from ten officers in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Johannesburg, praying that their Cape service be added to their pensionable service in the Union.

from W. H. Robson, teacher, for condonation of a break in his service.

from W. H. Beardmore, praying that the acceptance of an appointment in Basutoland may not debar him from receiving a pension in respect of his service in the Cape Education Department.

from the Witwatersrand Church Council, praying that an efficient censorship of bioscope films be established at Cape Town.

from F. H. Pautz, formerly forester at Fort Fordyce, who was retired owing to deafness, praying that he may be granted the pension or gratuity that he would have been entitled to on arriving at the age limit.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Industrial Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, with an amended Bill.

The amended Bill was set down for Committee stage on Friday next.

brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

It was agreed that the report, together with the evidence, should be printed and considered on Monday next.

Return of persons appointed and promoted in the Railway and Harbour Services, carrying a salary of from £400 to £1,000 per annum, since Union, at Cape Town, Salt River, Port Elizabeth, East London, and Durban.

I have seen this fine portrait, and I had much pleasure on behalf of the House in accepting it.

asked the Minister of Finance whether the Government is prepared to make representations to the Transvaal and Natal Society of Accountants with a view to the establishment of reciprocity of membership with the Cape Society?

I have brought to the notice of the societies mentioned the terms of the honourable member’s question. I understand that the Transvaal Society will be advised by its Council to agree to this proposal. The Natal Society, on the other hand, is not disposed to entertain the suggestion.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) Whether the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is credited with services rendered to all other Departments which have the use of telephones; and (2) whether such credit is calculated at the same rate or on the same basis as that charged to private renters under the message rate system in the Cape Peninsula?

(1) No direct credit is received by the Post Office from other Government Departments in respect of the use of telephones; (2) in preparing profit and loss statements, however, the Post Office takes credit for all telephone services rendered to other Departments at the same rates as are charged to the general public.

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries: (1) Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the rumour that it is proposed at the coming Conference on the diamond trade to fix for a period of years the price of diamonds sold to the diamond syndicate in London by the diamond mines of South Africa; (2) how the price of diamonds now compares with the average price during each of the last five years; and (3) whether the Government proposes to take any, and, if so, what steps to protect the interests of the country in this matter?

(1) The answer is in the negative. (2) The average value of diamonds produced within the territories now included in the Union for the last five years is as follows: 1909, £1 7s. 10d. per carat; 1910, £1 10s. per carat; 1911, £1 15s. 9d. per carat; 1912, £1 19s. 8d. per carat; 1913, £2 4s. per carat. (3) As stated previously by me in answer to a similar question, the Government is sending a representative to the Conference. The decisions of the Conference will be made in the form of recommendations to the Government, which will have to be considered before effect can be given to them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the state of affairs in connection with the Sabie Crown lands, which are occupied by natives and are let to stock farmers from time to time for grazing purposes, is most undesirable, because (a) the natives burn the veld at the wrong season; (b) the officials in charge treat the farmers in an unsympathetic manner; and (c) a difference is made between farmers and natives in the matter of rent and grazing rights; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take this matter into consideration and make representations in the proper quarters in order that this undesirable state of affairs may be brought to an end and stock farmers saved further loss?

I assume the hon. member refers to vacant Crown land in section “F,” district Barberton, Transvaal, and in reply desire to state that, owing to the difficulties referred to, it has been decided to withdraw the lots from disposal, pending the report of the Native Lands Commission. It is not proposed to renew the existing leases after their expiry.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he knows that Piet van der Merwe, a member of the Defence Force, was killed by a passing train at night in January last, at Boschrand Siding, while on sentry duty during the recent strike; and if so, whether he is prepared to refund to the deceased’s father, who is a poor man, the expenses of his son’s funeral?

No special report regarding this case has been submitted, nor has a claim of any kind been sent in Government will meet the reasonable cost of the funeral, and the relatives should, if they want to claim the coat, send all details to the Department of Defence, Pretoria.

asked the Minister of Finance how much wool and mealies, at present placed on the free list by the United States of America, has been imported in the past by the United States from the Union of South Africa?

replied; It is impossible to give the figures desired by the hon. member, since the great bulk of the South African wool and maize which finds its way to the United States of America is not supplied direct, but via certain European ports. In this process the identity, for statistical purposes, of the Country of origin is lost.

for Mr. M. Alexander (Cape Town, Castle) asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that the firm of Pearson, Huggins and Co. (1911), Limited, held large contracts for clothing to be supplied to the Railway Department; (2) whether the contracts were to expire in the ordinary course in 1915; (3) whether the firm is now in liquidation; and (4) whether it is the intention of the Government under the above circumstances to call for tenders in South Africa for the October issue of clothing to the Railway Department?

(1) The firm named held the contract for the supply of uniform clothing for system “A” only. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) The contract for the unexpired period has already been placed almost entirely with a South African contractor, who will make the uniforms locally from imported material. Approximately 9 per cent. of the work has been placed oversea.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether he will lay upon the Table a return showing the consumption per month (a) for the twelve months of 1913 and (b) for the first five months of 1914, of the different classes of Cape spirits and brandies?

I have laid upon the Table a statement which contains the information desired by the hon. member up to and including April, 1914. Particulars for the month of May, 1914, are not yet available.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent exposures in the Press of the systematic robbery being practised throughout the Transvaal by traders by means of short weight and measurement through the use of inaccurate scales, weights and measures, and, if so, whether he will introduce a Bill this session dealing with the state of affairs that now exists?

The Government has seen the Press articles referred to by the hon. member. The present position In regard to the subject of weights and measures is that representations have been made that the Provincial Councils should be clothed with powers of control. This suggestion has much to commend it, and the Government is causing inquiries to be made on these lines. But there is no prospect of legislation this session.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) What is the rate of wages paid to warders in the provincial gaols; and (2) what allowance is given such warders per diem when sent on escort duty?

(1) The rate of wages paid to permanent warders in provincial gaols is 6s., rising to 8s. per day, together with the appropriate local allowance, the lodging allowance, and any other special allowances that the particular officer may be entitled to. (2) In terms of Prison Regulation 186, officers of warders’ rank get 6s. a day for subsistence while travelling on duty.

asked the Minister of Lands whether with a view of preserving the natural beauties of “The Ebb and Flow” and other portions of the banks of the Touws River on Olifants Hoek farm, George, he will protect the public interest in the matter by resuming the small portion of the farm required for the purpose under the terms of the grant made in 1913, whereby the land can at any time be resumed by the Government?

I propose to await a reply to my representations to the Dutch Reformed Church, before considering what further steps should be taken in the direction desired by the hon. member.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he can give the House any information about the cost of wireless telephonic communication as compared with the cost of the ordinary telephone, and, if not, whether he will make inquiries in order to consider the advisability of establishing wireless telephonic communication?

No data are available as to the cost of wireless telephonic communication. Its commercial possibilities have not yet been demonstrated, but the department has the matter under observation.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (1) Whether a number of white unskilled labourers working for the department at Meintjes Kop, Pretoria, have recently been discharged, and, if so, how many; and (2) whether the work previously done by these men is now being carried on by native convicts?

