connection with industrial organisation or disputes—such acts not being subject to such penalties if committed under other circumstances—and (2) prescribes deportation as a penalty for political offences.” Continuing, Mr. Andrews said he supposed this Bill was one of those which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement to-day, when he told them there was certain very useful legislation which the Government felt in duty bound to carry out before bringing the session to a close. It might be an exceedingly useful bit of legislation from the Prime Minister’s point of view and from the point of view of the Prime Minister’s supporters on the Government and the Opposition sides of the House. It might be considered useful to a certain class in South Africa, but he (Mr. Andrews) held that the majority of the inhabitants of South Africa considered the Bill pernicious and detrimental to the interests of a great mass of the people and consequently detrimental to the interests of South Africa itself. (Labour cheers.) The Bill was not intended to remedy abuses, but was on a par with other legislation which had been foreshadowed. This legislation was not necessary. There had been ample proof during the last 12 months that Government was strong enough to repress any disturbances. The whole Bill was levelled at one section of the community. It was levelled against the organised worker of South Africa. It might appear from the Bill that the balance of justice was held equally between the employer and the employee, but it would press extremely lightly on the employing class and very heavily on the employee. It had been asserted that they were following to a large extent the precedent of Great Britain in regard to the Riotous Assemblies portion of the Bill. He had thought it would be well to look up an authority on that matter, and he found that Dicey said that the right to hold public meetings did exist in England, and that a meeting could not be broken up because that meeting might lead to a breach of the peace. That was the power the Minister wished to give the magistrate in that Bill. They would be told that New Zealand had a stringent law to put down riotous assemblies. There had never been a Labour Government in New Zealand, but the legislation of that country had largely been coloured by the Trade Union movement. In New Zealand a lot of legislation of a beneficial nature was put on the Statute Book before anything of a repressive nature was put on. They on the Labour benches were determined to prevent the passage of that Bill through the House. They were opposed to the Bill “in toto.” He held the view that it would be quite time for the magistrates to take action if a meeting became riotous or was an assembly for some unlawful purpose That portion of the Bill meant that if the Chief of Police in any district thought a meeting was likely to lead to a breach of the peace he might advise the magistrate. The matter would be in the hands of the police, and that was not an altogether desirable state of affairs. Then the people who convened the meeting were said to be equally guilty, and were liable to a penalty of £200 or two years. That penalty was far higher than it ought to be. Flow was an inspector of police to disperse the meeting? Did he read the Riot Act or give an hour’s notice? Nothing of the sort. He must only call out three times, and then use force if necessary. After charging the crowd he could shoot the people down like rabbits, as was done in Johannesburg. There ought to be every warning given to the people to disperse. In clause 7 the right of free speech was denied. The provisions of the Act which more nearly affected the working-class was that portion of the Bill dealing with industrial disputes. He found that the right which had been fought for in season and out of season, the right of peaceful picketing, was taken away. They were not advocating violence, but he claimed the right of a man to speak to his fellow-workers. Hon. members failed to see the brutality of the employing class. Brutality, of the Government in Johannesburg in July caused the death of 21 persons.

Not true.

They were peaceable citizens. Continuing, he said that he had been reading a speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Quinn) the previous night. That speech was made ten, years ago when Mr. Quinn was on the other side. The hon. member continued to make references to the trouble of July last.

I don’t think the hon. member should follow that matter further now.

said he would bow to Mr. Speaker’s ruling. But there were other countries which allowed such things as the bludgeoning of its citizens “in the interests of law and order,” to back up their various designs. They had read in the daily Press what was taking place in Colorado owing to the determination of that great philanthropist, Rockefeller, not to allow his mines to become Trade-Unionised. Hon. members smiled to hear of women and children being shot down in the coalfields of the western States of America. What did Mr. Rockefeller say when the Government asked him to put a stop to such things? He said he would rather lose all the millions invested in the mines than that American workmen should be deprived of their right to work for whom they pleased. Free labour, commented the speaker; free labour did not exist, and the right hon. gentleman knew it did not No man was free who had to ask to be allowed to earn his living. Did the right hon. gentleman realise what free labourers meant; those honest fellows of whom he was so proud during times of industrial trouble, good honest fellows who were anxious to work for the good of their wives and families? They were treated as stiffs and loafers during times of industrial peace, just as soldiers and sailors were treated in similar circumstances, heroes in times of war, but not allowed in the bars of the theatres during peace times.

There were organisations of strike-breakers in America, and an assassin could be engaged over the telephone. They had not risen to a state of such perfection in this country as yet, but they were getting on; it would not be long before the capitalist had got what was called the civil guard in Johannesburg. What was that organisation for? Was it to keep peace and order? It was for exactly the same purpose as the militia in Colorado; special constables enrolled by the State and given a uniform in order that they might legally shoot down strikers and their women and children. If there was a balance in connection with peaceful picketing so far as rioting was concerned, against any class, it was not against Trade Unionists or the working class. It was the undoubted right of the worker in England and the British Empire generally to approach his fellow-workers in times of dispute in order to ask them to refrain from working, but the right of peaceful picketing was denied the workers in this country in January last. No man was allowed to be haunted, no man was allowed to go near the railway premises or the mining companies’ properties unless for a special purpose, but the agents of the companies and the agents of the Railway Department, who had full power to go on or be near at all times of the day or night to try and persuade men to go to work. That was allowed, but the hon. member for Jeppe, when he was peacefully picketing, was arrested and thrown into gaol. It was considered a crime in this country, but not in any other civilised country. At the same time, speaking to the same men, was Mr. Andrew Russell; he was allowed to picket on behalf of the Administration to encourage the men to go back to work. Mr. Russell was doing the work of the capitalists and would probably be promoted.

The hon. member must not go back to those events.

said he was discussing the question of picketing and the conduct of strikes, which naturally came within the scope of that Bill, and surely it was in order for him to give examples, either of strikes which took place in this country or in any other country.

The matter raised by the hon. member was fully debated in connection with the Indemnity Bill.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said the workers would be quite willing, he thought, to refrain from the practice of peaceful picketing if the Minister would include a provision to prohibit employers in case of a strike from bringing in outside workmen. (Ministerial laughter.) That laughter clearly proved that the employers were not prepared to submit to the same conditions as the workmen. If the workers were prohibited from inducing men to leave work then the employers ought to be prevented from going to Europe for persons to take the place of their former workmen. Until such a provision were made the workers claimed the right to picket. Under the Bill, not only in case of a strike were men prohibited from being near works, but when there was no strike on this prohibition held if the object was to induce the employees to join a Trade Union. Surely that was an impossible proposition. Yet in the face of that hon. members on the Opposition side said they were in sympathy with Trade Unions. The Bill made it absolutely impossible to recruit men for the unions.

No, it does not.

You could not have a Trade Union without some machinery for the recruiting of members. It may be said that it cuts both ways, and that there is a penalty on an employer if he tries to prevent a man joining a Trade Union. Continuing, Mr. Andrews said that in practice the Bill did not treat the employer and the workman on the same footing. They were told there was to be no more blacklisting. But it seemed strange that the Government should be guilty of this offence even while it was drafting the Bill. The Minister of Railways, controlling one of the biggest enterprises—

said he had pointed out before that reference to that matter was out of order.

On a point of order, sir, this is a circumstance apart altogether from any legislation. It is merely an administrative act done by the Government.

