from inhabitants of Ficksburg, for remission of repatriation debts.

from the Committee of the Orange Free State Museum, for an increased annual subsidy, a refund of certain advances made by them and a grant to enable the contents of the museum to be removed into new buildings.

from Emily V. J. Morton, teacher, for condonation of breaks in her service.

from S. P. Mathlala, formerly interpreter at Kokstad, for a pension.

from B. Phillips and 254 others, in opposition to the proposed Customs duty on bioscope films.

from inhabitants of Zoutpansberg, praying that the price of Government land in the said district be reduced.

from inhabitants of Louis Trichardt, for remission of repatriation debts (two petitions).

brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

It was agreed that the schedule to the report be printed, and that the report be considered in Committee on Thursday.

brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

The report was set down for consideration on Wednesday next.

laid on the Table the Estimates of revenue and expenditure for each of the Provinces for the year ending March, 1915.

asked the Minister if these were Estimates which had received the sanction of the various Provincial Councils?

These are the draft Estimates.

laid on the Table some specimens of agricultural returns under the Income Tax Bill.

said that when progress was reported on Saturday morning, clause 8 was under consideration.

said he wished to move that the Chairman do leave the chair. That was the only way in which they could effectively protest against the way in which this legislation was being forced through this House. The Bill was being rushed through against the protests of the objecting minority, without sufficient and adequate discussion. (Hear, hear.) When that occurred it was unsatisfactory in any case. The only reason why they were met there, as he took it, was so that those who composed the majority should hear the views of others. The objecting minority were in this peculiar position, that, although small in numbers, they represented very much more than their numbers indicated. There could be no doubt that the Minister in charge of the Bill and the Government should give to their words and arguments the fullest possible weight, because it had been proved that the views they expressed were the views of the country. The Bill was designed to apply chiefly to the Witwatersrand and Pretoria. That was what had been in the minds of the Government in framing that, Bill. Let them glance at the verdict of the people they represented. The Western Reef in that House was represented at present by the hon. member for Roodepoort, and the hon. members for Krugersdorp and Langlaagte. The three districts had decided by 4 to 3 that the party they wanted to represent them was the party to which the hon. member for Roodeport belonged. The constituencies of Denver and Turffontein had declared by an overwhelming majority that their representatives in the House did not represent their views. Johannesburg itself was represented in the House by six members of the opposing parties and two on the cross-benches. The verdict of those constituencies showed that they should have eight representatives on the cross-benches instead of two Yet that voice was closured down, and did not find proper expression. On the East Rand they had the constituencies of Germiston, Boksburg, George Town, and Springs, and there again the verdict of those districts showed that their views were properly expressed by the hon. members for George Town and Springs.

said that the hon. member must not trench on a matter which was covered by a motion on the Order Paper.

said that that was a matter which was not likely to come before the House that session. There was not a ghost of a chance of that motion on the Order Paper coming before the House. The opinions expressed from those benches should receive the fullest consideration of the House. He wished to call attention to the consideration they had received. On the second reading the discussion was of very short length. It terminated unexpectedly, because who could have expected that the Minister in charge of the Bill would allow the question to be put without replying to any of the criticisms raised. Exercising their undoubted right on the motion to go into Committee, they had endeavoured again to express their views, and the Minister jumped up in the middle of a second address and moved the closure. When they did get into Committee on a most complicated clause the Minister would not allow it to be taken seriatim. Those were facts which were worthy of the consideration of the House. No legislation should be allowed to pass without proper consideration—that was not legislation which would do credit to the Government or to the House. He would quote from the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), who on the second reading said he was nervous in giving greater power to the Government, that the responsibility was great upon the House—yet the Opposition had acquiesced in the closure on the debate to go into Committee. When the important matters in the first chapter of the Bill were being discussed the Opposition was absent or represented by only one member. That was not the way the country expected its legislation to be dealt with. There had been a right to free speech in this country, if not a legal right, at any rate by custom. It was time that that legislation for that session at all events should be allowed to elapse. If the Prime Minister went to the country and us a result of that appeal he found that the legislation was wanted he would be justified in proceeding with it. As long as he proceeded with that legislation with discredited representatives and no Opposition so long would he be making a farce of that Parliament and bringing into danger the representative institutions of this country. He believed firmly that if the Prime Minister took that course he would find that there were other directions in which he could pass useful legislation. He appealed to the Opposition to take a more serious view of the responsibilities than they had done a few nights ago. Was the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) prepared to go back on his word with regard to what he had said concerning remedial legislation? The country would know that all that talk about remedial legislation was so much bluff, and that what the Opposition wanted was a grip on the official Government of this country.

said he did not propose to reply at length to the hon. member for Jeppe. With regard to the second reading debate, in opening that debate he had tried to explain the provisions of the law, and a few criticisms were made on detail by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Jeppe. Another member on the cross benches addressed the House on the Bill. He listened most attentively, but he found no criticism whatever. He heard a long discussion about the wrong way of setting about this business, but he found no criticism with regard to the principles of the Bill. He did not claim the Bill was perfect. The hon. member said that the first chapter restricted the freedom of speech, but there was not a word of that in the chapter. Of course, if the hon. member was against the principle of the Bill and the rest of the House was for it, then he could understand him. He pointed out that the Transvaal Act, which was being repealed by this measure, was one which hon. members on the cross-benches had called antiquated and despotic. There was a demand on their part that they should have a Public Assemblies Bill. Now when he introduced a Riot Act he was told that hon. members on the cross-benches had made up their minds to fight every line of the Bill, and not attempt to make it a better Bill. Then it was tried to make out that this was directed against the Witwatersrand. He (the Minister) denied that. It was for the whole of South Africa. Then it was said that due weight was not given to the representations of hon. members on the cross-benches and their friends. He was open to listen to argument, but when the whole principle was condemned, and it was openly stated that every line and word of the Bill would be opposed, hon. members must not be surprised if the few grains of corn amongst so much chaff escaped attention. Regarding what the hon. member had said about the closure, he would point out that the hon. member’s party in the Transvaal Provincial Council had given them an illustration of how they carried on business. (Ministerial cheers.) If the Government in this House was to use its majority in the same way they would have a different set of circumstances. Instead of giving hours to clauses they would give minutes. Then it was said that this was unasked for legislation. He (the Minister) denied that. It was a demand on the part of the great majority of the people. (Labour dissent.)

Contest the country! You dare not do it! (Labour cheers.)

Contest your own constituency. (Ministerial cheers and laughter.)

I will go to-morrow if you will come and fight me. (Labour cheers and Ministerial laughter.)

said there was nothing in the first chapter to prevent anyone who did not go outside the law from expressing his views. Then the hon. member talked about remedial legislation. Surely he did not expect them to do two things at the same time. If this Bill was put through Committee he was prepared to put it aside for a space, and go on with remedial legislation. (Ministerial cheers.) He appealed for fair and open criticism, and said that if a member did not agree with the principle he should vote against the Bill.

said that the Minister of Justice was fond of talking to the House like a “ school inarm.” He confined his remarks to hon. members on the cross benches, and did not touch upon the fact that he did not reply to criticism from other parts of the House. He would remind the Minister, who was a young man in that House, that it was usual for Ministers of the Crown to reply to criticism, and he did not think the Minister was necessarily the only judge as to whether arguments had anything in them or not He suggested that legislation of this sort should come from a Ministry other than the backveld Ministry. He knew that a member of that House was transferred to a higher sphere so as to allow the Minister of Justice to get a seat. If the Minister was willing they could both resign their seats at once, and he would fight him in Weenen. He (Mr. Meyler) was prepared to put a shade of odds on himself. (Laughter.)

denied they had asked for this measure.

You did.

When?

reply was inaudible.