Eighty-nine unskilled white labourers were recently employed on the forming of roads, etc., at Union Buildings, and when that work was finished 74 of them were discharged in batches. The department has been able to find work for 13 of the older men in tree planting and generally assisting the gardener. It has now been decided to proceed with the laying out of the terraces and grounds, a work very suitable for the employment of native convict labour. Convict labour has always been employed on these grounds, and the number has recently been increased.

moved that the following be a Sessional Standing Order for the remainder of the session: “That on and after Wednesday, the 17th instant, the House meet at half-past ten o’clock a.m., on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, and that Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, do suspend business at one o’clock p.m. until a quarter past two o’clock p.m. on such days.”

said that it would meet the convenience of the House better if the Prime Minister would suspend business at a quarter to 1 o’clock and resume at 2 o’clock. He would therefore move that a quarter to one be substituted for one o’clock, and that two o’clock be substituted for 2.15. He also moved the following proviso: If at 10.30 p.m. on such days the House is in Committee the clause in a Bill or the vote or sub-head in Committee of Supply then under discussion may be continued until determined by a vote thereon, but no further opposed business shall thereafter be taken. The Chairman shall accordingly, upon the conclusion of the consideration of such clause, vote, or sub-head, leave the Chair and make his report to the House. The hon. member said his reason for moving that was that he felt perfectly certain it was not the intention of the Government, if the House met at 10.30 a.m. to continue business after 10.30 in the evening. All he asked was that when the House was in Committee at 10.30 o’clock p.m. no new business should be taken after the matter under discussion had been disposed of.

said he supported the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, otherwise the Prime Minister should provide them with sleeping accommodation. He asked what the Prime Minister’s intentions were with regard to the course of business? A number of points were raised from time to time, and they were told they would be able to deal with them on the Estimates.

said he quite agreed with the first amendment. As to the second he hoped it would not be pressed. In proposing to sit in the mornings it was the intention of the Government not to sit later at night than 10.30 o’clock and 11 o’clock at the latest, but of course circumstances might arise under which it would be undesirable to have the Government’s hands bound by that resolution. A lot of important work had to be done, but he was prepared to give the assurance that there was no intention to sit after 11 o’clock. Replying to further questions, he said it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the remedial legislation mentioned. That was one of the reasons they wanted more time As to the question of the hon. member for Jeppe, it depended on the hon. member whether he wished to sleep there or not.

who seconded the amendment, said there was nothing binding in the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. It only applied to Committee work, not to House work. If they were dealing with a clause of the Bill at 10.30 p.m., that clause must be finished with, and a vote would be taken on it.

That portion of the motion that the House rise at a quarter to one and resume at two was agreed to; that portion dealing with night sittings being negatived.

moved that the petition from C. P. Hanekom and 32 others, praying for the extension of the railway line from Prieska towards Kakamas, or for other relief, presented to this House on 7th April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from T. G. de Klerk and 45 others, inhabitants of Keimoes, praying for the extension of the railway line from Prieska towards Keimoes, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 23rd April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to

moved that the petition from B. J. Sheard and 233 others, praying for the construction of a line of railway from East London through the district of Peddle, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 1st May,1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

for Mr. M. Alexander (Cape Town, Castle) moved that the petition from S. Goldreich, managing director of the Pongola Rubber Estates, Limited, Durban and London, which holds a contract in respect of certain land in northern Zululand, known as Amatongaland, which the Government has cancelled, praying for consideration of his case and for relief, presented to this House on the 1st April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from C. J. J. van Rensburg, who was wounded in the late war, praying for consideration and relief, and the petition from A. L. J. van Rensburg and 29 others, in support thereof, presented to this House on the 8th June, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from W. D. Jacobs and 9 others, inhabitants of the township of Alberton, praying for legislation prohibiting Asiatics from trading within a given distance from any township where Asiatic or coloured trading is prohibited, presented to this House on the 12th June, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

(on behalf of Genl. Hertzog) moved that the petitions from J. H. Grobler and 52 others, J. H. le Roux and 14 others, and J. Poison and 120 others, registered voters in the electoral division of Smithfield, praying for the construction of a line of railway from Bethanie Station to Rouxville via Reddersburg and Smithfield, instead of from Edenburg to Rouxville via Smithfield (as prayed for in a petition presented from them on the 26th February, 1914), presented to this House on the 19th May, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

for Mr. M. Alexander (Cape Town, Castle) moved that the petition from C. J. Buur, of Lakeside, a cartage contractor, praying for compensation in respect of losses sustained by him in an accident on the railway line at Muizenberg, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 22nd May, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from J. A, W. du Plessis and 94 others, inhabitants of the electoral division of Boshof, praying for increased police protection, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 22nd May, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from J. A. W. du Plessis and 94 others, inhabitants of the electoral division of Boshof, praying that it may be made compulsory for mines to provide compounds for natives employed thereon, presented to this House on the 22nd May, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from D. F. Ellis and 70 others, registered owners of land in Embokotowa, in the district of Elliot, praying for the cancellation of certain conditions in their title deeds of Even restricting the transfer and hypothecation of allotments, presented to this House on the 23rd April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from J. Temlett, praying that the House may grant him grazing rights in respect of certain land owned by him in Bolotwa, presented to this House on the 23rd April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration and report.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition of G. J. D. Moolman and 107 others, inhabitants of Ficksburg, praying for remission of repatriation debts or other relief, presented to this House on the 15th June, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

said he would oppose the motion. He pointed out ample time had been given for payment, and though he had drawn attention to the fact that £7,000 of these debts were owing, he found that now it was proposed to write off another £10,000.

moved that two other petitions be inserted in the motion—namely, in line 2, after “Ficksburg” to insert “and of A. J. Strauss, of Reitz”; and in line 3, after “1914” to insert “and on the 8th June, 1914, respectively.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

moved that the Government be requested, to consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to inquire into and report upon the position of those burghers who were so seriously wounded during the Anglo-Boer war, as to render them incapable of providing for their own livelihood, and who have received no compensation.

seconded the motion.

said they wanted further. information before they could pass this motion, and moved the adjournment of the debate.

The amendment was put and declared negatived.

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

Ayes—29.

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Griffin, William Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Nathan, Emile

Oosthuisen, Ockert, Almero

Scarle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Venter, Jan Abraham

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

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

Noes—53.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Burton. Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

Do Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

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

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

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

The motion was therefore negatived.

moved as an amendment to omit “appointing a Commission to inquire and report upon,” and to substitute “inquiring into.”

seconded.

said it was unfair to ask the House to vote on this question without further information, the mover having simply proposed the motion. Hon. members wanted to see justice done to everyone, but before they recorded their votes, surely it was necessary that the House should have some information, and it was because the House had no information that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, made his proposal.

said he voted as he did just now under a misapprehension. As it was a Government matter he did not like to vote in favour of the adjournment. The people referred to in the motion were not rebels, but they fought for their country. (Ministerial cheers.) We seized the country by conquest and we then took over the liabilities, part of which surely was to look after those who were wounded in the country’s defence. All that was asked was that Government should look into the case, and surely it could be left to the Government to decide what was the just thing to do. We had dealt with a number of cases in our own country on a most liberal scale.