I have given my ruling.

said he had it on authority that blacklisting was going on in the mines on the Rand. Men had obtained employment on the mines, but after a few days word came from headquarters that the man was not to be further employed. There was blacklisting on the mines, notwithstanding any denials that might be made in this House. Many good, steady men were either walking the reef or were making their way to other countries because they were denied the right to obtain a living in South Africa. This was a sidelight on the solicitude of the hon. members on the Opposition side to people this country with white men, when white men were being driven out by scores and hundreds. On the face of it the Bill seemed to hit equally the workers who might wish to publish a list of men called scabs or blacklegs, and the employers who wished to publish a black list, but in practice there was no equality between the two.

If the union or strike committee published a black list, it must of necessity be an open thing, and therefore the authors of that publication could be punished, but essentially a black list prepared and acted on by the employers was a secret document; it was in the nature of the weapon of an assassin. It struck in the dark, and in most cases they could not be certain that a black list was there. How could it be said, then, that there was no difference between a black list published by the employers and a list published by the strike committee? In most disputes the men showed a great deal more consideration for the community than the employers did. In all great strikes public services which were necessary in the well-being of the community were not interfered with. He failed do see why the Minister should extend the heavy penalties to all public utilities. The Minister went further, and said that any employee who broke his contract was subject to a severe penalty. If a man broke his contract there were the laws of the country to deal with him for breach of contract, That had been quite sufficient during the printers strike in Cape Town, for instance. The provision was obviously an attempt to make all resistance on the part of the workers futile or impossible. He thought one of the most sinister provisions in the Bill was the abolition under certain circumstances of the right of the citizen to be tried by a jury. They had had that right taken away temporarily under Martial Law, and now it was made a permanent part of the system of government that under certain circumstances the Attorney-General might abolish trial by jury and institute a special court. He wondered whether the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) and his friends agreed with that. Although he had heard many legal gentlemen say there were miscarriages of justice owing to the fact that the average jury knew nothing about law, and was guided by sentiment, he would rather see half a dozen or twenty guilty men escape than see one innocent man condemned. They were supposed to be governed on democratic lines. If twelve average citizens would not convict a man under that particular Act, that proved that the Act must be wrong, and not according to the wishes of the people. They came to the deportation clause. Although the Opposition had voted for deportation some time ago, surely they did not want it to be made permanent. The Minister proposed to make public expression of opinion at meetings or in the Press difficult or impossible. Notwithstanding the fact that they had been told a lot about remedial legislation it was not before them. What did the Opposition intend to do to get remedial legislation passed? The Bill would not stop trouble; it would cause it. Why could they not have the Miners’ Phthisis Bill before them and get it disposed of?

That is now down for discussion on the paper.

said that the real remedial legislation was not before the House. The next step was that the Minister made organisation in industrial unions ineffective. But he must not do that, for if he crippled the Trade Union movement it would not stop strikes. The recent difficulties were more the result of want of organisation than of organisation itself. Had there been proper organisation it was more than probable that there would have been none of those disturbances at all. It had been argued that they should gain political power. But if the Trade Unionists did obtain a majority in some House of Assembly they would find their efforts were thwarted, as had been shown in unmistakable terms in a certain district of the Union. If that Bill passed they would find they were in the hands of a despotic Government—a collection of despots. Politically they would be thwarted, industrially they would be prevented from organising, and freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press would be taken away. They would have to use their influence in one particular direction. Even if that Bill did become law it would subsequently have to be wiped off the Statute Book or greatly altered. He asked the Minister to consider whether it was not possible to withraw that Bill. Until the fires burned down a little more, until the panic had entirely disappeared from the minds of his friends and supporters on both sides of the House, and then bring in a Bill at a later date more on the lines of reason, commonsense, and justice. He begged to move the amendment which he had already read.

rose to second the amendment, and at the same time claimed the support of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort on the ground that that hon. member had said he would not vote for a measure of that kind unless remedial legislation was passed in that Parliament. There had been changes since that date. After what had happened on the previous day, could the hon. member rely upon an assurance given that remedial legislation would be passed, and did the hon. member think he would be justified in advancing that Bill until that legislation had been proceeded with. In his (Mr. Sampson’s) opinion they were not justified in going on with the legislation before the House. He was surprised to find the Minister fathering a Bill of that kind, for a more staunch supporter of Trade Union principles than the Minister he had never known in Parliament. That Bill was an attempt to suppress Trade Unions. It was unnecessary. Events of the past twelve months had been altogether too heightened in colour. Lurid speeches had been made in that House to create a false impression in the minds of hon. members, end those speeches had had the effect of making them think that a Bill of that kind was necessary, but as a matter of fact there was no more law-abiding country in the world than the Union of South Africa. There was no country where there was less violence or fewer strikes. That Parliament was not the proper atmosphere in which to discuss a Bill of that kind. It was a Bill that would b? laughed put of court in any other Parliament in the world. The hon. member referred to the argument that because certain clauses of that Bill existed in the Conspiracy Act of Great Britain in 1875 therefore it must be a good thing to put into that Bill. But the Minister did not say that the Act of 1875 was an Act on the part of the Parliament of Great Britain to give a greater measure of freedom to Trade Unions. On the other hand the Bill before the House was one to restrict Trade; Unionism-Trade Unions were impossible except in a secret sense a hundred years ago in Great Britain. The Minister had also quoted a clause from the New Zealand Act, but he forgot to tell the House that compulsory arbitration was in force in New Zealand, and that was a point which made all the difference in the world. Strikes were illegal in New Zealand, but they were not in this country. Then why should they use a clause from an arbitration Bill and bring it into a Bill dealing with riotous assemblies?

These clauses are out of the Crimes Act.

said they had an arbitration Act in New Zealand even if there was a Crimes Act. The intention in that Bill was to suppress Trade Unionism, without giving them something in the place of the right that was to be taken away. Hon. members had laughed when Russia was mentioned. Well, what they had in that Bill was quite like what they read about in Russia. The hon. Minister had said that the hon. members on the cross-benches did not know much about Russian law. But they knew a lot about the way Russian laws were administered, in view of the manner in which present laws were administered and they had reason to fear the manner in which the present Bill would be administered.

He objected to mixing up matters in their legislation, and that was one of the reasons why that Bill should be taken back. That Bill was one dealing with riotous assemblies, but diving deeper into it and they would see it was a Bill dealing with Trade Unions —(Labour cheers)—and if anything appertained to Trade Unions it should be put into the Trade Unions Bill. He asked whether that had been done to make the Trade Unions Bill more palatable. Many of the clauses in that Bill came from the Canadian Act, practically word for word. It was curious that these same measures provided in that Bill had been passed simultaneously in Canada with the passing of the Industrial Disputes Bill. Here they were again passing a similar Bill in that House and forcing it down the throats of the people. That was not the way to get their legislation brought about. That was not the way to get people to notice law and order. Was there any provision in that Bill to give a man the right to work? The Bill was in the interests of one section of the community—the capitalistic section. Surely it was time that they turned round and paid attention to the capitalistic trusts in the country, instead of the workmen who were trying to work up their organisations. In place of legislation helping the workmen, they got a Bill of that kind to drive them and to force them to use violence, if they were in the future to build up their organisations. He was to be denied under that Bill to inform some Trade Union in another part of the world when one of its members had broken its rules how that fellow-worker had transgressed its rules. If they made laws of that kind, how could they expect them to be obeyed? The hon. member proceeded to deal with other provisions of the Bill in regard to public meetings, protesting against interference with public demonstrations and public meetings, and went on to say that when firearms were used, as they had been used, they raised the temper of the people, which did not die down in a day. Every time they used firearms they would create such a feeling that it would not die in that country and the country would be very sorry for it. Some bitter things had been said in Johannesburg when the Defence Force had come there, and he would not like to repeat them. Let them beware how they paraded their force.

said that he had been able to study the amendment more and the amendment was a mere negative.

asked whether it was not a superseding amendment. Would not the first part of it be in order?