I beg your pardon. It was nothing of the sort. Continuing, he said that a deputation asked for the repeal of the Transvaal. Act of 1894. The Prime Minister agreed, and promised a Riot Act. To allow a man to stop a meeting was interfering with the liberty of speech, if he knew anything about it. Dealing with the Minister’s statement that he wanted the fullest discussion, Mr. Creswell alluded to the use of the closure on the amendment of the hon. member for George Town when the Bill was about to be committed and declared that the Opposition acquiesced in the Minister’s proposal. When did the Labour Party in the Transvaal Provincial Council move the closure? (Labour cheers.) Not once.

There has been no obstruction by the minority there.

They are not capable of it, that’s why.

There may be a lack of alertness about the Minister’s friends in the Transvaal; let them fight their own battles, we are ready to fight ours. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said he was glad to see that the official Opposition in the Union Parliament was content with the very smallest crumbs that the Minister might throw out. He (Mr. Creswell) was bitterly opposed to the way in which the Government carried through its business, but it would not be human if it did not congratulate itself on having an Opposition which it could ignore and almost stamp upon. Nothing would save the Opposition for its behaviour on Friday, and the country would never forget its betrayal.

We hope not.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, would like to be transferred to a calmer sphere perhaps thousands of miles away from here, and perhaps the electors will give him his heart’s desire. (Laughter.) In conclusion, Mr. Creswell said the House was now going to embark on a stage in the session when it could have no real discussion.

said he accepted the challenge that the Opposition continually got from the cross-benches. He was heartily in accord with the principle of the Bill, because it was high time that the eyes of the public were opened to the tactics of the gentlemen on the cross benches. (Hear, hear.) It was high time that those hon. members who had the courage of their convictions should say that, although they were willing to accept the principles of liberty of speech they were not going to allow demagogues to transfer that liberty into licence—(cheers)—and to allow hon. members on the cross-benches to preach their revolutionary doctrines without any idea of bettering the condition of the people they pretended to represent, but really making their lot worse. The people Who supported the hon. members on the cross-benches would be ruined and their places would be taken by coloured labourers. He was not afraid to meet the hon. member for Jeppe or any other hon. member on the cross-benches in their own constituency provided they would allow him to speak. (Loud cheers and laughter.) The people were being deceived, humbugged and misled. (Cheers.) He had sufficient confidence in the Minister of Justice to accept his word. Chapter 2 was the most important portion of the Bill, for it would prevent gentlemen on the cross-benches from repeating what they did during last July and January.

What did we do?

His friend Waterston—

The hon. member said us. On a point of order, the hon. member should either withdraw or give names.

The hon. member for Jeppe was not here. He went off to Rhodesia, and I do not blame him. The other day I said that the hon. member for Springs gloried in the destruction that took place, and I repeat that statement now. I quoted the authority, and I am prepared to quote it again inside or outside the House whenever he likes. (Cheers.)

The hon. member must confine himself more closely to the question under debate.

I was answering a question. I want to say to these gentlemen that we have facts for what we say and we are prepared to prove them; we are not like them who invent charges. I glory in the fact that I openly support the principle of the Bill, because it is going to stop people who are misled by others from preventing the genuine working man from carrying on his work and will put an end to the demagogue—

Will it?

And will prevent licence of speech and substitute for it liberty of speech.

said he congratulated the Government on its champion. If it wished for a champion which would drag them into the mud it could not have been more successful in its choice. The name of the hon. member for Bloemfontein was not particularly sweet among the followers of the Prime Minister. The hon. member championed the Government and the Prime Minister cheered.

Why not?

His name is not particularly sweet in their nostrils—the Government has come down pretty low now. The hon. member has threatened us, but he has been frank in stating that he welcomed the Bill. The hon. member has a lot to say about a policy of intimidation and coercion. The Bill makes an attempt to prohibit intimidation on the one side, but not on the other, for intimidation and coercion are rampant, backed up by Government and the Opposition. I met a constituent of the hon. member who is leaving this country having been victimised by the Railway Department.

Because you misled him. (Laughter.)

said that no Bill, no Act would stop his hon. friends there and no amount of terrorism on the part of the Minister and his friends, backed up by the Opposition, was going to stop the propaganda which the members on the cross-benches were engaged in in that House, and in which hundreds of thousands of others were engaged in this land and in other parts of the world. As to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha) he knew perfectly well that his political career in this country was finished. He had nothing to lose and, therefore, he was not afraid of coming forward to champion this Bill as he had done that afternoon. He had given up Bloemfontein for ever, and in the next session they would see a better man in his place.

said he regretted that the passage of this Bill should be delayed in this way. He was thoroughly in accord with Chapter 2. (Hear, hear.) If there were one principle that had lived with him since he began to think it was that in the matter of labour all men — white coloured, or black — should be free. There should be no tyranny of any kind on labour. Labour should be free to sell itself for whatever wages it thought fit to anybody and everybody. They could not compare South Africa with European countries. Our circumstances were entirely different, and even liberty which might fittingly be allowed in other countries of the old world could not be allowed in South Africa.

Are you going to stop it?

I will tell the House why. The reason is that, after all, we have a large native population as the major portion of the working people in this country.I say it is the duty of this House to protect these people, who are the real workers of the country. Although up to the present time there has not been any successful attempt on the part of the gentlemen Who sit on the cross-benches, or those who are their coadjutors outside the House, except by colour bar and so forth, to bring them under the influence of the Labour Party, it will certainly come as the years go on.

I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the question that I do now leave the Chair. (Hear, hear.)

I am against your leaving the Chair I have given a great reason with me why I say we should go on with the Bill. I say you have got to protect the natives and coloured workers of this country, who are the majority. I say you have to legislate so that these people may be protected in the years to come, if any attempt is made to interfere with them. Another reason is that the same class of people I have indicated should have some record of what the law of the land is on this question, so that they may know how far they can go in legitimate combination against employers of labour and so forth.

put the question and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—10.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Sampson, Henry William

A. Fawcus and Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

Noes—82.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Bekker, Stephanus

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fichardt. Charles Gustav

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Runciman, William

Schoemah, Johannes Hendrik

Scmeiner, 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

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

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

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

The motion was, therefore, negatived.

On clause 8, Prohibition of intimidation or annoyance of persons, their relatives or dependants in relation to their employment.

Mr. F H. P. CRESWELL (Jeppe) moved that the three paragraphs of the clause be taken seriatim.

said that clause 8 covered each one of the subsections, and he thought if they were taken seriatim it would lead to hopeless confusion.

said the Minister might jump up in the middle and move the closure before they had dealt with each of the sub-sections.

agreed to take the clause seriatim.

moved to delete the words “induce or.” He said that otherwise it seemed to him that a man would be made guilty of an offence for doing something which he had a perfectly legal right to do, and which the Bill did not intend to prevent him doing. He did not regard the Bill from the point of view of the hon. members on the cross benches. He did not think it was a Bill which was intended to prevent free speech. If the words remained in the clause it would be a serious matter for persons who were engaged in labour organisations and engaged in the business of Trade Unions. What the clause ought to aim at was intimidation, not reasonable inducement to join a labour organisation.

supported the amendment. He said that as the clause stood it would be going much further than the Minister had intended.

objected to the wording of the clause. He said it ought not to read “induce … a person to abstain.” Why should they punish a person for doing what he had a right to do? The section had been taken from the Now Zealand Act. He did not understand the wording of the clause.

said that the drafter of the Bill had put the wrong words first. Regarding the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, he did not feel strongly one way or the other. There was a difference between the words “induce” and “compel,” but the governing word was “threatens.” Supposing the secretary of the Trade Union camped on his doorstep from day to day, his object was to “induce” him to join a Trade Union. However, he had no objection to leaving out the word “induce.”

said he could not follow the argument of the hon. member for Fordsburg. Were they to understand that he was a believer in peaceful picketing?