We always had a statement of the reasons.

These people were wounded in the war, and it is for the Government to inquire into the matter.

said he objected to the wording of the motion. Why should we make use of the word “burghers”? (Hear, hear.) There was no ill-feeling after the war. He knew a great many people who were wounded in the war, but he did not care whether they were Boor or Briton. The motion would be absolutely sound if the word “burgher” were eliminated. He did not say that from any spitefulness, but in order to do justice to every man, no matter on what side he had fought. We were now one people, and this was a matter on which we could show it. He moved to delete the word “burghers” and to insert “all” before “those.”

seconded.

said he was quite prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Braamfontein. When he proposed his motion he had no idea of singling out the men who had fought on the Republican side, but he had been under the impression at the time that those who had fought on the other side had been rewarded by the other side. He was also prepared to leave out the words relating to the appointment of Commissions, so long as Government had the necessary inquiries made, because he held that those who had been seriously wounded should be in some way attended to. He would alter his motion accordingly. When the last Commission was making its inquiries there were a number of people who did not know that they had to apply for compensation. When some of them applied it was too late.

Said it would be unfortunate if there were any misunderstanding on this question. (Hear, hear.) He spoke for all on the Opposition side of the House when he said they were not opposed to the principle of the motion, but they considered the manner in which it was originally put on the Paper a mistake. A snort time ago the House dealt with similar petitions, which were referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities, which reported that it was impossible for the committee to deal with the matter under the Rules of the House. These were cases which should be submitted to the Government, and after the Government had made the fullest consideration and satisfied itself on the point the Government should come to the House with a proposal, which, he felt perfectly sure, the House would be willing to adopt. No one desired to prevent redress being given to deplorable cases which must exist after a great war such as, unfortunately, we had in this country. There had been Commissions in the Transvaal and Free State on the question, but isolated cases might still remain, but they could be dealt with in the ordinary way by petition, and it was unnecessary to appoint a Commission.

said he desired to move as an amendment to add at the end of the motion: “and also to inquire into the condition of those persons who were seriously injured and the dependants of those who were killed during the disturbances on July 4 and 5 last.” He also desired to move out the word “burghers” for the purpose of inserting “citizens.”

“Burgher” has been taken out.

Then I move to insert “citizen.” Proceeding, he said he thought he could not do better than repeat the words of the right hon. the member for Victoria West a few minutes ago in dealing with the motion then before the House, when he said that they were not rebels, and whatever they might think about the rights or wrongs of the trouble, etc. That was exactly his (Mr. Andrews’) position. He claimed that these people were not rebels; they were not even citizens under arms. These men who were killed and those who were wounded as well to a very large extent were simply citizens of Johannesburg going about their ordinary avocations, and whatever might be said of the one case might equally, to his mind, be said of the other case. He had every confidence in submitting that if these cases were inquired into the condition of these people and the dependants of those who were killed would be found to be quite as deserving and quite as much entitled to consideration as those mentioned by the hon. member for Boshof.

said he thought this matter was debated before, and arising out of that debate the Government appointed, if he remembered correctly, a resident magistrate or some official to inquire into all these matters. He thought that was so.

I have no recollection of it.

I understand that an inquiry is being held at the present time.

said that, although this matter had been mentioned in the House, they had never succeeded in getting the Government to make an inquiry. It was the duty of the Government to go into the condition of people who had suffered in consequence of what took place on July 4 and 5. They were simply asking for justice for all citizens.

said that on page 261 of the Votes and Proceedings it would be found that a return was laid on the Table “in compliance with a resolution adopted by the House of Assembly on the 10th. March, 1914 viz., That the repeat of Mr. Jordan, the Commissioner appointed by the Government to inquire into the circumstances attending the injuries caused to and the deaths of certain citizens of the Union in connection with the suppression by the military of the strike in Johannesburg on 4th and 5th July, 1913, be laid upon the Table.” Upon that the whole of this question was discussed, and, as far as he remembered, out of that discussion a further inquiry was held.

No, sir, there was no discussion. No Committee of Inquiry or Commission arose out of that.

The hon. member does not quite understand. If this stands now it would be the subject of a second debate upon a debate that arose before on this motion.

This motion arises directly out of those papers which were laid on the Table as a result of that motion.

I cannot accept this motion, because it is raising a debate again upon a debate that has already been disposed of.

moved to omit “Anglo-Boer” for the purpose of inserting “late” before “war.”

seconded.

said that the motion spoke of people who hail received no compensation. He believed there were a good many who had received a small pittance, and he thought their case should be considered. He moved to insert after “no” and before “compensation” the word “adequate.”

seconded.

Would it not be possible in any way at all to have this inquiry extended to those unfortunate individuals who were killed or injured on July 4 or 5?

I have just informed The hon. member, not on this motion,

These papers having been laid on the Table, is it impossible to raise any motion upon them?

If the hon. member will see me in my room, I can look into the papers and inform him later on.

The amendment to omit “appointing a Commission to” and insert “report upon” was agreed to.

It was agreed to omit “burghers” and insert “citizens.”

It was agreed to insert “all” before “citizens.”

Mr. Schreiner’s amendment, to omit “Anglo-Boer” and substitute “late” was negatived.

On Mr. Meyler’s amendment to insert “adequate” after “no,”

said he would like to ask if the Government were not going to say anything about this. The scope of the motion would he enormously extended if they accepted the amendment. Were the Government going to accept it?

We won’t accept that.

said he could point to cases where wounds had broken out afresh and men had been compensated three and four tunes. There was the case of Major Mullins.

said he knew of the case of a man, who had both arms shot away, receiving £12 a year.

said that even if the word “adequate” did not appear That would not prevent the Government making an inquiry.

appealed to the House to stick to the terms of the motion, for if its terms were extended it would lead to endless trouble and expense.

said that the attitude of the Minister was, “Don’t do right, because it will mean a lot of trouble and expense.” He hoped that the amendment would be pressed.

supported the amendment, and said there were people who had not been sufficiently compensated for the wounds they had suffered in the war. He quoted the case of a man who had been seriously wounded and was unable to earn a livelihood now, and was getting £21 a year.

said if the Government itself made the inquiry the expense would not be unduly high. There were cases in which insufficient compensation had been paid, and he therefore hoped the motion would be agreed to.

said that he regretted the debate had taken this course. He felt as much sympathy with the wishes mentioned as anyone, but they should not mislead people and make them think that something would be done. The Government Could not give anything without the consent of the House. He did not object to the motion, but agreed that the House should know what was intended. In the past Commissions had been appointed in the Transvaal and in the Free State, and he pointed out that certain provisions had been made in the Free State. He had no objection to the motion, but he had to point out that the Government would at any rate have to come to the House. He trusted the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen would not be accepted.

referred to the cases of the widows of people who had died as prisoners, of war. He trusted that the cases of such widows would also receive the same consideration as those whose husbands had died in the field.