This is not a superseding amendment, but a mere negative. It merely cites some of the objects of the Bill, and then says that the House affirms that these are not proper sentiments. It is a mere negative

I move that the question be now put. (Ministerial cheers and Labour dissent.)

seconded.

said that that Bill had been debated at the second reading, and a motion that the Bill be read that day six months had been moved by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) and negatived on a division, without it being necessary to appoint tellers, and the House having affirmed the second reading, he thought now that the time had come that he (Mr. Speaker) should be released from the chair. (Hear, hear.) He now put the question, that the question be now put.

declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—48.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

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

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

H. C. Becker and F. R. Cronje, tellers.

Noes—10.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Fawcus, Alfred

Haggar, Charles Henry

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Sampson, Henry William

Theo. L. Schreiner and Walter B, Madeley, tellers.

The motion was therefore carried.

The motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair was put, and declared carried.

called for a division.

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

declared the motion agreed to.

moved to insert in the first line, after “magistrate,” the words “acting under special authority of the Minister.”

moved that the sub-sections in the clause be taken seriatim. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) He did not remember any Bill on which such a proposal had been objected to, and on a measure of this importance the objection was hardly decent. (Hear, hear.)

said there were eight amendments on this section, and it would be impossible to consider the whole clause together.

I hope Government will accept the proposal. If it does not, all I can say is that the country will know what interpretation to place upon its refusal. (Labour cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that the Minister could not keep its majority to carry out its own measures, but it could count on a subservient Opposition. (Loud cries of “Order.”) He was entitled to mention any consideration which would induce hon. members to carry out a measure of justice. The Opposition, when it voted for the second reading of the Bill, did so on the explicit promise by the Prime Minister that what was called remedial legislation would be carried through this session. On that the Opposition voted for the second reading.

asked if the hon. member was in order in talking about the action of the Opposition.

Move the closure.

said he thought he was entitled to put out any inducement to the Committee to take the sections seriatim. The pledge given by the Government a week ago had been shown to hang on a thread. He appealed to hon. members for fair play, and moved that the items be taken seriatim.

said he was not prepared to take the sections seriatim, because he was not satisfied that the proposal was for the purpose of properly discussing the Bill. Certain of the Labour members had said that they were going to take steps to prevent the passage of that Bill. (Labour cries of “Resign.”) The country was in favour of the Bill. (Labour “No, No’s.”)

said that if the Labour members would put their proposals before the Committee in a reasonable way, instead of showing all that excitement, those proposals would be considered by the Government. (Labour cries of “How do you-know?”) In his opinion they would advance the business by taking the items seriatim. He was in favour of the Bill, and wanted to see it on the Statute Book.

appealed to the Minister to take the items seriatim. He said he did so not from a Socialistic point of view, but from an entirely different point of view. He was opposing the Bill because it was legislation interfering be tween the master and the employee.

said that Bill more than any other had aroused the most strenuous opposition throughout the country. They should have every opportunity of discussing the Bill. Only seven hon. members had spoken on the second reading, and the Minister had replied to none of the points raised. (Cries of “Order.”)

said the motion before the House was that they should take the items seriatim.

said he wanted to point out why they should take those items seriatim, and that was because no information had been given them on the second reading. The Minister had practically thrown a copy of the Bill on the Table and had said in effect: “Read it as you like.”

said the argument of the last speaker had nothing to do with the matter. All they were discussing was the most convenient way of dealing with the Bill.

said there was no desire to curtail discussion. The first section was one of the longest sections, and nothing would be gained by taking the sections seriatim. The motion of the hon. member for Victoria West, for instance, would mean the deletion of clause 4.

said the motion of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) did not cover the same ground. Clause 4 only laid down that no magistrate should act unless he had authority to deal with those matters. The members on the cross-benches had been blackguarding hon. members—

Is it in order to call hon. members of the cross-benches blackguards? The hon. member has said that we have been blackguarding other hon. members.

I think the word is distinctly offensive.

withdrew the expression, and said he would use the words “most abusive and offensive.”

said all the chapters of that Bill had been lifted from other laws without regard to the special circumstances which existed now. He hoped the Minister would change his mind as to taking the sections seriatim.

said they had got into the way of drafting very long clauses. It would have been much more convenient if the first clause had been divided into three. There were three different subjects in one clause which it would have been more convenient to have dealt with in separate sections, but as that was not done he thought it would be better to discuss them seriatim. Such a method would facilitate the passing of the Bill in some form.

trusted the Minister would give way. They had been discussing for half an hour whether they were to go on. He was as anxious as anybody to get on with that and to give every assistance, but it would be more convenient if they took them seriatim. There was a great deal in what the hon. member for Uitenhage had said, and it was the general feeling of the members of the House. He thought the Minister should give way.

said that was the first time he had known Parliament resist a motion to deal with subclauses seriatim, and by opposing that motion the Minister of Justice would be playing into the hands of those who wished to delay the passing of the measure which he (the speaker) wished to see placed on the Statute-book.

said that members had had sufficient time to give notice of amendments. He was opposed to the motion.

pointed out that on the Order Paper there was already an amendment to sub-section 1, one by the hon. member for Greyville, and another by the hon. member for George Town were down on the Paper in connection with the second sub-section, and on the third sub-section there was an amendment by the hon. member for Jeppe. On the fourth there was an amendment by the hon. member for Liesbeek, and a further amendment by the hon. member for Jeppe to omit the whole clause. Nearly all amendments were to be moved by different people; it was not as if they all stood in the name of one hon. member, and they were dealing with different matters. The Minister of Justice now knew enough of Parliamentary procedure to know that they would be in a deplorable muddle when they came to ten different divisions in the end to decide which way to vote.

made a final appeal to the Minister of Justice. He said it was no use the Prime Minister in his petulant way twisting round in his seat. All through the whole of that Parliament there really had not been an important Bill where a motion to take clauses seriatim had been resisted. The Minister of Finance had a good deal of determination and he was sometimes very fond of showing it, but the Minister of Justice should know that he had never resisted the motion to take the sub-sections of a Bill seriatim. The Minister might think that the motion was put down for obstructive purposes, but in that Bill in every subsection there were matters of immense importance. To deal with the clauses otherwise than seriatim would lead to a most unsatisfactory debate, and hon. members would be talking in succeeding speeches on various amendments. The Minister of Justice in the second reading debate took the unusual course of not replying to criticisms which were raised. He should take example and warning from recent events not to trifle with the temper of the House.

pointed out that there had not yet been four hours’ discussion on that Bill since it had been introduced, and it was one of the most violent measures that could possibly be placed on the Statute-book, and although they had not had more than those few hours’ discussion they had the Minister of Justice wanting them to swallow the measure lump by lump. By doing that they could not discuss it in detail, as they ought to do. He hoped the hon. Minister would see the justice of their claim and give way.

pointed out that the Bill was different from the first Riotous Assemblies Bill, which showed that the Minister himself was indeterminate in his policy. It was a matter on which the Committee should have full opportunity of discussion.

put the motion of the hon. member for Jeppe, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—24.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Haggar, Charles Henry

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Emile Nathan and P. G. W. Grobler, tellers.