Yes.

said that the hon. member might find himself in the position of Lord Haldane, who at the Birmingham Small Arms Factory was horrified to see a ring of men ten deep round the factory gates, who said that they were peacefully picketing, and the unfortunate wretch who wanted to go to work had to pass through those men. Lord Haldane was horrified. He was just saying that as a warning to the hon. member for Fordsburg.

said he took it that that section had been taken out of the Conspiracy Law of 1875. After the law was passed it was not clear to anyone whether it allowed peaceful picketing or not He said that this section might be construed so that a man asking another to join a building society or something of the sort would come within the law. There was no such intention in the Conspiracy Act.

said he would find it easier to take the advice of the hon. member for Umlazi if the latter’s actions were more intelligible. (Laughter.) He contrasted the action he took on the division with the attitude he was taking on this clause. He was in favour of giving the same freedom to members of Trade Unions as other people to further their views by all lawful and peaceful methods.

said that the hon. member spoke as though this was a mere matter of conversation. But they put a pistol at other men’s heads to induce them to take a different course. That was the worst of that. That was what these gentlemen did. He hoped the Minister would leave the words as they were.

moved the deletion of sub-section (b), and said if those remained, no words which the hon. member for Fordsburg could insert would render them null and void. It would prevent men doing most harmless things even when there was no strike, and a more preposterous and ridiculous interference with the liberty of the subject it would be impossible to find. If such a law existed in New Zealand he would like to know it. What was all the fuss about this terrible thing called peaceful picketing? A dispute might arise in a factory. Negotiations might take place or the master, as was generally the cash, might refuse to have anything to do with the men. These men went out and they were very anxious that nobody else should take their jobs. Men were free to work anywhere they liked except at that place. Their object was to meet anybody looking for work. They stood near the factory—as they were permitted to do in England and other civilised countries—and he asked a man if he was going to work there. If he said he was they allowed him to go in, and the man took all the responsibility upon his own shoulders. Of course, the right hon. gentleman said that then the pick handle was jammed down the man’s throat, but in 99 cases out of a hundred nothing of the sort occurred. Most men, being honest men, said “I will not work there. I will go back.” He hoped the House would not be frightened by the lurid pictures which had been drawn by the right hon. gentleman and others, because they were merely picking on exceptional cases which had happened during the last 50 years. He pointed out that before legislation dealing with peaceful picketing was introduced in England a Royal Commission went thoroughly into the subject and found very little evidence of anything of the sort suggested by the right hon. gentleman. They could not prevent men attempting to preserve their rights and to prevent other men encroaching on those rights. Other means would be found if they were prevented. If they abolished peaceful picketing, they were far more likely to meet with other troubles. In conclusion, he said that the right hon. gentleman had grossly exaggerated incidents that had occurred from time to time.

said it was not the custom to commit theft, but still we had very severe laws against it. (Laughter.) These laws were made against the evil doers. Under the New Zealand Act passed in 1913 it was a criminal offence to follow any other person about from place to place in order to compel him to do something it was not legal for him to do, or to abstain from doing something which he had a legal right to do. He supposed a man had a legal right to join a Trade Union.

Clause 9.

We are on clause 8. We will deal with clause 9 when we come to it. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said that under the New Zealand Act it was illegal for a person to watch or beset the house or place where such other person resided or carried on business, or follow such other persons with two or more persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.

That is different from this.

It is a good deal more stringent. Substantially every word here is contained in the New Zealand Act. Continuing, Mr. Merriman appealed to the Minister not to put in such an extravagant penalty as £200 or a year’s imprisonment. The New Zealand penalty was sufficiently severe. He moved as an amendment to add at the end of the clause, “and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of £20 or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding three months.” They would defeat the Act by having excessive penalties for what some people consider trivial offences.

thought both “induce” and “compel” were absolutely necessary words to have in the clause, otherwise those who really had compelled persons in the direction indicated would, plead that they had only induced them.

in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for George Town, defied anyone to make sense of the clause, the first portion of which, he maintained, had five or six different meanings. A person might suggest the use of violence by will power alone, and might compel someone else to carry out his desires. He wanted the House to see how absolutely foolish the clause was A remark to a man such as “Don’t you go there or you may be hurt” might be twisted into a threat. (Laughter.) Sub-section (b) would make it illegal for a man to live in the same street as a person who remained at work during a strike. He (Mr. Haggar) did not like to see the House made ridiculous in the eyes of the world, and he was sure if the Minister would send the clause to a Government school any girl in Standard V. would re-write it more clearly and correctly than it was printed in the Bill.

moved to omit paragraph (d), on page 8, and to substitute the following new paragraph: “(d) follows that other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.” He said that to provide a penalty of £200 or two years’ imprisonment for jeers and gibes was going altogether too far. He thought it was going too far to impose such heavy penalties on a man who objected to the conduct of another man. He supposed the object of the sub-section was to prevent people from calling other people “scabs.” He thought everything possible should be done to prevent such exhibitions of brutality against men who were called “scabs,” as they were treated to during the disturbances in July last, but to impose a penalty of £200 or two years’ imprisonment upon a man who might refer to another as a “scab” was going much too far. They had a perfect right, of course to protect people from actual violence.

said that annoying a person was an offence already, and a penalty was provided. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had referred to New Zealand. New Zealand would find, as we should find and as England had already found, that this clause (b) would have to be withdrawn. It would have to be withdrawn in this country before very long if it went through this House. He wanted to point out to the right hon. gentleman, who seemed to be obsessed with the idea of Benoni and that every time there was a strike, every time there was an industrial trouble, pick handles were going to be used by the strikers and men’s teeth were going to be rammed down their throats, that sub-section (a) was surely sufficient. Clause (b) was directed against men on strike, or men about to strike.

Why was it not going to apply to the employer? Was the Minister going to punish employers who desired to bring pressure to bear on their men who stayed out ? What did they find during the printers' strike which occurred in Cape Town a few years ago? There never was a more peaceful strike. Did the Minister know that the master-printers, who formed themselves into a Federation for the purpose, on that occasion, imported men wholesale from England and probably other places? The representatives of the master-printers were allowed to go on the ship before she was berthed to induce these men to sign on. These men did not know what was on out here. There were police, mounted and on foot, drawn up alongside the quay, and the representatives of the men were not allowed even to see these imported men and talk to them as they came of the boat. He was quite prepared for the employers to be allowed to meet the men and endeavour to induce them to go to work, but he claimed on behalf of the men that they should also have the right to meet the men and endeavour to induce them not to work. The Minister had said that this clause was going to operate all round. Why should they not leave the thing open? Why should not he (Mr. Madeley), who believed he was right in striking against certain conditions, if he saw any other man going to help his employer to beat him, say, “You are not playing the game,” and take any other means he liked short of violence ? There was a heavy brick wall of prejudice against these workers. Why did the right hon. gentleman want this penalty imposed upon a man who was peacefully picketing? What was the harm in it? He (Mr. Madeley) wished to move that paragraph (c) be deleted. Here they were providing a penalty of £200 or two years’ imprisonment for hiding a man’s tools. Surely the Minister would realise that that, at all events, was not a clause that should be in the Bill.

said there was nothing in the clause which prevented a person going to a place to do a thing which he had a right to do.

said it was very seldom that the hon. member for Springs, in the course of his speech, had got to the point of the clause. He (the Minister) was not going to punish anybody. It was for the magistrates and judges to enforce the law. No distinction was drawn in the clause between employer and employee. The hon. member had spoken about the penalties. Let him point out that they were maximum penalties. It was all very well for the hon. member to make a long speech about the penalties that would be imposed on a man for a slight offence, but what was to happen to a man who threatened to blow up man’s house with dynamite? The maximum penalty was not for slight cases, but for the severe cases. He was prepared to reduce the penalties in clause 13 from a fine of £200 or two years to £50 or six months. He hoped the hon. member for Fordsburg would not press his amendment. One of the mostserious weapons used by the men was to follow him about and call him a “scab,” etc. During industrial unrest that was what appealed to a man more than anything else. It was following men about with the intention to compel them to strike that was an offence. It would be a most difficult matter to obtain a conviction under the clause. They knew what difficulty there was in proving intent in culpable insolvency cases for instance. With regard to the hiding of a man’s tools, etc., it was the intention to compel him to strike that made the offence so serious. He suggested to the hon. member for Victoria West that he should withdraw his amendment with regard to penalties. They would deal with the penalties under clause 13, and he agreed to their reduction.