The amendment of the hon. member for Weenen was negatived

The motion as amended was agreed to.

moved that the petitions from N. J. J. Badenhorst and 58 others, and from P. J. du Toit and 51 others, inhabitants of the districts of Hope Town and Strydenburg, praying for the erection of a platform and waiting-room at Krankuil Station, district of Hope Town, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 4th and 20th March, 1914, respectively, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from Pieter D. Swart, of the district of Marico, Transvaal, who was wounded in the mouth by a bullet shot during the late war, from the effects of which he is still suffering, praying for consideration and relief, presented to this House on the 5th March, 1912, be laid upon the Table of the House, and, if agreed to, that it be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from B. Turok and 73 others, European leper [patients on Robben Island, praying that they may be removed to the mainland, presented to this House on the 24th April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petitions from P. A. Vermeulen, D. J. Oosthuisen. and J. B. Cornelius, who were wounded during the late South African war, praying for consideration of their cases and for relief, presented to this House on the 30th March and the 1st April, 1914, respectively, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was, agreed to.

Standing Order No 42 provides that “No motion or amendment shall be mowed which is the same in substance as any motion or amendment which during the current session has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution, or vote on such motion or amendment shall have been rescinded. ”

Not only is the motion proposed by the hon. member a direct amendment of the new Closure Standing Order No. 74a, which was adopted by the House on the 2nd April, 1914 (Votes and Proceedings, page 417), but the substance of it is identical with the substance of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) and by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks), as printed on page 414 of the Votes and Proceedings, when the new Standing Order No. 74a was under consideration by the House. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is, therefore, out of order and must be discharged from the Order Paper.

withdrew the following motion standing in his name, as follows: That the Government be requested to take into consideration the advisability of utilising, when the new line of railway from Mooi River to Estcourt is completed, the existing line of railway between Mooi River and Estcourt via Highlands and Willow Grange for running the Winterton train to Mool River and back at least once every day.

I object to the withdrawal.

The motion was never put. I did not call for a seconder.

That the petitions from A. Keey and 126 others, A. C. Dugmore and 56 others, J. Ford and 112 others, and A. L. O. Staples and 30 others, landowners and farmers residing in the districts of Alexandria, Bathurst, Albany, Peddie, and East London, praying for the construction of a line of railway from Alexandria to a point on the Graham’s Town-Port Alfred line, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 30th April, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from F. R. Cronje and 62 others, praying for the remission of the repatriation debts, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 1st April, 1314, be referred to the Government for consideration.

Agreed to.

That the petition from J. J. Boshoff and 163 others, praying for the remission of the repatriation debts, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 23rd April, 1314, be referred to the Government for consideration.

said he would like to know from the hon. member who moved some of the circumstances connected with the case, and he would like to know what it meant.

moved, as an amendment: In line 1, after “others,” to insert “D. van Jaarsveld and 86 others, M. Smit and 44 others, and, J. A. du Plessis and 49 others”; in line 3, after “April” to insert“5th June and 11th June”; and after “1914,” to insert “respectively. ”

The amendment was agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

That the petition from H. L. Odendaal and 166 others, inhabitants of the village of Warden, praying for telephonic and postal communication with Harrismith and for the appointment of a special Justice of the Peace, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 1st June, 1914, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

That the petition from J. M. Corderoy, of Sea Point, formerly on the fixed establishment of the Cape Civil Service, praying the House to take into consideration the circumstances of his removal there from, and to grant him relief, presented to this House on the 26th February, 1914, be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and to call for papers, and to consist of five members.

said that matter had been before the House repeatedly and had been before the Supreme Court. He moved that the debate be adjourned.

said he did not think it right that the debate should be adjourned.

said that that was the last afternoon that they would have an opportunity of discussing private members’ motions.

put the motion for the adjournment of the debate, and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—62.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Crewe, Charles Preston

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick:

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred.

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Geldenhuys. Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Geyhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

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

Noes—-17.

Andrew, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maduren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cunrey, Henry Latham

Haggar, Charles Henry

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh. Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and Charles Streben, tellers.

The motion for the adjournment was therefore agreed to.

What date? (Laughter.)

Tomorrow. (Laughter.)

The debate was accordingly set down for to-morrow.

moved that the Order No. 17, “Report of Select Committee on working of Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912, to be considered,” be discharged. He said that in view of his previous announcement as to the consideration of the Bill the Order would be unnecessary.

Agreed to.

moved the omission of the words “light, power and transportation. He said that a large number of men employed in these industries might be working under conditions which did not tend to good citizenship, and it would be very hard if there were no avenue open to them for the redress of their grievances that they should be prohibited from striking. In the last resort a man had the right to strike, but the clause would prevent men engaged in light, power and transportation work from ceasing work. In the great Dock strike in London, although transportation work at the Docks was held up for four weeks, public sympathy was with the strikers. He hoped that Viscount Buxton would have the same success in South Africa as he had in the old land, when, as Mr. Sydney Buxton, he was chairman of the committee which succeeded in inducing the employers to agree to the dockers’ demand.

said that the first two sub-sections of the clause were unnecessary. The clause was taken from the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of England, but here we were going to deal with the same subject in two different Bills in the same session in two different ways. The question of men engaged in transportation work was dealt with in the Public Service Act under which railway men were not allowed to strike.

What about trams ?

They are municipal. I move that sub-sections (1) and (2) be omitted. (Hear, hear.)

in supporting the amendment, pointed out that in the Industrial Disputes Bill it was made illegal for men engaged in public utility works to leave their employment without giving proper notice.

said he must confess that he did not know what took place in connection with the other Bill upstairs. The Bill now before the House was published long before the Select Committee sat on the Industrial Disputes Bill, and that committee should have struck out the clause in the Bill before the Select Committee. This was a more proper Bill in which to deal with the matter than the other Bill, which was entirely remedial legislation. (Labour laughter.) Government felt it was desirable to have the purely penal clauses taken out of the other Bill and put into this measure.

said he could quite understand the difficulty Ministers were in to know which measure had precedence, for there had been three Riotous Assemblies Bills and two Industrial Disputes Bills. A Select Committee having sat on the Industrial Disputes Bill, there probably had been more wisdom brought to bear on it than on this clause, and the Committee would do well to excise the clause here and deal with it in the other Bill. The most reasonable thing to do would be to take the clause out of this Bill and put it in the other.

agreed that the other Bill was the more proper place for the clause than this one. So far as he knew in every case in which strikes had been made illegal, other provision had been made to enable disputes to be dealt with. (Hear, hear.) He did not know, however, whether the Industrial Disputes Bill was ever going to emerge from the chrysalis stage in which it now was (Laughter.)

said he hoped the Minister would explain what the policy of the Government was If they took this question out of the Industrial Disputes Bill and put it in this clause they would then be legislating out of effect similar clauses relating to the coal and mining industries. Did the Government wish to make the present clause applicable to the coal and gold mining industries or only the particular industry mentioned in the clause?