Noes—46.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

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

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

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

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

H. C. Becker and F R. Cronje, tellers.

The motion was therefore negatived.

asked whether the Chairman could explain to them the procedure which was to be adopted.

said that the whole clause was open to amendment anywhere.

Up or down?

moved, as an amendment, in sub-section 1, line 16, to delete the word “or” and substitute the word “and”; also in line 19 to omit all the words from “or if” to the end of the sub-section. The hon. member said that the clause gave very great powers to the magistrates. According to the clause, a magistrate might prohibit a public gathering, if he had reason to believe it might cause trouble. In practice that meant that the power was placed in the hands of the police, because the police had only to tell a magistrate that a meeting was about to be held and that in their opinion it would be in the interests of law and order that that meeting should not take place, and the magistrate could immediately prohibit it. As a concrete instance of this the hon. member referred to what had taken place in Durban while Martial Law was in force there in January. A public meeting was to be held in the Town Hall, and it had taken place—more quietly than that right’s business in the House, but if the control officer and the magistrate in their discretion had not been persuaded by him (Mr. Boydell) that the best course to be pursued to preserve law and order would he to allow the meeting to go on, two or three thousand people would have collected in the dark near the Town Hall, and an open-air meeting would have been held. If the police had dispersed that meeting there would, he thought, have been trouble in Durban that night—although Durban was a peace-loving place—such as there had been elsewhere. The fullest notice should be given so that people would be well aware, if a meeting was to be prevented, that it would be prevented from being held. The hon. member again alluded to the well-burg, events in Benoni, and the Governor-General’s despatches with regard to the known Market-square meeting in Johannes-holding of public meetings

said that he hoped that the Minister of Justice would accept the first amendment of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville. He asked whether the Minister could not, in line 21, make it possible for people assembled to know that some announcement was on prohibiting the meeting. The hon. member moved, in sub-section 2. line 27, after “conviction to” to insert “the payment of a fine not exceeding £250 and in default of payment to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, and on a second conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment not exceeding two years and on any subsequent conviction to.”

said it was absurd to prohibit a meeting by distributing “dodgers” in the street. The average man crumpled up these “dodgers” and threw them away. The hon. member for Victoria West might read these “dodgers,” and if he did he would probably find that they contained advertisements of “reach-me-downs.” (Laughter.) As to notices on public buildings, every person did not put on spectacles to read them. Again, only a small number of people might hear a verbal notice to a crowd to disperse. He was extremely amused at the hon. member for Von Brandis saying that his amendment would soften down the penalty. The hon. member’s softening down would benefit the rich man, but the poor man would have to go to gaol. The Trade Unions could not afford to pay many £250 fines. The punishments provided for in the clause were vindictive and the Minister should consider a serious reduction in the penalties. Mr. Andrews then moved, in sub-section 2, line 27, to omit all words after “to” to the end of the sub-section and to substitute “a fine not exceeding £10 or in default of payment to imprisonment not exceeding 14 days.”

moved that the word “sufficient ” should be inserted before “oral public announcement.” It should be left to the discretion of the court whether a man had wilfully disobeyed the law.

suggested that the whole provision about all public announcements was unnecessary. If the Government desired to prohibit a meeting it must give notice in a newspaper or post notices on public buildings, etc. The prohibition of a meeting by oral announcement could only be made after a meeting had taken place. He thought the Minister would do well to take out that part of the clause altogether.

said that when a meeting had gathered it was a different question. There might be no time to make an announcement in the Press. There would be people at the place where the meeting was held, and they were not confined to one place in which to make an oral announcement.

said he quite agreed with a great deal of what the last speaker had said. The Government might only find out a short time before the time of the meeting that it was going to take place. There might be no time to have notices printed or publish them in the Press, and then they would have to send out police as the people gathered to announce the prohibition in a loud voice. They must call on the people three times to disperse. As regarded the amendment of the hon. member for Greyville, he agreed with the hon. member for Von Brandis that it would be better, and he accepted the amendment. He had been surprised at the complaints about the penalties. They had passed a similar penalty in connection with the Income Tax Bill. It must be remembered that the punishment provided was the maximum punishment. The magistrate could give a man a reprimand and let him go. Supposing a meeting was prohibited and was held and led to bloodshed, what should the penalty be then? The man who presided at the meeting or addressed a meeting was generally a leader and an instigator. He thought they should have a good substantial maximum penalty, because the magistrate could impose as small a penalty as he liked. He was prepared to accept the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). As a consequential amendment he moved that sub-section 4, as follows, be deleted: “(4) The powers conferred by sub-section (1) shall only be exercised by a magistrate generally or specially delegated there to by the Minister.” That section, he said, would not now be necessary.

said that more than once reference had been made to sub-clause 2, which provided that any person who after prohibition of a meeting convened a meeting and presided at or addressed it should be guilty of an offence. He moved that the words “with knowledge” should be included, so that only a person who convened or addressed a meeting should be convicted if he had knowledge of the prohibition.

wanted to point out to the Minister that those severe penalties would defeat their purpose. He had been looking up some of the Irish Acts—they would admit they were stringent—and he saw in connection with a meeting which had been prohibited by the Lord-Lieutenant, particulars of which had to be brought before Parliament, that the penalty for attending such meeting was only three months, yet they were going on with two years, and somebody suggested a fine of £500. They would get no convictions at the end.

said he was sorry the hon. Minister did not see his way to accept the second amendment of the hon. member for Greyville, because he could not see how it was possible to convene a public gathering such as the Minister might be afraid of without there being a printed notice. With regard to the severe penalties, he thought there should be a scale which would meet the case of people who were constantly coming before the Courts for the same offence. He would move in line 27, after the word “conviction,” to omit all the words to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute “for the first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or in default of payment to imprisonment not exceeding one month; for the second offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or in default of payment to imprisonment not exceeding three months; and for the third or any subsequent offence to imprisonment not exceeding six months without the option of a fine.”

said the hon. member seemed to think that they would have people charged with those offences coming up every Monday or Saturday. If so there might be a necessity for a scale. There would be no harm in it in any case. But if the hon. member thought that large public gatherings could not assemble without considerable notice he would draw his attention to the report of the Witwatersrand Disturbance Commission with regard to the meeting on July 4th.

There was time to print a notice.

said it could not be done. It seemed to be miraculous to the hon. member that they could have such big gatherings assemble without ostensible notice. There had been notice passed from hand to hand. It was possible to give oral notice that a meeting was prohibited because the people assembled in twos and threes. If a meeting had already gathered they must take the steps provided for under some other clause.

said that the ignorance of the Minister regarding the Witwatersrand Disturbances Commission was positively amazing. He was always so anxious to teach others. He said the Government knew nothing of the meeting till late on the Saturday morning, but it was stated in the evidence by Col. Truter that it was advertised in the paper; he fancied it was in the “Star” of the 3rd July, and he saw it in the “Daily Mail ” of 4th July. The Minister wanted to tell the House that it was easy for the Government if they could not get a notice out at once to send people round to the various meetings. As a matter of fact, the chief magistrate at Johannesburg knew at 12.15 on the 4th July that that meeting was to be prohibited, and the meeting was not called till 2 p.m. Yet nothing was said until 3 o’clock when 10,000 people had gathered. The only man who could make himself heard was Mr. Morgan, whom they had sent oversea. There had been no legislation to prohibit meetings in Natal. In the Transvaal they had, and they had disturbance after disturbance there, but none in Natal. There would be trouble in Natal and the other Provinces if that clause was brought into force. The hon. Minister knew his Bill was unsound, and he had already to accept numerous amendments.