withdrew his amendment.

said there was the same penalty for using dynamite as there was for hiding a man’s hat, and that was a ridiculous position. In the criminal laws they had the penalties fixed in accordance with the magnitude of the offence, and he protested against a precedent being made in the case of Trade Unions. All the things laid down in the Bill were already crimes, and penalties were provided. That was not altogether a question of peaceful picketing. He moved to add at the end of the clause: “Provided that it shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a Trade Union or of an individual employer or firm, in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.”

said the Minister had been well-advised to agree to the reduction of the penalties. They were maximum penalties, and if the offence was of a trivial character, the Court would give punishment accordingly.

supported the motion for the deletion of paragraph 3. He said the Minister would not see the matter from the point of view of the men. They had terms in that Bill which were not defined, and he found that all the definitions in the authorities were directly opposite to the trend in that Bill. The hon. member for Fordsburg had referred to the terms “scab” and “blackleg.” Those terms, according to the authorities, were not opprobrious. The legal definition of “blackleg” was “gambler” or “swindler,” and the technical definition was “non unionist,” but if a dispute came along the authorities were final Courts of Appeal, and they said that the term “blackleg” or “scab” was simply the common definition of non-unionists. The hon. Minister said he was standing up for free labour. He demanded that the free labourer had an right to defend the opportunity of earning a free livelihood. On the other hand they on the cross-benches were asking that the Trade Unionists should have the same liberty. The Minister’s definition had broken down in New Zealand. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he was not concerned about the penalties so much, but the House was trying to create offences which were no offences. They had no right to make the use of a technical term in a technical sense an offence. Who was to decide whether a term was opprobrious or not? Was the Minister in a condition to decide whether the speeches of the hon. members on the cross-benches were made with good feeling or bad feeling? If he had got no memories of self-respect or any trace of respect for that House, if he wished to be considered a decent fellow by the country, he would wipe those things out of the Bill and let them have something decent.

next rose to speak, and said he was sorry that the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West was going out.

Oh, dear!

said the right hon. gentleman had been loud in his determination to champion the free labourer who he thought must be given an opportunity to work. The hon. member proceeded to quote from the report of deputations representing the general workers of the Transvaal to the Administrator, regarding five or six hundred white workers who had been replaced by Kafir labour, and said that the Administrator’s reply was that it had been done under score of economy. That, said Mr. Creswell, was free labour. He did not believe it was conscious hypocrisy on the part of those who talked in such loud tones of championing free labour, but they would not face the human facts that they had to deal with. Those wretched 600 men to whom the Government failed to show their responsibility would be prepared to take any wages so as to get food for their families, and then when those whom they superseded took measures in their own interests the Government stepped in They should deal with the men in some other way. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell said with regard to a clause in sub-section (a), it was already provided for, but they wanted to make it a more heinous offence because it was in connection with industrial disputes. It was not out of consideration for the free labourer, but in the interests of the existing state of things. If the Government would take a referendum of all the wage earners organised and unorganised on the question of whether it should or should not be forbidden by law, that during a dispute another man could come in and offer his services to take the bread out of the mouth of the man on strike, by an overwhelming majority the wage earners would say it should be forbidden by law. If that was forbidden all that feeble legislation would be then unnecessary. The law which was at the present time against them would be on their side, and would be doing what the law was at present having to do by other methods. In regard to paragraph (b), “Any persons who remained at or near the premises where that other person resides or is seeking work, etc.,” for which there was a maximum penalty of a £200 fine or two years’ imprisonment, could the hon. Minister show why that was a crime of such a heinous nature, and why the magistrate should be allowed to inflict such a heavy penalty? It had been stated that the magistrates were not fools, but he wondered what the magistrates would think of hon. members of that House for passing such a law. Under what circumstances was it right to give a man six months for hiding another man’s clothes? Why were they going to deal with actions by workers in connection with industrial disputes as more heinous crimes than if they were done under other circumstances.

He asked whether it was not the wisest course to deal with all these cases on the merits of each case under the present law. He pointed out that in times of industrial dispute the excuse for anything of this sort was all the greater. Because the excuse was greater and the temptation was greater they were going to make the penalty greater. Dealing with sub-section (b) he said he thought that if it was put to the vote most men would agree that scabbing was disgraceful. He touched upon the position of the legal profession, and said that they made it warm for anybody belonging to their society guilty of unprofessional conduct. Did not the Minister see that there were cognate considerations to take notice of here? The trouble is that they would consider these matters from the class view, and their sympathies were with the men who possessed and they would not enter, not because they couldn’t, into the feelings of the men who did not possess. What measures would the Government ever think of taking to prevent, say, the member for Cape Town, Central, setting up a store close by another man’s shop undercutting him every time, and forcing him out of the country. He did not say that the hon. member did that, but if he wished he had a perfect right to do it. Not a voice would be raised to prevent him.

We passed a law dealing with the meat trade in the Cape.

Am I right in saying that in the matter of meat there never was a trust? (Laughter.) In conclusion, he said it was mighty little use passing legislation of this sort which would not effect the desired end. In this connection they would have to retrace their steps in the future if they desired South Africa to be a progressive country.

The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg was agreed to.

put the question: That paragraph (b), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

Ayes—79.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pinter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Runcimau, William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalle

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

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

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

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

Noes—10.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler. Hugh Mowbray

H. W. Sampson and Thos. Maginess, tellers.

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

put the question: That paragraph (c), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

put the question: That paragraph (d), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

put the question, that clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division.

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

declared the clause, as amended, agreed to.

On clause 9, as follows. Any person who in order to induce or compel any other person to become a member of any Trade Union does any of the acts specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the last preceding section, shall be guilty of an offence,

moved, in line 11, to omit “paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)” and to make “paragraphs” in the singular. He said that the Trade Unions did a great deal of humane work. They looked after men when they became too old to carry on their employment. In 1903 a Royal Commission was appointed in England to inquire into those matters, and the result was that the Trades Disputes Act was placed on the Statute-book. How was this clause going to affect the employers? The Minister of Justice had told them that the same law would apply to the employing class. As a matter of fact, in practically every case the employing class would be able to evade this law. How would the Minister treat such a case as happened only a few months ago when a Government medical appointment was open in Pretoria and there were notices in the Press urging any person, before he applied for that appointment, to see the secretary of a certain Medical Board. If hon. members in this House were sincere in their desire to assist Trade Unions he appealed to them to support the amendment that he had moved.

said he hoped the Minister would accept a similar amendment in this clause to the one that he (Mr. Duncan) had moved in the previous clause, and delete the words “induce or,” which he accordingly moved. He thought there was a good deal of force in the arguments used by the hon. member who spoke last, and he hoped his amendment would be accepted. He thought that paragraph (a) constituted ample protection.

said that the hon. member for Liesbeek had appealed to members in this House who believed in Trade Unions to vote for his amendment. He (Mr. Fawcus) was one of those who did not believe in Trade Unionism. He believed that questions of labour were governed by the laws of supply and demand, like every other thing, and, naturally, whenever they had two or three employers bidding for the work of one man his wages went up and the conditions of his employment improved.

That has never happened.