pointed out that the clause in the Industrial Disputes Bill dealing with strikes provided that before a strike took place there must be an inquiry, and fourteen days’ notice given of any change, but the present clause in this Bill did not deal with strikes in general, but with matters of public utility. He thought it was inconvenient to discuss two Bills at one and the same time, and attention should be confined to the Bill now under notice.

said he hoped the Minister would stick to his guns. He would certainly have him (Mr. Merriman) at his back. Members on the cross-benches never tired of boasting of British liberty and laws, and this was a clause taken out of an English Act. There was such a clause in the laws of most civilised countries, and now that South Africa was taking measures to defend itself against the recurrence of such-like disturbances as took place in July and January last, it was very desirous that this clause should be retained. It was also very essential that such notices should be posted up in all workshops. Then the workman would go out on strike with his eyes open. Previously he had gone out with his eyes shut, after listening to the rantings of mischief makers.

thought that the proper place to deal with the question was in the Industrial Disputes measure. He therefore thought it wise to delay consideration of the question until it was known what the recommendations of the Select Committee were upon the point. He moved that the consideration of the clause stand over, as in all probability the report of the Select Committee in question would be forthcoming on the following day.

The amendment that clause 12 stand over was negatived.

thought the Minister might still reconsider the matter and confer with the Minister of Mines and Industries. The matter was really dealt with in legislation which had already been passed. It was well known that if a man broke his contract he could be sued and heavy damages recovered, so that the employer was already protected. This matter had been dealt with by a Select Committee in a better way than that what was now proposed to be adopted, and what was the good of dealing with it again, unless the Minister wished to impose a super penalty?

said the question of strikes was clearly dealt with in the Industrial Disputes Bill, which was to the effect that a man shall not go on strike until after a certain notice has been given. But as he understood it, the present clause did not allow a man to strike under any circumstances. He was of opinion that strikes ought to be permitted under certain conditions, provided that those who struck were unable to get their grievances redressed in any other way, He wished to ask the Minister if what the clause meant was, that a man could not strike under any circumstances?

said that the heading of a Bill ought to specify any new crime which it proposed to make. The new crime specified in the clause wa3 not mentioned in the title, therefore it seemed to him that the clause did not come within the scope of the Bill, especially in view of the fact that they had another Bill dealing with the same question. He would ask the Chairman’s ruling as to whether the clause came within the title, of the Bill.

ruled that the clause fell under the title of the Bill, as it amended the criminal law.

said it was to be regretted that Government were creating new crimes. The right hon. gentleman who had just left the House (Mr. Merriman) was always thundering out the rights of free labour, but under that clause) a man could not leave his work when he liked; so much then for the talk about free labour. Of course, a workman could be sued civilly for breaking his contract, but clause 12 was going to make it a crime for a man to leave his work 25 hours before he ought to do, and so make him liable to a fine of £50, or six months’ imprisonment, or both. The Minister had referred to this Bill cutting both ways, but the Minister was met surely going to say that this clause Cut both ways, because it was directly pointed towards the employee, except that the employer was to be fined Unless he posted up the notice. He deprecated any measure which made a man a criminal for leaving his employment, because the employer was protected already by the law and the only result would be the inconvenience of the community. He would, however, make an exception in the case where a man, leaving his employment, jeopardised the public health of the community, and the House would always find members sitting on the cross-benches agreeing to this condition. The cutting off of sanitary or water arrangements should, he thought be made a crime, but if the community made the conditions of work fair and reasonable these men would not want to break their contract.

Those who were responsible for the conduct of operations in July consistently set their faces against cutting off the water and light. Did the Minister realise that the transportation clauses meant everything, cab-drivers, etc. ? If a man employed two cab-drivers, and they refused to drive their cabs, they could not only be proceeded against civilly, but could be put into gaol for six months. The clause was iniquitous and conceived in a spirit of oppression, and the result would be the manufacture of crime.

said that with regard to the question of the hon. member for Braamfontein, he would point out that the breaking, of a contract must be done wilfully and maliciously. As regarded the question of a double penalty, if there should be some overlapping with the Industrial Disputes Bill, then mo court in the world would convict a man twice for the same offence. The clause was modelled on the English Act, which was an entirely penal Act. With regard to the provision in the Industrial Disputes Bill that dealt with the question of strikes —with a body of men going on strike. One man could not go on strike. A strike was a body of employees acting in combination. As regarded the amendment of the hon. member for Liesbeek, if he admitted the correctness of the principle of excepting the water and sanitary services, then he must admit the necessity of excepting light, power, etc. The two cabmen mentioned by the hon. member for Springs could not possibly come under the Act. With regard to the railway service, a man who broke his contract was punishable under the Railway Act.

said that until they had industrial legislation under which there might be a possibility of a settlement of disputes they ought not to put on the Statute-book a law that made it criminal to strike. Until they had the machinery for settling disputes he was not going to be a party to passing a law of that kind. He quoted from documents issued by the strike leaders during the strike, in which permission was given “for the present” to supply light, and giving permission for the supply of power other than for industrial purposes. The Strike Committee wrote agreeing to the continuing of the men who wore required for the water supply to the town, but they introduced conditions. On the 5th of July the Amalgamated Society of Engineers Joint District Committee of the Witwatersrand wrote to the Chairman of the Tramways and Lighting Committee, stating that if any attempt was made to run the cars the men would be withdrawn from the lighting department. Then, said Mr. Struben, the rapscallion would have his chance in the dark at the expense of the capitalist. The General Strike Committee authorised night services to be continued within the area except Parktown and the mines. That was so that an epidemic might break out, and the capitalists might be blotted out. He was not in favour of such methods. But services of the kind under discussion were all on a special footing, and deserved special legislation. The Minister was doing an unwise thing to put a clause like that on the Statute-book, and he was going to vote against the clause, and hoped to be better able to vote for it in an Industrial Disputes Bill which he hoped would soon be before the House. In line 13, sub-section 3, he wanted to move to delete the words “or to expose valuable property, whether movable or immovable, to destruction or serious injury.” He moved that amendment lest the clause should be retained.

drew attention to the fact that the clauses were not necessary in the Bill at all. Why should they deal with purely strike matters in a Bill of that kind? All the clauses in that Bill were attempts to try to frighten the workmen, but workmen would not be coerced into obeying laws which were wrong. That thing was so obvious. In one Bill they asked for a penalty far heavier than in any other country in the world, even where there was remedial legislation. They were putting in another penalty so that men could be charged under two separate Bills and the penalty doubled in all probability, but they could not frighten and coerce workmen in that way.

gave a concrete instance of a case where the Government themselves had forced trouble. In October and November last they had trouble in connection with the Indians in Natal. A leader of the Indians spoke to a number of boys engaged in the sanitary service at Mantzburg, and encouraged them not to go on strike. He begged them to continue at work, but the moment he came down from the platform he was arrested by the servants of the hon. Minister, who were evidently working from instructions from headquarters. It was not surprising after this that the Indians engaged in the sanitary service then struck. If they would treat working men as men, they would behave as men. They would do very much more good with the public servants if fairplay was given to them and not hang a sword of Damocles over their heads. Should they be terrorised into remaining at work, though he thought they could not be, the community must remember that they had very great power in their hands. It was the old story of oiling the engines with sand, but he did not think they would adopt that attitude. They would go into a combination which would include them all, and what threat of imprisonment was going to stop them then? Even if they could not break their contract they would be free to give notice and leave. They could put on as many penalties as they liked, but as long as the workers could make their societies and unions blackleg proof no Government could stand up against them.

said that if that clause went through the Government would be tempted to drop the Industrial Disputes Bill which was under consideration, for that clause not only stopped the public servants going on strike, but it said that if any employee broke any contract of employment which led to danger to human life or injury to health or exposed valuable property to serious injury or destruction, he would be liable to various penalties. It would be easy to show that the withdrawal of certain men from employment, say, by leaving trucks in a yard, was exposing what might be valuable property to the possibility of serious injury or destruction.