moved an amendment in sub-section 2, line 27, after the word “offence” to insert the words “unless he satisfies the court that he had no knowledge of the prohibition,” and after the word “and” “shall be.”

said that he was not in the least against the Government having full powers to prohibit and disperse a dangerous meeting, but he wanted to put it to the Minister that there were two distinct powers—one to prohibit a meeting which was going to be held, and which it was surmised would be dangerous, and the other to disperse a meeting which had actually shown itself to be dangerous. When the meeting had assembled, and then to say that the meeting was prohibited, was not the right way of dealing with it. Once the people had begun to assemble, it was not a question of prohibiting, but a question of dispersing. The same force would have to be used; in the one case they had their actual conduct, but in the other case they had only a surmise as to what their conduct was going to be.

said that from what the hon. member for Fords-burg (Mr. Duncan) had said, he hoped he was going to support them in having the whole of that clause deleted.

said he was not going to do so.

said that that was just like the hon. member. His logic was admirable, but when it came to action, it was a different thing.

The hon. member moved, as an amendment, in sub-section 3, to omit paragraphs (b) and (c), and also in line 15 to delete the word “or,” for the purpose of inserting the word “and.”

He said that what the Minister must have in view was to give the most ample possible notice of the prohibition of a meeting. Surely it was necessary to lay down that there should be thorough publication by notices in the Press circulating in the locality, and notices distributed amongst the public. Would the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) tell them what sort of meeting he would prohibit?

Put me in power and see. (Laughter.)

Before we put the hon. member in power we want to have some knowledge as to his intentions. Proceeding, the hon. member said, what was the use of a Minister quoting the fourth of July at all unless it was to show that a frightful disaster had been averted by the action of the Minister? But that was not the case, and the evidence was that a totally different moral had to be drawn. The riot which had taken place had been due to the exasperation of the people in having that meeting broken up in that manner. As to his amendment (omitting paragraphs (b) and (c)), he submitted that if the Minister was going to inflict these heavy penalties he should confine himself to the people who convened the meeting. Was the Minister going to imprison the whole of the meeting? Did he not see that his proposals defeated their own end? It was not all these odds and ends who distributed literature who were responsible for the holding, of the meeting; but if they wanted to get at anybody, it was the instigator of the meeting they should get at. Were the magistrates wise in prohibiting the meetings at Johannesburg last July, and at Benoni last June?

said he was sorry for the Minister, who was as simple as a new-laid egg, and knew no more about the world than an unhatched chick—(laughter)—or he would not have introduced this Bill. If it were criminal to endanger peace, the Minister was the first criminal. The Bill ought to be called the Peace Impossible Bill. (Hear, hear.)

Clause 1 is under consideration. (Loud laughter.)

When hon. members cease to interject I will cease to reply to them. Continuing, he said he had a very important amendment to propose, and that was to delete “may” in line 12 and to substitute “shall,” so that it would be compulsory for notices to be issued when it was decided to prohibit public meetings. The House had been very seriously and wickedly misled, continued Mr. Haggar, for when the Bill was introduced hon. members were led to believe it was based on the civilisation of other countries. God help us if we had to go to the Continent of Europe in matters of this kind. The first clause, as well as the whole of the Bill, was absolutely unique, unwarranted and wrong. The Minister looked. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Haggar) had in his hand the Constitution of Belgium.

I never quoted Belgium.

No, he did not, and I commend his prudence for not speaking about what he does not know. He said the Bill was not based on the weakness of England. But when the forefathers of the people of the Continent were living in tree tops, the people of England were the brains of the world. Continuing, Mr. Haggar said the Belgians had the right of assembly without arms, and in England, according to Dicey, the people had the right of public meetings, but they had no specific right. Speaking for the people principally concerned, he (Mr. Haggar) would say that whatever precautions might be taken, the Bill was not only going to fail, but it was going to produce something which would be worse than what occurred on July 4 last. The Minister of Justice did not know the world.

Nonsense.

The kindest thing would be to send the Minister on a tour round the world. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Haggar said the Bill was going to be the cause of untold evil.

If he spoke from a party point of view only he would never raise his voice against the Bill, because if it went forth to the people it would lead to the strongest rebellion and revolt. He did not want to see the measure passed, because it would be taken as an excuse for insurrection and revolt. The Bill was against the voice of the country. Some day the Minister would learn that the greatest mistake the Ministry could make was to legislate against the wishes of the people.

Will the hon. member confine himself to the section under discussion?

said he was discussing the principles included in clause 1 dealing with the prohibition of meetings. If the Minister wanted to set the country into a blaze let him push that Bill. It was that sort of thing which had to a large extent brought about the war.

No, no; so long as the hon. member confines himself to the section he may go on.

said it was that sort of thing that had caused so much bloodshed and a stain which they could never wipe out.

said it would be difficult for many hon. members of that House who had not had experience of large crowds to judge properly in regard to that clause. To prohibit public meetings would attract idle crowds to such meetings. That had been his experience. He quoted a public meeting in London which drew millions of people, who congregated to see whether the meeting would be prohibited or not They were dispersed by the flat of the swords of the Hussars, but more were travelling to the meeting. If they passed a law giving magistrates power to prohibit public meetings the public should have proper warning. Many could not read or write—what was a printed notice to them? He moved an amendment, to protect the man who might act in ignorance, to insert in line 24 the word “wilfully,” so that it would read, “Any person who after such prohibition and in contravention thereof wilfully convenes a public meeting.” The best thing to do was to allow such meetings to assemble; to put down people who were breaking the law, but not to treat the whole meeting as doing wrong in expressing their own opinions. They would create trouble by passing laws of that kind.

said the point in the amendment was covered by the amendment of the hon. member for Albany.

thereupon withdrew his amendment.

said he had been waiting to hear the virile Opposition on that fundamental clause of the Bill, which attacked what was dear to those of British or Dutch descent. He had not yet heard a single argument which warranted a clause of that description. There had been no reason given why a meeting should be prohibited at all. How was it possible for any Minister to assume that any meeting was going to lead to disaster? Immediately they decided a meeting was to be prohibited there were disturbances.

Who is right?

said the people were right. If the people wanted to meet, no Government, however despotic, had a right to stop them meeting together to discuss any matter. It was evident that the Minister of Justice had had no experience at all, or he would not use those means of prohibiting gatherings. The hon. member went on to quote his own experience, and referred to a strike of printers in Cape Town in 1911. There was a procession, and the police had been notified—without this Bill—and they prohibited the procession. The men met again, and immediately they determined, despite the prohibition, to hold the procession. That was the inevitable result of trying to prohibit men having freedom of speech and action. They had a different Minister of Justice then, a man who had been much maligned, but a man who had some common-sense. He went to see the Minister, who was at present the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), and his reply was: Go and see the police again. The police had been communicated with in the meantime: permission had been given, and the procession had been held—a most orderly procession. Had it been prevented a few windows might have been broken. Having again referred to matters at Benoni, the hon. member linked why the Government were hanging on to office merely to pass that Bill and the first clause of that Bill. Why was the Opposition silent? Because they were in collusion with the Government on the matter. They (the Labour Party) were going to do all in their power to prevent that Bill passing, and they would oppose every clause and every line of it. The Government had shown and proved that they were on the side of the despots, and against the interests of the people. The hon. member moved, as a proviso to sub-section (1): “Provided that when the proposed public gathering is to be held within the limits of a municipality the magistrate shall not prohibit such gathering without the concurrence of the mayor of such municipality.”