It has never happened largely because of the actions of Trade Unions. The action of Trade Unions since they took up the political line has had the effect of breaking down and destroying the old-established factories in which the relationships between master and man were very different from the relationships which are obtaining to-day in the new factories. Proceeding, he said that the only thing which had interfered with the workmen getting their full share of the improved state of affairs which had been brought about within recent years had been largely the actions of the Trade Unions. The hon. member for Fordsburg had charged him with taking up an illogical position. He maintained that his position was a great deal more logical in this matter than the hon. member’s. He thought they should not prevent the masters, who were conscientious believers in the wrong that the Trade Unions did, from attempting to dissuade their employees from joining Trade Unions, and he appealed to everybody in this House who did not believe in Trade Unions to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Liesbeek.

said he did not know what the remarks of the last speaker had got to do with this clause at all. (Hear, hear.) A man might be a whole-hearted supporter or a whole-hearted opponent of Trade Unions, but this clause said that, whatever one was, he should not use any undue influence to compel any other person to come round to his views. It was not a question of the clause being directed against Trade Unions. It was true that some of the clauses (b), (c) and (d) were at present not actively used for preventing people from becoming members of Trade Unions, but he did not see why they should not have this clause in He thought they should leave these things. If they did not occur then no harm was done.

said he thought that the hon. member for Umlazi had misread history. He thought the Minister would be well advised to withdraw the clause. It was one-sided. If it was good for Trade Unionists, it ought to be good for all political sections and other people. If it applied to anybody, let them put it in the common law. They should have some quid pro quo, and if this clause was passed he would move another to follow, which would attain that end.

said he thought that the clause cut both ways, and he thought that was the intention of the Minister. Perhaps he would put it in plainer language.

pointed out that during the railway strike agents of the Administration went to the married quarters, put fear into the hearts of the unfortunate women, and left them in tears. Supposing he abused the Minister in the street, would it not be proper for a policeman to interfere?

Under the common law, no; unless the abuse was of a libellous nature.

How can I abuse without being libellous?

Not in this House. (Laughter.)

No, but outside. Why is it made any worse because I try to get a man to join a Trade Union? Suppose in a moment of light-heartedness he took away the Minister’s boots from the lobby, or say his hat.

It is not a crime to steal, if you are only going to borrow it. (Laughter.)

Why does it become a crime when I show it is better for a man to be in a Trade Union? Supposing I sat on the Minister’s doorstep every morning—

He could have you removed as a nuisance. (Laughter.)

said that either they should leave out the whole clause, or it meant that they looked upon Trade Unions as bad things.

supported the hon. member for Jeppe.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said the position that they on the cross-benches adopted was that clause 9 was absolutely unnecessary, and was not required at all, because the circumstances, as they had pointed out in connection with the preceding clause, which that clause pretended to cover, were covered in the ordinary way by the common law. As a consequence they contended that the only reason there could be for inserting a clause of that description was that the Government, and presumably those on the opposite side who supported them, were opposed to Trade Unions, and wanted to make it difficult, if not impossible, for those who were already Trade Unionists to induce those who were not, to join their various societies. In many other countries they encouraged Trade Unions. In Australia they had in all their Government contracts special reference to Trade Unions. The hon. Minister said that the clause would cut both ways. He (Mr. Madeley) wanted to say most emphatically that it would do nothing of the sort. The clause would always apply to the employees, and never to the employing class. Not only private employers but the Railway Department, he went on, had discharged men because they belonged to the Trade Unions. Whether or not they denied that, it was a fact nevertheless, although it was impossible for the men to prove it. Men were discharged on the Rand because they belonged to Trade Unions, and their discharges were marked in red. Everybody on the Rand knew what that meant that they were Trade Unionists, and were not to be re-employed. They should either throw out that clause or make it applicable to employers as well. If that clause was put into the Bill it would not stop Trade Unionism.

Why do you object to it then?

Because I have got a due sense of responsibility as a representative of the people in this House. They wanted fundamental justice, and that was why he was opposing that clause.

said it was not so much, what the Bill said which was important or unimportant. He wanted to call attention to the dictum laid clown two years ago by the Government, that every man must be held responsible for the effect of his own words. Personally, he did not subscribe to the ridiculous dictum, for it was not the dictum of a sane man. The effect of a man’s words was determined, not by what he said, but the conditions into which those words fell; but they had appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar they must go. Upon that question what did the intelligent Trade Union leaders think of the effect of that Bill upon the Trade Unions, and consequently upon the country at large? Since they adjourned for dinner he had met some of those men. They were not members of the Labour Party. They were not so extreme as some of those Labour men were, but they said to him that after the most careful consideration of that Bill they were convinced that it was going to inflict a serious blow upon Trade Unions. That was their conviction, and, pointed out Mr. Haggar, the world was influenced more by a sentiment than by logic. Quoting as an authority the Royal Commission of Great Britain on Labour, which sat from 1891 to 1894, Mr. Haggar said that the expressed opinion of that Commission was that Trade Unions had a great influence in the settlement of disputes.

The champion of free labour was a champion of the degradation of industrial mankind. He quoted from a report of the Royal Commission in England which had stated that where the Trade Unions had had control the disputes had been very limited and had been brought to an issue without much harm. He was sorry for his own sake that the Minister had not been born 500 years ago. He might have been in Paradise with a halo round his head. He objected to the application of a principle to Trade Unionism which did not apply all round. There was no reason why they should apply one principle to one set of people and not to another. The professions insisted that a man must submit to the conditions laid down or he must starve. Why, therefore, should they have a different principle with regard to a Trade Union? In the event of another strike would the Minister keep the hon. member for Fort Beaufort outside the Salt River Works— that was intimidation. The hon. member had taken another gentleman with him, the Mayor of Cape Town. Let, them have fair play all round. When the trouble was brewing at Salt River his hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) had told the men at Salt River to go back. If such a thing happened again his hon. friend could be put into gaol for it. He hoped the Minister would delete the clause and let them have a decent clause.

said he was willing to apply the principles of that clause to all societies, if it was said that it was an attack on Trade Unionism. The hon. member had quoted the Royal Commission’s report. He need not have gone further back than the report of the Economic Commission in this country, which expressed high approval of the work of the Trade Union. The Commission’s report stated that no pressure must be placed on non-Unionists to join the Unions. (Hear, hear.) That was very sound advice. He believed there were many employers in that House who preferred Trade Unionists as employees, and that was a matter that would right itself. It was not proposed to interfere with Trade Unions. What they did propose to interfere with was any undue pressure, influence, intimidation, or serious annoyance being put on any workman to compel him to join the Unions. A Union would be much stronger when it consisted of men who had not been compelled to join the Union against their wish. If the Unions did not do that, then that would be an unnecessary provision—it would be unnecessary to legislate against something that did not take place. He could understand that argument. One hon. member on the cross-benches had said some time ago that the Bill was going to be a great help to Trade Unionists, and they were now told that it was going to be a serious blow to the Trade Unionists. Must Trade Unionism exist through forcing unwilling members into its ranks? They had been discussing that clause for a considerable time, and he would appeal to hon. members now to come to a vote.

moved to delete the words “Trade Union” and substitute “Society or Association.” He said this would affect Trade Unions as much as anybody else, and would do away with the objection that the clause was specially directed at Trade Unions.

I accept the amendment.

said that he had been a member of a Trade Union for 16 years. If he stood outside the Salt River Works and advocated the employees joining his particular Trade Union would he be violating sub-section (b)?

said he did not think that would be a violation of this sub-section. He might say that he did not want to give the impression that he desired to apply to Trade Unions any unfair thing and for that reason he was prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly. He was prepared to strike out “(b),” because picketing was a thing that did not take place in connection with Trade Unions, at any rate, had not so far. It was not intended to stop an act like that mentioned by the hon. member for Liesbeek. He moved accordingly to delete “(b) ” in line 11.

said he hoped they would not make this Committee silly and pretend that the Minister by deleting “Trade Union” and substituting “Association or Society” was making this quite fair. In another part of the clause he specified methods which might be made use of to bring pressure upon a workman who would not join his Trade Union. Would the Minister explain, if a Trade Union were not in itself a public evil but a public good, why did he make a punishable offence, so far as Trade Unions were concerned, what was not a punishable offence if done under other circumstances?

said he thought he had answered that question. He thought he had made it clear that, assuming a Trade Union was the best organisation in the world, he would disapprove of anybody doing these acts to intimidate a person to use undue influence upon him to compel him to become a member.

asked whether the Minister was prepared to strike out the words from “person,” in line 8 to “Trade Union,” so that the clause would read, “Any person who does any of the acts specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the last preceding section shall be guilty of an offence.”

said that the Minister had made a mistake in regard to what he (Mr. Haggar) had said. He had not said that the Minister was directing an attack on the Trade Unions. What he did say was that the leaders of Trade Unions were so convinced. He was, no doubt unconsciously, certainly unintentionally, creating a spirit of revolt, and they wanted peace.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment, to omit “induce or,” was agreed to.