It seemed to him that the policy of the Government was quite clear. By hook or by crook in every Bill they could they were going to take power to prevent strikes and prevent trade union organisations and activities in this country. This clause and a few other clauses which they had passed had nothing to do with the prevention of riotous assemblies. If men left their work peacefully he did not see how that had anything to do with the riotous assemblies. The Bill was a model of class legislation. It was boomerang legislation which would come back on members on the other side in the future.

said that the hon. member must not discuss the general question.

in conclusion, said that for every chain the Government put on the workers the workers would, in the future, put three on the capitalists.

said it seemed to him the Government wanted something like an indenture system or a pass law system in connection with the white workers of this country. When these white workers got annoyed then, of course, as his hon. friend the member for Greyville did not see, the riotous part of the business would come in With regard to subsection 3 he pointed out that employers had a civil remedy. The Government was sitting on a safety valve—it was useless for hon. members on the cross-benches to go into detail, because they had expressed their views so often. (Hear, hear.) If they put this legislation before the people concerned they would repudiate it. He moved that in line 7, sub-section (3) the word “or ” be substituted for “of ” so as to make it apply to employers as well as employees.

said he was prepared to accept the amendment if the hon. member would make the other consequential amendments.

said that the hon. member for George Town the other day challenged him to prove that the workers in a strike had interfered with electric light, gas, and other services. He proceeded to quote from a newspaper cutting to show what had happened in Leeds recently.

pointed out that the hon. member must confine himself to clause 12.

I am discussing it. Continuing, he said he thought the clause was a good one, although he thought that the transportation portion was going too far.

at 5 p.m., moved that the question be now put.

The gag again.

put the question: That the word “light”, in subsection (1), line 42, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

put the question: That the word “power” in subsection (1), line 43, proposed to be emitted, stand part of the clause.

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

put the question: That the words “or transportation ”, in sub-section (1), line 43, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

The amendments in lines 50 and 51 proposed by Mr. Maginess, accordingly dropped.

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

said that he wished to withdraw this amendment.

objected, and said that surely the hon. member was not in order in withdrawing an amendment at this stage.

put the question that the sub-section be retained, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

Mr. Creswell’s amendment, to omit “of,” was negatived.

said he desired to withdraw the amendment he had moved in line 13.

objected.

put the question that the words proposed by Mr. Struben to be omitted be retained, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division.

said that he had allowed a fair time before he declared the amendment negatived, and the hon. member had allowed the opportunity to pass.

moved that the penalties of £200 or two years’ imprisonment be reduced to £50 or six months’ imprisonment. He said the penalties had already been fully discussed.

said he was going to move a certain amendment. The disproportion between the nature of the offences and the penalties had been constantly pointed out. He moved: In line 19, after “conviction”, to omit all words to the end of the clause, and to substitute “the penalties as herein laid down, viz.:

(1) Contravention of section 8, paragraph

(a): A fine not exceeding £10, or, in default of payment, 14 days’ imprisonment, unless the offence is of so serious a nature that if prosecuted under the ordinary law a more severe penalty would have been incurred.

(1) Contravention of section 8, paragraph

(b): A fine not exceeding £1, or, in default of payment, 2 days’ imprisonment without hard labour.

(3) Contravention of section 8, paragraph (c): A fine not exceeding £5, or, in default of payment, imprisonment without hard labour for 7 days.

(4) Contravention of section 8, paragraph (d): A fine of £1, or, in default of payment, imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 days.

(5) Section 9, a fine of £1 or imprisonment for 3 days, unless the offence is of such a serious nature that under the ordinary law a more severe penalty would be incurred.

(6) Section 10, a fine of 10s., or, in default of payment, imprisonment without hard labour for 1 day.

(7) Section 11, a fine of £1, or, in default of payment, imprisonment without hard labour for 2 days.”

said that with regard to clause 12, a law had been passed in the Transvaal by which it was laid down that employers should not break contracts with their employees, but no penalty was provided He suggested that the same thing should be done with regard to clause 12, which dealt with contracts.

said he thought they should go into detail on an important matter like that. He did not want to delay the Committee, but he hoped the Minister would go a little further and accept the penalties suggested.

asked whether the Minister was not going to make any comment on the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, which was proposed in no frivolous spirit.

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, with the following result:

Ayes—41.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Do Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

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

Fawcus, Alfred

Jagger, John William

Maginess, Thomas

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. W. Slampson and Walter B. Madeley, tellers.

The motion was accordingly agreed to.

put the question: That the words “to a fine not exceeding ”, in line 19, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

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

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice were then agreed to.

The remaining amendment, proposed by Mr. Creswell, dropped.

The clause, as amended, was put.

declared the clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 put and agreed to.

On clause 15, Offence of creating disturbances at local public meetings,

moved an amendment to omit the whole clause. That clause, he said, applied the closure motion in the country. The Government had got the closure in the House, and now they were taking steps to apply it in the country. The Government had power to stop meetings, and there was no doubt that that clause was taking power to deal with political opponents. There was apt to be excitement and heckling, which added to the gaiety of the meetings and which nobody had any cause to complain of or to seek the aid of the police if the audiences whom they were addressing refused to give them a hearing. When the Labour Party was budding out they were very unpopular, and people used to come along with the object of breaking up their meetings. The administration of that clause would be a very one-sided administration, and he could not see that any steps would be taken to punish any interrupters or hecklers if they happened to be supporters of the South African Party; and it was very unlikely that there would be any punishment meted out to the party who sat on the opposite side of the Government.

said he hoped the Minister would consent to withdraw this clause. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) He thought it was quite an unnecessary one, and that it was going outside the scope of the Bill. He had lived in Kimberley over thirty years, and they had had a good many public meetings, and he thought they had got on better than if they had had a clause like this in existence. He could also speak for the district of Barkly West. There was one gentleman who would have a fit if this clause were passed, and that gentleman was a warm supporter of the Prime Minister. (Laughter.) The people who obstructed a public meeting only did more harm to themselves than to those whom they sought to obstruct. If the Minister would not withdraw this clause then he (Dr. Watkins) would have to move some amendments which would modify it. It would be an awful thing if this clause should go through as it stood at present. He thought at any rate that there should be some warning given at the meeting. The chairman of the meeting should be the proper person to give warning. He thought the Minister would see that it was both right and fair that this penalty should not be imposed simply because a man interrupted or disturbed the business, but only if he persisted in doing so after he had been warned by the chairman of the meeting. He would move in line 47 to insert “and persists in doing so after having been warned by the chairman of the meeting” in line 49 to omit “£25” and insert “£5” in line 50 to delete “months” and insert “weeks,” and in line 50 to delete all the words after “two” and substitute “weeks.”