thought the mayor of the municipality concerned should be consulted.

regretted that he could not accept the amendment. Mayors were not responsible for the maintenance of law and order.

said the police looked on the public as political malefactors. The mayors would be the best advisers as to the temperament of the public. Mr. Creswell then suggested, it being 11.45 p.m., that progress should be reported. He would ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) if there had been any meetings during the past 12 months which he would prohibit under the Act, and under what circumstances he would consider himself justified in prohibiting any meeting. Then let the hon. member submit to the suffrages of the people he was so anxious to meet that afternoon.

pointed out that the police of Durban were under the municipality, and he urged that the amendment of the hon. member for Springs should be accepted. During the railway strike in 1909 2,000 railwaymen at Durban were concerned. A Militia officer was sent down from Maritzburg, but the mayor said he would maintain law and order in that town, and that if he could not do it, he would then cull on the officer’s services. The result was that every meeting and every procession was held, and there were no disturbances. Was not that one of the strongest reasons in favour of the amendment which the Minister had refused? He went on to give another instance, but before doing so, referred to the petulance of the Prime Minister.

At this stage, amid Labour cries of protest,

moved that the question be now put.

Gag! Gag!

Gag!

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

called for a division.

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

declared the motion agreed to.

The names will be recorded.

Are you recording the Opposition?

The usual cypher.

The motion was therefore carried.

called for a division, which was taken

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

declared the amendment negatived.

That the word “may” in line 15, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Haggar, negatived.

That the word “or” in line 15, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

then put the question: That all the words from “or if” in line 19, to the end of the sub-section, as amended, stand part of the clause,

put the question that the words proposed to be omitted by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Andrews stand part of the clause.

put the question that paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub-section (3), proposed to he omitted, stand part of the clause,

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

The amendment of the Minister of Justice was carried.

The clause as amended was then put.

called for a division, which was taken as follows:

Ayes—39.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller H. C. Becker and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—10.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler Hugh Mowbray

H. W. Sampson and W. B. Madeley, tellers.

The clause, as amended, was accordingly agreed to.

The Committee was proceeding to clause 2 at twenty minutes to one.

suggested that progress be reported. He was opposed to obstruction, but fair time should be given to the consideration of an important Bill of this nature. He thought at that time of the morning, when the House was tired, members could not be expected to give that consideration to the Bill which its importance demanded. He appealed to the Minister of Justice to allow progress to be reported.

agreed with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton), and he was glad to hear him admit the necessity for full consideration being given to the Bill.

said he would like to meet the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, but seeing that they had been discussing one clause since five o’clock that afternoon it was desirable that further progress should be made before the House adjourned. The succeeding clauses were only re-enactments of the common law, clause 1 being the most important part of the Bill. He regretted being unable to meet the wishes of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth.

also appealed to the Minister to report progress.

There is nothing before the House.

I will move to report progress and ask leave to sit again. There are things in this Bill which require great consideration, and should not have been brought in before the promised remedial legislation was introduced. He felt very strongly that they could not go on rushing that Bill through the House. They had drawn one Bill and introduced another, which shows there has been serious consideration on the part of the Government, and the Minister should allow the Committee properly to discuss the Bill, and not force the clauses through. He hoped the Minister would accept the motion to report progress.

After what the Minister had said about the law, he ought to agree to report progress. How many breaches of the common law had there been? If the Minister was not correct in saying it was not the present law of the country, they should give great consideration to that vital matter.

pointed out that clause 4 would lead to a lengthy discussion, and supported the motion to report progress.

said it was amusing that at that late hour the hon. members wanted to point out the importance of the provisions of the Bill. The Minister said they had been since five o’clock passing one clause, but the House of Commons had spent days in passing a few lines. He was giving his idea of what must have been in the Minister’s mind when the House adjourned the previous night.

called the hon. member to order.

was proceeding to discuss a matter connected with locusts, when

asked if the hon. member was in order.

said the hon. member was as much in order as the hon. member for Barkly.

said the hon. member was out of order.

moved that the question be now put.

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

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

Ayes—17.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hewat, John

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Sampson, Henry William

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Emile Nathan and C. Struben, tellers.

Noes—39.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watt, Thomas

H. C. Becker and F. R. Cronje, tellers. The motion to report progress was accordingly negatived.

On clause 2, Offence of printing, publishing or circulating notice of gathering prohibited under the last preceding section.

asked how far the Minister intended to go with the Bill. Surely he was not going to take all the clauses?

No.

said that he would take chapter one.

O-oh!

moved, as an amendment, in line 9 to delete all the words after “year” to the end of the clause.

moved, as an amendment, in line 7, to omit “£100” and substitute “£50; and in line 9 to omit “one year” for the purpose of inserting “six months.”

said that he objected to the phraseology of the whole clause. (Laughter.)

said the penalty of £50 or six months was much too high. He moved as an amendment that the penalty be a fine of £5, or in default seven days’ imprisonment.

Why not make it nothing?

at 1.10 a.m. called attention to the fact that there was no quorum.

A quorum having been found,

maintained that the offence would purely be a technical one. He said it was incredible that in a representative House of a Colony of the British Dominions they should have legislation of that character go through without a protest, imposing heavy penalties for no crime. Even at the eleventh hour the Minister should realise that the penalties were far in excess of the nature of the alleged crime.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again. He had been sitting through” several hours without speaking and could not be held to have been obstructing. He thought he deserved consideration and moved the motion as a protest against the forcing such legislation through.

said he could not accept the motion, as a similar motion had been negatived a short time ago.

moved that the whole clause be deleted, his reason being that it would operate largely against the Labour Party in South Africa. It would be difficult to convene a meeting, to get printing done or get handbills distributed, if the clause went through.

said there was an important principle in clause 2, a great English law was overridden; the onus of proof was placed on the accused, and he would move an amendment, to reverse that, in lines 5 and 6 to delete the words, “unless he satisfies the court he had no knowledge of prohibition,” and as a consequence to insert in line 1 the words “with knowledge of the prohibition.” The hon. member pointed out, that the clause as it stood might encourage blackmail, and was devoloping his argument by a quotation from “The New Age,” when

asked if the hon. member was in order.

said he was pointing out the possibilities of blackmail if they put the clause through without amendment; he went on to discuss Russian conditions, and quoted from a book entitled “Free Russia.”

said that clause had nothing to do with the holding of meetings, but with the calling of meetings.

moved to report progress.