Dr. Watkins’ amendment, to omit “Trade Union,” and substitute “Society or Association,” was agreed to.

The amendment of the Minister of Justice, to delete “(b),” was agreed to.

On Mr. Maginess’ amendment,

The first portion, to make “paragraphs” in the singular, was negatived.

put the question that “(c) and (d),” proposed to be deleted, be retained, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was accordingly taken.

As fewer than 10 members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Maginess, Meyler, Henwood and H. W. Sampson) voted against the motion.

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

The clause as amended was put.

called for a division, but as fewer than ten voted against the clause (Messrs. Henwood, Meyler, Madeley, Creswell, Sampson, Boydell, Andrews, Haggar, and Maginess),

declared the clause, as amended, agreed to

New Clause 10,

moved a new clause to follow clause 9 in the following terms: “10. Any employer or agent who shall require any employee or person seeking employment as a condition of such employment to enter into an agreement either written or verbal not to become or remain a member of any Trade Union, association, or organisation, or shall threaten any employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against an employee because of his membership in any Trade Union, association, or organisation, or who, after having discharged an employee, either before or after the employee has quitted his service, attempts or conspires to prevent such employee from obtaining employment elsewhere, shall be guilty of an offence.” The mover said that every person before entering the service of a certain Johannesburg printing firm had to sign a document that he was not a member, and would not become a member of a certain Trade Union. Here in Cape Town there was a Printers’ Pension Fund to which employers and employees contributed, and one of the conditions was that a person forfeited all benefit if he was in arrear with his payments for some time or joined a Trade Union. He had also seen indentures of apprentices where a boy had to sign that he would not become a member of a Trade Union. He knew of many verbal contracts where men had to say they would not become members of a Trade Union. They claimed that these conditions should not form part of verbal or written agreements. Then an employer should not be allowed to follow a man up. The working men of that country wanted to know what the Minister was prepared to do to protect the Trade Unionists.

said that after what had passed on the last clause the hon. members on the cross benches now wanted to introduce the words “Trade Unionists.” The attitude he took was that the employer would be free to employ unionists, non-unionists, or run an open house. With regard to employers disallowing their employees to join Trade Unions, that was punishable under clause 2.

No.

It cuts both ways. That is my answer to the second part. Continuing, he said with regard to blacklisting, clause 11 made provision for that, and he would not object to adding some words to that clause.

said that the Minister was playing with words, though they knew what he had in his mind. The Minister said the employer was punishable under clause 2, but what protection was there for the Trade Unionists? The employer exercised pressure by refusing to employ men or sacking a man when he had joined a Trade Union. If the Minister was sincere he ought to welcome this clause with open arms. Men were kicked out of the railway service for no other reason than being members of Trade Unions. There was many a man in gaol who deserved imprisonment less than did the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He supported most heartily the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street, and they would see what truth and what sincerity there was in all those asseverations of a desire for fairness when it came to a division on that motion. In other countries they looked upon it as a matter of enlightened policy to encourage men to go into Trade Unions, but the real bias of the whole of that legislation was against Trade Unions. On both sides of the House they were afraid of the growth of Trade Unionism. The triumph of Trade Unionism in this country would mean the tottering of many from the little thrones they now occupied.

said he had no feeling in the matter, but he did not see how by a clause of that kind the hon. member could carry out his ideas. If a man had made up his mind beforehand that he was not going to employ Trade Unionists, how were they going to stop it? They could not stop it by that clause.

said it would not prevent the employer discriminating between a Trade Unionist and another man, except in connection with signed agreements. There were big printing offices in this country who had adopted this method of discriminating between unionists and non-unionists. The “Star” office in Johannesburg was one. A man was not likely to sign to the effect that he would not join a Trade Union. That was a different thing altogether. They had heard a great deal about New Zealand during the afternoon. The clause he had proposed was from the New Zealand Act. The hon. Minister had quoted the New Zealand Act, and he (Mr. Sampson) would commend it to him. It had proved very effective there. It was the principle which they on the cross benches objected to. It was this penalising of the Trade Union. They would not penalise free labour. The hon. member said to bring an amendment on all fours with the clause already passed he wanted to delete the words “Trade Unions” and make it read “Society or Associations,” and then delete “or organisation.” He did not think the clause would do away with blacklisting. Blacklisting was responsible for many men walking the streets who ought not to be doing so. It was obviously wrong for one employer to dictate to another whom he should employ. The effect would be far-reaching, and they would have men finding it necessary to become criminals to live.

said he did not understand about that blacklisting. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and he flourished a printed list of scabs drawn up by the secretary of the Strike Committee.

said the hon. member had moved the clause to protect employees from employers. But it did not work both ways.

It does now.

said he was astonished that the hon. member was so hard on the Government, who were staunch Trade Unionists. The hon. member should take a broad view of those things.

said it was perfectly true that they did not desire any legislation to make it penal for any employer to refuse to employ a nonunion man. They would like Parliament to lay down a number of devices to indirectly force men into Trade Unions. They made no secret of that, for it was in the interests of the nation that the workers should be organised.

said that the hon. member talked very glibly about the workers. Did he mean all the people, both black and white?

Yes.

That is a new doctrine. They had not, he added, set about it very aptly, for they did not seem to be helping the natives along very much.

said that by the worker he meant the man who depended for his daily living upon his daily work, not a man like the right hon. gentleman who, for many years had depended upon the rights his property gave him to get the fruits of other people’s labour. With regard to the natives, only the other afternoon on that very Bill with regard to the Government hoodwinking the natives out of their rights, who spoke in indignant and sorrowful tones? Who was just trying to do a little bit of political jobbery? The right hon. gentleman had no more consideration for the coloured worker than for the carpet beneath his feet.

He was quite prepared to tackle the right hon. gentleman with his hypocritical regard for the native on every possible occasion. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth had said it was difficult to prove that a man was refused employment because he was a Trade Unionist. A way had been found in other countries to put a stop to tyranny against Trade Unionism. He had read about a year ago of a squatter in Australia who was tried for having dismissed two men by reason of the fact that they were Trade Unionists. An Arbitration Court had fixed the scale of wages, and the squatter did not abide by that award. The men appealed to their Union, and the secretary of the Union wrote to the squatter, who then discharged the men. For that he was fined £50. They should put the onus of proof on the employer to show that it was for some other reason that he discharged a man than that he was a member of a Trade Union.

asked why there was that great care for the Trade Unions—it was simply because the Labourites exploited them further than they had done in the past. They did not want to exploit the free men. He (Mr. Nathan) had managed to get a situation for a man on the “Leader,” who was a non-Union man. Within 48 hours that man was discharged. He (Mr. Nathan) inquired the reason, and it appeared that it was because he was not a member of a Trade Union. The secretary of the Union had written to The management of the “Leader” on the matter.

Quite right.

said their object was as far as possible to protect a man who desired to continue in his employment quietly and decently even if he was not a member of a Trade Union. That was a strong reason why the free man should be protected. (Hear, hear.)

said that at the time the incident referred to by the last speaker took place the master printers were going all over the country trying to get the employers to throw out every single individual Trade Unionist who was working in the printing trade. One or two master printers refused—all honour to them—to join the Masters’ Federation, and the whole thing was burst. With regard to the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, he thought it could be very easily got over. All that need be done was to have a regulation that no employer might ask any man going to him for a job whether he was or was not a Trade Unionist. Then the employer could not penalise a man because he was a Trade Unionist nor because he was not a Trade Unionist. The black list the right hon. member (Mr. Merriman) talked about was the outcome of similar black lists issued over years back. The only reason the men had been dismissed as a result of the railway strike in January was because they belonged to Trade Unions.