said he did not like this clause altogether. He did not think it was necessary. (Hear, hear.) At the same time it was there, and there was a similar clause in the English statute law. He must say that England’ got on fairly well without anything of that sort, and it added a great deal to the interest taken in public life in England through meetings being tolerably lively. He remembered the time when all England used to look forward to the hustings, and when the Tiverton butcher used to come and put the Prime Minister (Lord Palmerston) through his facings, and the whole of England used to be ex-extremely amused by the proceeding He wished to bring this clause into line with the English law, because it seemed to him to be a little too grandmotherly at present. He, therefore, moved to delete the present clause for the purpose of inserting the following: “Any person who at a lawful public meeting, in enclosed premises, acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was Called together, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding £5, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month.” That was the English law. He thought they should not go any further just at present in this country. He did not believe, as far as he could follow, that there had been a single conviction under that law since it was passed. Mr. Merriman went on to quote from a recent criticism of the Government in England, made in the course of an address by “one of the most original men of genius in England, Mr. Kipling.” The remarkable thing about this Bill in England, the right hon. gentleman proceeded, was that it passed through the House of Commons without one single word, and nobody took the slightest notice of it. Since then that Bill had been a dead letter. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that these interruptions should be treated in a humorous manner, and not by calling in the police. Do let them have a little safety valve but of which to let that superfluous steam. If there was a really disorderly meeting, with a view to breaking it up, let them make it an offence, and if they caught the fellows and got the evidence, they could impose a proper fine, which was one not exceeding £5 or three months.

said that the Government would not have introduced that particular clause if they had not been convinced that it was necessary. Hon. members on the cross-benches had aid that the Government did not have the right to break up meetings; and he said that no section should have the right of breaking up public meetings. Hear, hear.) Hon. members on the cross-benches and their supporters claimed the right of free speech—but for themselves. The hon. member proceeded to give instances of how meetings had been disturbed in the Transvaal, stating that in 1907 he had been at a meeting where, whenever anybody got up as a candidate for Parliament, not being one of the members of the Labour Party, a lot of boys of 16 or 17 were sent to the meeting, and simply kept on shouting, “we want so and so.” In 1910 something similar had occurred, and at some meetings a couple of rows of children had been sent to interrupt the proceedings. He welcomed the clause as it stood, and hoped it would be accepted. The hon. member proceeded to quote from “The Worker” about the tactics adopted by Labourites at a young Unionist meeting, and also referred to their singing the “Red Flag” at political meetings. All that that clause attempted to do was to give these people what they demanded—the right of free speech. That clause was directed against all sections of the community who did not know how to behave themselves at public meetings, and not against any particular section, as hon. members on the cross benches tried to make out, or seemed to think.

alluding to the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly, said that there were occasions when it was perfectly impossible for a chairman to give warning, owing to the uproar and the confusion. He moved, as an amendment, to delete all the words from “speeches” in line 45 to “convened” in line 47. He said that they all recognised the unselfishness of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) in his advocacy for that clause. Why, he asked, should a man be allowed to get up on a public platform and insult his audience, as sometimes happened ?

Did the Minister know what was the meaning of a serious interruption? With regard to the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West, he said he was not surprised at the amendment which the right hon. gentleman proposed was passed with mild jests in the House of Commons. He appealed to the Minister to consider the supporters of his (the Minister’s) own party at Heidelberg, where a Labour meeting was only second to a really melodramatic bioscope. (Laughter.)

said that occasionally when one agreed with the hon. member for Jeppe one always had the idea that he might be wrong. (Laughter.) He thought the Minister would be well advised to drop the clause. (Hear, hear.) This Bill was for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and he; thought they would only be making themselves ridiculous by passing this clause. He pointed out that the greatest sufferers as a result of disorderly conduct at meetings was the party to which hon. members on the cross-benches belonged. He thought that the Minister would facilitate the passage of the Bill if he would withdraw the clause altogether, or at least accept the amendment of the right hon. gentleman.

said he had no great predilection for this clause, but he would point out to the cross-benches that mere interruptions were different from cases where speakers were shouted down for hours and not allowed to give their views. He did not wish to press the clause. (General cheers.)

said before the Bill was introduced, the hon. member for Von Brandis had introduced a private Bill dealing with the question raised in the clause, which he (the speaker) would have supported. Members on the cross-benches did not have their meetings interrupted, but the position in Johannesburg demanded a clause of this kind. There were people who wanted to hear the speakers, and in Johannesburg this was rendered quite impossible. He (the speaker) was going to vote for this clause, even if he had to vote against his own side.

said the member for Vrededorp took the matter too seriously. This Bill had been framed to maintain law and order, and in the Bill the Minister of Justice had inserted a clause, though less severe than that appearing in the private Bill of the hon. member for Von Brandis. He (the speaker), however, thought a clause like this would never achieve its object. Say, he (the speaker) was present at a public meeting where he found that the speaker was misleading the public, would it not be his duty then to keep on interrupting the speaker until he sat down or spoke the truth? It should not be forgotten that the clause cut both ways—not only against the people who interrupted at the meetings of the hon. member for Vrededorp, but also those who interrupted at the meeting of the opponents of the hon. member. (Laughter.) This clause came from the Bill of the hon. member for Yon Brandis, and he (the Minister) really thought it should be deleted. (Laughter.)

said he could not quite understand the clause. If it was withdrawn, could not people then altogether break up a meeting?

asked the Minister if he intended withdrawing the clause, because if not he would move the following amendment: To add the words “not being held in connection with any contested election.” He said that an election without any opposition was not worth fighting.

said the hon. member for Jeppe had said a good deal about disturbances at public meetings at Heidelberg. If there had been disturbances they had been entirely due to the followers of the hon. member for Jeppe themselves. He (the speaker) knew the people of Heidelberg well, and he knew their feelings, and he could assure the House that Heidelberg would not return any follower of a party which sent a man to a constituency to try and secure a seat in some legislative body, but who after that was never seen again.

said the Minister of Defence had played very lightly with the question. The best reason he could bring forward for the clause not being introduced into the Bill was that it was not quite in the right place. He had a little quarrel with the Government— (laughter)—because in deference to their desires he had withdrawn his proposals, but he did not intend to withdraw from the position he had now taken up, namely, that this clause should stand part of the Bill. (Laughter.)

The amendments were withdrawn.

then put the question that clause 15 stand part of the Bill, and declared that the “Noes ” had it,

called for a division.

As fewer than 10 members (namely, Messrs. De Waal, Geldenhuys, Nathan, P. J. G. Theron, and Vermaas) voted in favour of the clause,

declared the clause negatived.