The motion was negatived.

moved, after “who”’ to omit “prints, publishes, or distributes or in any manner whatever circulates,” and to substitute “is responsible for printing, publishing, or distributing or in any manner whatever circulating.” As the clause stood at present every compositor or workman taking part in the work would be liable to the pains and penalties mentioned in the clause. As the Minister of Justice was absent from the House he would move that progress be reported.

said he could not accept the motion.

said the alteration in the words would make no difference to the persons who were the responsible parties.

said the House ought not to be discussing important clauses like those contained in the Bill at that hour of the morning. However, he would move an amendment in the direction of the one proposed by the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson), to add at the end of the clause “provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is acting only as a workman or as an employee in so printing, publishing, distributing, or circulating.”

said he would withdraw his amendment in favour of the one just proposed.

asked the Minister to state what it was which he feared was going to endanger the safety of the realm, or under what circumstances these dangerous meetings were expected to take place that such severe penalties should be imposed? He considered it would be most unsafe to place such power in the hands of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice, who had recently given evidence of using what power they already possessed in an arbitrary manner.

said that he was quite willing to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). From what some hon. members stated, it appeared as if the penalty in the clause was not a maximum penalty but a minimum one. It was not the Minister who would impose the penalty, but a magistrate.

said that there was a precedent, for there was a case where a newsboy had been prosecuted. He believed in the principle of prohibiting a meeting where it is expected such a meeting would lead to a breach of the peace; but he did not think the Government would be doing themselves any good in dragooning that Bill through and not accepting reasonable amendments. It would do no good passing the Bill with a black mark against it.

asked whether the Minister of Justice was going to answer his question as to what contingencies he was afraid of.

did not reply.

said that the Bill had a black mark against it before its birth. (Laughter.) Referring to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) the hon. member said that the hon. member might be liable to a fine of £10 if he published a leaflet about holding a public meeting, if the Prime Minister was of opinion that it would lead to a breach of the peace.

I would go to prison. (Laughter.)

said that no doubt the hon. member would find it very congenial.

said the hon. member for Jeppe had never yet had the courage to disapprove of acts of violence and disorder. The Labour members wanted disorder.

At 2-2 a.m.

moved that the question be now put.

put the question that the question be now put, and declared the motion carried.

put the question: That the words after “exceed ing”, in line 7, down to “months”, in line 9, as amended, stand part of the clause.

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

then put the question: That all the words from “or to,” in line 9, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

moved to report progress.

said he could not accept the motion.

moved to omit, in line 11, the word “delegated” and insert the word “authorised.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, in line 26, to delete the word “fifty” for the purpose of inserting the word “twenty-five,” making the clause read: “Liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.” He also moved in line 28 to omit “six” and to substitute “three.”

I accept the amendment.

moved to omit the words “or any other public gathering by which the public peace would be seriously endangered.” He did not think the law should give the Minister the right to block up every street in a town, but should be restricted to the street or place where a disturbance was expected to occur.

said the clause meant some particular place or square where a disturbance was likely to take place. The words were “in any public place, not “every public place.” He could not accept the amendment.

said he could not agree to the clause as it appeared to give a magistrate power to close up a place where no meeting was being held.

said that the power given was applicable not to a prohibited meeting only, but to any other public gathering. He protested against that.

said that he could not agree to the option of a fine not being given. He moved, as an amendment, that the words “or to such imprisonment without the option of a fine,” be deleted.

moved the deletion of sub-section 2, as he said that it was nonsense. How could a person enter a place which was “closed”?

moved, as an amendment, that the maximum penalty be £5, or one week’s imprisonment, instead of £50 or six months’ imprisonment.

said that he agreed with the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) that too great a power was given to a magistrate if he could prohibit “any other public meeting.” Hon. members on the Ministerial benches seemed to think that the Bill was aimed at Trade Union meetings and meetings of the Labour Party; but if that Bill became law and there was another Ministry in power in future the law might be put into effect in a way which the present supporters of the Government would not like.

Is not the Minister going to reply?

said that he had already replied to the amendment when it was moved. He could not go on repeating his arguments. (Ministerial cheers.)

said the arguments of the amendment were unanswerable. The Prime Minister had merely devoted himself to a policy of conciliation, but what had his followers done?

Stick to the point.

The Minister of Mines and his colleagues bid fair to undo all that good work.

said that a public gathering sometimes gathered by itself, and the place might be barred by a magistrate in order to save worse consequences. The section must be read in conjunction with section 1.

said it was a great extension of clause 1 which gave sufficient power. The Minister was going further than was necessary.

said notices and a cordon of police would not stop a large number of people going to a certain spot if they so wished. The clause was a ridiculous one.

suggested that the embargo should be confined to prohibited meetings.

said he was sorry that the Minister was so unreasonable as to refuse to meet them on this point. If those words were left, the same power would be given to the magistrate. His objection can only be because the amendment emanates from the Opposition side of the House.

said the Minister must be concerned that the powers he was taking were greater than he intended to take. He could bar any place be liked according to that clause. There was every reason why the clause should be held over and re-drafted. As it was it was going far beyond the intention when it was first put in the Bill. He moved that the clause stand over.

thought the Minister should accept the amendment.

put the question that the clause stand over, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew, saying he did not want to obstruct.

moved that the question be now put.

That’s mean.

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

put the question: That the words in lines 15 and 16, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

put the question: That sub-section (2), as amended, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Haggar negatived.

Clause 3. as amended, was then put, and the “Ayes” declared to have it.

asked the Minister to consent to progress being reported. He wished to point out to the Minister that clause 4 dealt with conditions under which force could be used. There were many subtle points to be considered, and he did not think it was right for the House to be expected to deal with such a matter at that unseemly hour. He moved to report progress.

said that if the Minister wanted to be in a position to report progress he should adopt a different attitude. There was an amendment to the clause which was perfectly reasonable, and which if discussed at a reasonable hour the Minister would, he believed, accept, but in his present mood it was almost too much to hope for. If they were to go on with the remaining clauses in the chapter, then let the Minister accept reasonable amendments and not refuse them simply because they were amendments.

said it had been urged as a reason for passing the Bill that the public were asking for it, but if the Government were convinced that the country wanted the measure why did they not go to the country?

You must address yourself to the question.

Continuing, Mr. CRESWELL said he was countering the Prime Minister’s statement that the country urgently required the passing of the Bill.

said that tired as they were at that time, they were to consider a matter which might involve the life or the death of hundreds of people. He must speak against that. Could they not report progress now? He would even be in favour of meeting again at 2 o’clock that afternoon, when they would bp fresher.

In reply to Mr. M. ALEXANDER (Cape Town, Castle),

said that at an earlier stage he had been willing to report progress after clause 1 had been passed, but they had been kept until 1 o’clock for that. It was the Government’s intention to go on with Chapter I.

also pleaded with the Minister to report progress. If the Minister was not willing to do so, he would remain there until his physical endurance gave out. (Hear, hear.)

rose to speak at 3.55 a.m., when

moved that the question be now put.

put the question: That the question be now put, and declared the motion agreed to.

declared the motion negatived.

rising at 4 a.m., moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

I am not prepared to accept that.

Why?

For reasons which must be obvious.

Then we shall fight it. If the Minister is going to bully us, he must expect we are not going to take it lying down. He is only storing up trouble for himself.

supported Mr. Creswell’s motion, and said that it was not decent the way the Bill was being forced through. The Government had outraged all decency, but the country would have something to say about the matter.

said although he did not object to the clause, except paragraph (c) of sub-section (1), he wished to protest against the way in which the Bill was being forced through the House, simply because—according to the Minister of Justice—an hon. member had misbehaved himself.

said the Minister’s initial mistake was when he tried to prevent hon. members speaking on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. The Minister was most to blame by taking a stop which could not fail to incense a minority of the members.

said they were quite prepared to put very large powers in the hands of the Government, but not to go to the extent of the whole clause.

said this way of considering business was not legislation, but was steam-rolling, and was the action of an autocrat

Mr. Creswell’s motion was defeated.

line 43, to omit “or” and also to omit: “(c) At a public gathering in a public place (whether or not the meeting has been so prohibited) any speaker advocates, or incites to the commission of, public violence. ” The mover said he would not waste time by speaking to the amendment.

said the only excuse for any public authority prohibiting a meeting was to prevent violence which might endanger the lives of citizens.