I move 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—44.

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Tbit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

F. R. Cronje and J. J. Alberts, tellers.

Noes—19.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. A. Wyndham and Charles Struben, tellers.

The motion was, therefore, carried.

then put the proposed new clause, upon which the Committee divided with the following result:

Ayes—16.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Bothu, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hagh Page

Haggur, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

MacNeillie, James Cumpbell

Madeloy, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Searle, Jumes

H. A. Wyndham and H. W. Sampson, tellers.

Noes—44,

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Juger, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaus Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Churles Beeton

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johunnes Hendrik

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johunnes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermoyer, Kgidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

F. R. Cronje and J, J. Alberts, tellers.

The new clause was, therefore, negatived.

On clause 10, Prohibition as to trespass on work premises to influence workmen,

said, he would like to ask the Minister whether he did not think the word “unlawfully” should be inserted at the beginning of paragraphs (a) and (b). It seemed to him that a person could cease work or leave his work lawfully at the time his contract was completed. He moved, after “(a)” and “(b),” to insert “unlawfully.” He also moved, in paragraph (b), to delete the words “at any time thereafter.”

said he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis. He thought the word “unlawfully” ought to be inserted as proposed by the hon. member. The Minister would know, of course, that to persuade a man to do what he had a legal right to do gave no cause of action even in a civil case. What harm was there in persuading another person to give notice to terminate his contract of employment? That was quite another thing: from proceeding against the man for being on premises by trespass. He thought the words could never have been intended to give the effect they did, because they made it a criminal offence to persuade a man to do what he had a perfect right to do. He, therefore, moved in paragraph (b) to omit “or” and to delete the following paragraph: “(c), to give notice to terminate his contract of employment.”

said he was prepared to accept the amendment. However, he did not see any virtue in the words proposed by the hon. member for Von Brandis. They were dealing with what was known as pulling out—men breaking down fences, going on private land and inducing men to come out.

said if an employee broke a contract his employer had his civil rights of gaining ie— dress. The fact was they were trying to place employees in the same position as natives under a boss. Why could not the Minister stick to the law of trespass? The employer had got a civil remedy against the employee, and why could not the Minister stick to that? Don’t let him tie up the Bill with criminal offences when there were civil remedies provided.

said that, putting aside abuse, the hon. member had not adduced any arguments. They were dealing with men trespassing, and then inducing others to break their contracts.

said that when there were civil remedies, why should men under that Bill be guilty of such awful crimes as to incur these huge penalties.

asked what right had the Government to determine what was and what was not trespass on private property. He did not know what the Minister hoped to gain by this clause. He did not see what was the difference between right and lawful right, and he did not see what the Minister was going to gain. He moved the deletion of the clause up to the end of sub-section (a).

There is no sense in the rest of the clause, then?

Then I move the deletion of the whole clause.

said he understood from the Minister it was no crime to induce men to leave their work outside the premises. How much more did it become a crime by going on the premises? He would like the Minister to pay some attention to his remarks, though the conversation which the Cabinet was carrying on might be very interesting.

Address the Chair.

Address the Chair. (Laughter.)

asked what the Minister meant by premises. Did he mean inside the house, and would premises include the garden? With regard to the mines at Johannesburg, he said he had always understood that the surface ground was public property except where it was built upon, but the Government seemed able to give the mine-owners power to put their fences where they liked and even erect blockhouses with loopholes. Why those things were done he did not know. He moved in paragraph (b) to omit “(b) to refrain from returning to work” to the word “or.” He thought this even more ridiculous than sub section (a). Bad as sub-section (a) or sub-section (b) was that was worse, because it said trying to induce men to refrain from returning to work. How could they induce men from returning when they were on the property. The Minister was making himself ridiculous.

moved to leave out the word “to” from line 16, and insert the word “illegally” at the beginning of paragraphs (a) and (b).

said that the theory on which they proceeded with regard to exchange in connection with that miserable commercial idea was that a certain amount of labour was rendered by an individual for the value of which he got a return from his employer. The bargain was equal, but in certain cases the continuance of the contract was the means by which the employer got his value. That was the only justification for inflicting damages if a man broke his contract. That was purely a civil matter, but a new principle was being introduced, that whereas mere trespass was an act a man had a right to prosecute for, and which the State punished, they were now making an additional penalty that it was a crime for a person to induce another to do an act which involved him simply in civil damages between him and some other person.

asked the hon. member how he would have dealt with the hon. member for Roodepoort who went down to the Docks in December last to induce men to come out on strike.

That is untrue.

said if it had been true what would be the remedy? What would the hon. member have done in connection with the trouble on the Kleinfontein Mine had he been the Minister of Finance ?

said if he had reason to apprehend that there would be an attempt to do some violent injury by one person towards another person, that other person had the right to police protection, but he would not presume that there was going to be an attempt, and arrest and punish men half a mile away. With regard to the other point, if the incident had happened, and the hon. member had asked those men to abstain from work, he (Mr. Creswell) did not know that that was any crime against the State.

asked the Chairman if it was in order for an hon. member to attribute to another hon. member conduct which had been denied in the House and which is absolutely false.

said he did not want to hurt the hon. member’s feelings, and pointed out that he did say “if,” but he would withdraw.

The first part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Struben, to insert “illegally” at the commencement of paragraphs (a) and (b), was negatived.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Nathan, and the second part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Struben, in paragraph (a), to omit “to,” were agreed to.

put the question: That the words “(b) to refrain from returning to work”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

The amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander was agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, was put.

declared the clause, as amended, agreed to

On clause 11, Use of opprobrious epithets, blacklisting, etc.,

“Any person who (a) verbally, or in any written or printed document published or circulated in any manner, uses any opprobrious epithet or any jeer or gibe to or about any other person, or to or about any of his relatives, in connection with the fact that such other person has undertaken, continued or returned to work or absented himself from work or refused to work for any employer; or.” He said the matter came within the law of blackmail, and the paragraph was unnecessary.

said that, as he also had an amendment on the paper to delete paragraph (a), he would content himself with speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. It was preposterous for the Government to impose a penalty of £200 fine or two years’ imprisonment or both, and probably deportation at the end of that time, just because one person happened to gibe or jeer at another, or send a letter containing any opprobrious epithets which had reference to the fact that a certain individual either went to work or did not go to work. Paragraph (b), to his mind, only emphasised the absolute dishonesty of the policy which the Government carried out and the policy which they laid down in the Bill for other people to carry out. This clause laid down that it should be an offence if any person sens round a list of names of men who stopped work or who went back to work, or, in other words, if they published a list like the one that the right hon. member for Victoria West had When the Government laid down a policy like that for other people and carried out a policy of an exactly similar character, as far as the railway servants were concerned, it seemed to him that it was nothing more or less than brutal hypocrisy. The hon. member for Commissioner-street had got a full black list issued by the Railway Department of the men who went on strike, and who were not, under any circumstances, to be re-employed. On that list there were 292 names. Then there were 293 names of men who might be employed with the sanction of the Chief Mechanical Engineer. He (Mr. Boydell) had got a list of the ones at Durban. Out of the whole of that list there were only seven who might be re-employed if opportunity offered. This by a Government that deprecated blacklisting and made it a punishable offence. It might be said that this list was only for circulation within the Department. If hon. members on the cross-benches could get this list, what was to stop any employer from getting it? What was to prevent the Chamber of Mines from getting hold of the list? There was a vindictive system of blacklisting among the employers going on at the present time. Would this Bill deal with that? The Minister well knew that the employers black list was not made public. It was circulated secretly, in private. When it came to the men, when the men posted up a list of workers who had not played the game, then it was a different tune altogether. This was a Bill to strangle the ordinary activities of Trade Unions and make it impossible for them to carry on what was considered legitimate organisation in other parts of the world. The secretary of the Trade Union, who reported to headquarters a man who had broken the rule, was liable to this heavy fine. He said it was unfair and dishonest of the Minister to get up and defend the section in view of the Government’s own policy. He moved the deletion of paragraph (b)

said that hon. members on the cross-benches would not see the point or pretended they could not see it. The difference between what had taken place in the case of the railway, and what was referred to in this section, was very great. Did they consider the railway as one organisation of 500 employers? The railway was one organisation, and the head gave the officials at different centres notice of what was doing. It would be ridiculous to dismiss A at Pretoria, and take him on at Johannesburg the following day. The Minister of Railways had denied that these lists had been sent to private employers. Directly the Railway Department did that it would be liable to prosecution. He admitted that the offence in section (a) was not a serious offence, but it was a serious form of annoyance.

said he hoped the Minister would not insist upon paragraph (a). The Minister admitted it was not a serious offence, and he (Mr. Duncan) thought it was rather a childish thing.

said that the hon. member had only to throw his mind back to July, and remember what happened then, as compared with what happened in January, when this was put into force. He would point out that the paragraph had only to do with the remarks made about people who returned to work and so on. His experience had led him to the conclusion that this method of jeering at men was a most effective method of intimidation.

said he could hardly understand the Minister of Mines, because what the Minister talked about was covered in sub-section (d) of section 8. That contained all that was wanted. He also pointed out that anybody making remarks of such a character was liable under the ordinary law. He would respectfully say that the Minister could safely accept the amendment

wanted information on one or two points. On the question of blacklisting the Minister had told the House that the railway did not come under the blacklisting clause, seeing that it was only one department, but the gold mines of the Witwatersrand were not unlikely at one time to come under one corporation, and there were huge trusts which would spring up in due course. What would be the position in those circumstances?

said that if the gold mines came under one administration, then, of course, there could be no blacklisting. The employer could not blacklist his own employees as against himself. If the Railway Administration had to send their list to any other employer of labour, then they would come under that section. If the gold mines were under one company they could only blacklist to some other company.

said that the only effectual way of dealing with that matter was in connection with the section which he had moved, and which had already been voted upon. The statement of the Minister reminded them of July and the Martial Law regulations of January. They were asked to stereotype Martial Law regulations into Statutes. They had created an offence in this Bill, and had narrowed it down to a certain section of the community. Was it not possible for members of rival Chambers of Commerce and other bodies to gibe and jeer at each other? Under that section Trade Unions would not be allowed to give information to other Trade Unions about any officer who may have committed a theft, say, in connection with his own union. To gibe and jeer was a very effective and desirable weapon, but it was used in all spheres of life. It was wrong to penalise only one section.

said he hoped the Minster would stiffen his back and see that that section became part of the Bill. The hon. member gave his personal experience in connection with that matter. He was labelled as a scab by the gentlemen who engineered the strike, and he was not ashamed of the fact. It did not matter to him so much as it did to some of his friends. In his opinion the section was absolutely necessary to keep peace. He hoped the two sections in clause 11 would be passed by the Committee and would be endorsed by the House, because, whatever their friends on the cross-benches said, it was an absolute fact that the people objected and strongly objected to being called names by their fellow-workers. The members of the cross-benches showed only one side of the case. No doubt wisdom would die with them, and he sometimes thought that the sooner wisdom died the better. (Laughter.)

said that almost every word of Browning’s “The Lost Leader” would be a contravention of that clause. Was it not puerile when considering a serious measure like that to introduce a clause of that description? The hon. member for Denver seemed to think that there was no redress in ordinary law for a man who insulted another man in public. There was such a redress in ordinary law. If such words were printed and circulated the man who did it could be prosecuted for criminal libel. Why did they require that special legislation? Why was it necessary? The matter was provided for in section (a) of clause 1.

said he had not been aware that the hon. member for Denver had been posted as a “scab.” He was sorry to think he had placed himself in such a position. What did the Medical Council do? What was done in their case if any particular man did not do just what they wanted him to do? They deprived him of his livelihood.

said they were constantly being told of the iniquities of the men on strike. Did a “scab” himself never use opprobrious language and never do anything wrong? He ad experienced what foui-mouthed beasts those men sometimes were. But no notice was taken of it. He quoted some filthy language used by an “officer and a gentleman” of the Defence Force to strikers at Germiston.

He went on to say that these blackguards in uniform, hired assassins, were held up, as heroes.

I rise to a point of order. (Hear, hear.)

Sit down, sit down.

Is it in order in this House, Mr. Chairman, to call the members of the Defence Force “hired assassins” ? (Cheers.) I ask for your ruling, sir.

The hon. member for George Town is not justified in calling members of the Defence Force “hired assassins.” (Cheers.) He must withdraw.

I have the honour to be a member of that force, and I object to such a term being applied to it. (Cheers and disorder.)

I must ask the hon. member to withdraw.

said he withdrew that term, but (he went on to say) what right had a blackguard in uniform—

I rise to a point of order again. Is it in order to describe members of the Defence Force of this country as “blackguards in uniform”? (Cheers and disorder.)

Here are my words. I stand by my remarks. (Interruption.) Here is a photograph of the men being driven in front of these members of the Defence Force. I say that men who used these words, whether they are in uniform or not, are blackguards. (Disorder.)

I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member to be allowed to continue to address this House until he has withdrawn his words that the Defence Force in this country are “blackguards ”? (Cheers.)

Before you give your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is an hon. member not in order in describing a certain act, and having given the House the act, in describing it as the act of a blackguard?

The hon. member did not characterise the act. He characterised the Defence Force. (Ministerial cheers.)

He characterised the men who used that act as “blackguards in uniform.”

said that before the Chairman gave his ruling he would like to point out that the Ministers, in a despatch to the Governor-General, pointed out that it was futile to contemplate the effective employment of certain volunteers, seeing that they would be disloyal to their oath.

must ask the hon. member for George Town to withdraw that second remark of his. (Cheers.)

That these men who used these terms were blackguards ?

it is clearly insulting to the uniform.

I have made the remark. Am I not in order in referring to these men as blackguards?

He referred to the Defence Force.

I did not, with all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman. If the Chairman understood me to mean the Defence Force as a whole, I withdraw, but I say that the men who made these remarks were blackguards.

Who were the men who made the remarks?

I have not the names, but I have the name of the man who signed this document. He could be found. Here is a photograph of the incident, which happened in Germiston.

if the remarks were not applied to the Defence Force, but to certain individuals—

I have not applied them to the Defence Force, but to a member of the Defence Force who used these words which I have read.

The hon. member may proceed then.

said that the hon. members who were now so very patriotic only a few months ago dragged the flag in the mud.

I rise to a point of order. (Cheers.) Can an hon. member of this House say that hon. members have “dragged the flag in the mud ”? (Hear, hear.)

I did not say what flag it was, sir; it might be the red flag. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that they on those benches were anxious to have another vote of confidence in the constituencies. He did not think that hon. members on that (the Opposition) side were. They on the cross-benches were there by the will and the votes of the men in the Trade Unions of the Transvaal and the other Provinces from which various hon. members here came. They had nothing to fear. They had been called various names in times past in this House, but then there were no cries of “Order ” or appeals to the Chair.

Hon. members must remember that the Press was on their side, and anything they (on the cross-benches) said was ignored and distorted by that Press. They were the party that was trying to get at the truth.

The hon. member must not discuss the general question.

I have said all I want to say.

I move that the question be now put.

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

Ayes—41

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

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

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

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

Noes—12.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess. Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

H. A. Wyndham and H. W. Sampson, tellers.

The motion was accordingly agreed to.

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

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

Ayes—44.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik. Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Loureus

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, lzaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

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-

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

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

Noes—13.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Haggar, Charles Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. A. Wyndham and H. W. Sampson, tellers.

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

The amendment of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, to omit paragraph (b) was negatived.

then put the question that clause 11 as printed stand part of the Bill, and a division wa3 called. The result was:

at this stage moved that they report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported accordingly and leave given to resume in Committee tomorrow.