He wanted to know if the rules of that House laid it down that members could attend the House by sleeping on the benches? They on the cross-benches did not do it.

The hon. member must proceed.

said the rules of the House laid down that there must be thirty members present, and he assumed that it implied that they must be in possession of their waking faculties. Proceeding, he asked if the Government could justify to their consciences the provision which would enable the shooting down of people in an endeavour to disperse a meeting by force? He would move to delete paragraph (a) of sub-section (1).

asked the Minister why clause (c) had been modified from the draft of December? It made an enormous difference; any meeting whatever, however orderly, might be dispersed by an officer of the rank of police inspector, if necessary, by firearms. If only one speaker caused a disturbance, one who might possibly be under the influence of liquor, the meeting could be dispersed; but in the December Bill, in the old draft, read, “Speakers advocate or incite to public violence.” Surely the individual should first be dealt with.

said the power given in that clause tended to incite people to violence; it was courting riot. If a speaker incited to violence he should be dealt with, and not the meeting. The hon. Minister should allow the subsection to be withdrawn, in the interests of law and order.

supported the remarks of the hon. member for Newlands, and referred to a meeting of railwaymen in Cape Town during the recent strike, when an individual got on a platform and made a speech which was not approved of by a large number of persons. The individual in question was arrested, and subsequently fined £50. If the House adopted a measure of that sort, it was the duty of the Government to arrest the individual, and not disperse the meeting.

said the difference between the original draft and the clause before the Committee was very small, and it was a matter which depended on the discretion of the police officer. He recognised the force in some of the arguments. There must be sufficient force to arrest the speaker who incited to public violence, if there was sufficient force to disperse the meeting. He was quite prepared to accept the amendment to delete the word “or” in line 43 and the whole of sub-section (c).

expressed his pleasure at the Minister accepting the amendment. But the reasons for which he accepted that particular amendment were the same that would enable him to accept the motion for the abolition of the whole clause, because if the Minister had sufficient force at his disposal to arrest a man who preached violence, or to break up a meeting which showed an intention of destroying property, then that person, or those persons, could be dealt with in precisely the same way as that adopted under the common law. He maintained that no individual ought to be shot for destroying property, because no property was sufficiently valuable as to justify the taking of human life. He could not understand what the clause was wanted for, unless it was the intention of the Government to give the widest powers to the minions of the law to coerce or to break up meetings with which the Government had no sympathy. The succeeding clause provided that men might be shot for doing or attempting to do damage to property. Such an important matter, he protested, ought not to be decided in such an attenuated House. Numerous resolutions had been passed by public meetings protesting against the clauses of that measure.

showed what the procedure was in England when the Riot Act had to be read, a set form having to be read out when a meeting was called upon to disperse. The Transvaal law was more definite than the present clause, which was too vague. The hon. member moved an amendment to the effect that the attention of the public should be drawn by the blowing of a bugle, and the officer should then, in a loud voice, in the name of the King, call upon the meeting to disperse within one hour. In the present Bill no time was given to the public to disperse. Some time limit should be given, because in a big crowd one could not easily see what was going on. It was absurd to pin entire faith on the report of the Witwatersrand Disturbances Commission. No sight was more calculated to inflame the public than that of policemen riding round with pick-handles, weapons which were capable of inflicting fatal wounds. It was preposterous to use rifles, for that frequently resulted in maiming or killing people two or three miles away from the actual scene of the disturbance. What would be the effect on the forces of the country, asked Mr. Meyler, of this Bill ? During the Rand disturbances it was deemed inexpedient to use the Citizen Forces, the new members of which were too young, and the old members were many of them strikers.

The amendment was as follows: In subsection (1), line 49, to omit “upon”; in lines 50 to 55, to omit all the words from “disperse” to “used” and to substitute “order by means of a bugle, and then call out in a loud voice ‘In the name of the King, all persons here assembled are charged and commanded to disperse themselves within an hour, and peaceably to depart to their homes or their lawful business upon the pains contained in the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1914”; and in line 57, to omit “immediately” and to substitute “within the specified time.”

said if the use of weapons were insisted upon it was necessary that a new form of weapon should be devised. In London he had seen crowds numbering millions controlled by police armed with the simple batons, which should be quite sufficient to enable the police to cope with any situation. He wanted the Minister to listen.

It has nothing to do with this clause.

It has.

Nonsense.

I hope this law will, never be used against the hon. member.

This Bill is not meant for gentlemen.

(proceeding) said the point was that the whole of that particular clause was designed to be provocative. He hoped the Committee would have a sufficient sense of righteousness left to vote against the clause.

moved that the question be now put.

The motion was declared carried on voices.

Can a hon. member be counted while he is asleep? (Laughter.)

put the question: That paragraph (a) of sub-section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

The amendment proposed by Mr. Duncan was agreed to.

The first part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Meyler, in line 49, to omit “upon”, was negatived.

then put the question: That the words in lines 50 to 55, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

declared the question affirmed, and the second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Meyler, dropped.

then put the question. That the word “immediately”, in line 57, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

Clause 4, as amended, was then agreed to.

At 5.30 a.m. the House proceeded to discuss clause 5, Restriction as to use of firearms or lethal weapons to disperse a crowd.

said he would move an amendment so that the use of firearms should not be resorted to until all other methods had been tried. He moved, in lines 9 and 10, to delete the word “or” for the purpose of substituting “and.” There wore several other amendments he wished to make of an important character. He would, however, ask the Minister to allow the clause to stand over until the others had been discussed.

agreed and the clause was held over for future discussion.

Clause 6 was agreed to.

On clause 7, Acts or conduct which constitute an incitement to public violence,

hoped the Minister would agree to withdraw the clause altogether, because it was out of place. They were not dealing with a public meeting which was prohibited, but in the clause they were going on to deal with any place, which would include a private house. The clause, he maintained, had nothing to do with riotous assemblies, and would open a wide avenue that might lead to injustice being done. He did not suppose the Minister would put the clause to an improper use, but they could not forget that in olden days there was such a thing as constructive treason when people were charged with crime for purposes other than meeting the ends of justice. He thought the Minister would be wise to cut out the clause, unless he could show some good reason for its retention.

said it was necessary to have a defining clause no matter how bad the Bill might be, because it was necessary that people should know how far they might proceed before the law would decide that they were doing wrong. Still, the clause as it stood presented grave dangers to those who were particularly desirous, as he himself was, not to incite to violence. If a public man got on a public platform and requested the audience not to go in for violence his words might be so twisted as to be construed as inciting to violence.

said that it was a most dangerous clause, especially in view of the fact of the way in which the laws were put into force in South Africa. Because a man had his coat off and his shirt sleeves rolled up, and be said, “War to the knife!” he had been sent 6,000 miles over the water. It was a most dangerous clause and a most extreme penalty. He (Mr. Boydell) read much more in the clause than the Minister did. “Incitement to public violence” might refer to any little speech which a man might make. He viewed that clause with a great deal of alarm, knowing from past experience how it would be put into effect.

said that they could rely on the discretion of the judges. There was no tendency on the part of their magistrates and judges to extend the punishment. He referred to the case of Mr. Colin Wade.

said that Colin Wade had not been fined by the magistrate for inciting to violence, but for inciting to strike.

said that what the Minister had said about Mr. Colin Wade showed the danger of the clause, because Mr. Wade had had to appeal.

said that everybody could not appeal, like Mr. Wade had done.

Clause 7 was agreed to, on the voices.

called for a division.

This was withdrawn.

Clause 8 was put.

moved to report progress.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.