On clause 16, Attempts, incitements, etc., to commit offences,

said he would like the Minister to explain the clause. He thought an attempt to do anything should not be equivalent to the doing of it. He would like to know if this clause was not an extension of the common law?

replied that the clause was really included in the common law, but as some doubt was raised about it he thought it best to include it in the Bill. This was a well-known law in the Transvaal.

said he did not think it should be made a criminal offence to counsel a man to do a certain thing if the man himself suffered the penalty.

said under the Transvaal law of 1908 any person who should conspire with any other person and should incite, counsel, command, or procure the commission of an offence was considered guilty of an offence.

moved to delete the word “counsels,” and asked how paragraph (c) affected traps?

Traps are accomplices under the common law.

Police traps?

Oh, yes; a trap is an accomplice, and the court says that traps’ evidence must be taken with very great caution.

Then why does not the Attorney-General of the Transvaal prosecute the police traps and the Commissioner of the Police, who has commanded, instigated and incited these traps to go about their nefarious business?

I will look into the question. I said technically in the eye of the law. That is my impression, but I may be wrong.

The amendment was carried.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 17,

moved the following new clause: (1) Every male person who has unlawful carnal connection with a girl under the age of sixteen years or who commits with a girl under that age immoral or indecent acts or who solicits or entices a girl under that age to the commission of such acts shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six years and to whipping not exceeding twenty-four strokes and further to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds in addition to such imprisonment and strokes. (2) If upon the trial of any person for the crime of rape the court or jury is satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence under sub-section (1) of this section, but is not satisfied that he is guilty of the crime of rape or of an assault with intent to commit rape, it may acquit the accused of rape and find him guilty of an offence under sub-section (1) and thereupon he shall be liable to the punishments in that subsection provided. (3) If upon the trial of any person far the crime of rape or assault with intent to commit rape or for an offence under sub-section (1) of this section insufficient evidence is adduced aliunde as to whether the complainant is under or over the age when her consent would be a lawful defence to the act charged against the accused, the court or jury may decide the question of the complainant’s age from her appearance.

asked if it were competent for the hon. member to move the amendment, having regard to the title of the Bill.

I am afraid that my hon. friend has not carefully read the title of the Bill, part of which is “to amend the criminal law in certain respects.” (Hear, hear.)

It is hardly for me to say whether it is desirable that the amendment should be introduced —that I must leave to the hon. member who proposes the amendment, but I rule that the amendment is in order.

Withdraw it.

said that with all due deference to the Acting Chairman’s ruling, he would like to have the ruling of Mr. Speaker on this very important question, and he moved accordingly.

maintained that the amendment was in order. Mr. Creswell added: “We don’t desire to waste time, but the hon. member for George is wasting time.” (Laughter.)

Mr. Currey’s motion was negatived.

called for a division, whereupon there were Labour cries of “obstruction.”

subsequently withdrew his request for a division.

quoted from the report of the Assaults on Women Commission, to show the necessity of raising the age of consent, which was 16 in the Transvaal, and 14 in the Cape and Natal. Hon. members, he added, especially those who had daughters, knew very well that it was impossible for a girl under 16 to know the serious responsibilities which rested on her, and it was the duty of Parliament to protect young girls.

said the clause was quite foreign to the Bill, and he would move that it stand over.

Does that mean we shall never consider that again ?

Oh no.

supported the clause.

said he would like to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, South (Mr. Griffin), if he had read the amendment which he (Mr. Nathan) placed on the Paper 10 or 12 days ago. The hon. member had now come at the last moment and asked that the matter of this section should stand over for further consideration.

said he wished to support the hon. member for Von Brandis in asking the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, South, to withdraw his proposal. He thought a great many members in this House, and certainly they on the cross-benches, were of opinion that the matter dealt with in the proposed new clause was much more important than many matters which had been brought before this Committee.

said he would appeal to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, South, to withdraw this motion. The hon. member for Von Brandis had informed this Committee that the state of affairs that he desired should exist throughout the Union already existed in the Transvaal, and he was reminded also in Natal. The only regret he had was that the hon. member did not propose to raise the limit to 18 years.

said he would like to correct the statement made by the hon. member for Von Brandis that the age of consent in Natal was 14.

said he hoped with other members who had spoken that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, South, would withdraw this motion. He regretted very much that this question had been raised on the present Bill, but, since it had been brought up, he thought it was a question that might well be decided.

put the question that the further consideration of the clause stand over, upon which the Committee divided with the following result:

Ayes—50.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Kelter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

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

Noes—14.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Maginess, Thomas

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

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

It was, therefore, agreed, that the consideration of the clause should stand over.

On clause 17, Liability to punishment in case of offences against this Act by corporate bodies, partnerships and Trade Unions,

said he would like the Minister to explain what was the meaning of sub-section (4), which ran as follows: “In any such proceedings against a Trade Union, the president, secretary and every other officer thereof in the union shall be liable to be so charged and in like circumstances to be punished for the offence.” He said it seemed to him that the sub-section was altogether too sweeping, and that it might very well have stopped at the president and secretary.

moved in line 17 to insert “similar” before “officer.”

pointed out that there were other similar officers who were not similarly involved, and they would make them liable.

There is the proviso.

said that the hon. member’s amendment meant that these people would be liable, unless they could prove that they were not concerned, and how could they prove that?

moved, as an amendment, in line 16 to delete the words “Trade Union” and substitute the words “Society or Association,” and in line 17 to omit “other” and substitute “executive.” He said he did so because they did not use the words “Trade Union” at all in that Bill. He pointed out that the Industrial Disputes Bill had a similar clause.

The amendments of the Minister of Justice were agreed to

withdrew his amendment.

Clause 17, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 18, Special jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Courts,

said that it was within the magistrate’s power to enforce the maximum penalty, and in special times like those he might make the penalty higher than he otherwise would.

said that he would like to point out that the magistrate’s jurisdiction was £75 in the Transvaal, and in the Industrial Disputes Bill the committee had raised it to £100. He did not want to go above or below the magistrate’s jurisdiction in the Transvaal.

said that the Minister had evidently not understood his point. A magistrate might be inclined to give a higher penalty, if it were not apart from these special circumstances, considering that the magistrate was human, like the rest of them. Was it quite wise to give that discretion at such a time to magistrates? And should the power not be given to higher hands?

said that it was only for the question of uniformity that they were giving the magistrates jurisdiction up to the Transvaal level. If he left that out the Cape would have a lower jurisdiction, and he considered that they should have the same jurisdiction throughout the Union. (Hear, hear.) In a Trades Dispute Bill the magistrate’s jurisdiction had been raised to £100, and the hon. member for Commissioner-street, who was a member of the Select Committee, would bear that out.

said that it was quite true that such provision had been made in another Bill, but were they to allow a man’s family to starve for weeks while arbitration was going on?

said that just showed the hollowness of the hon. members on the cross-benches. What did a man go out on strike for but not to do work ?

Oh, sit down! You don’t know what you’re talking about.

said that he thought they ought to level the jurisdiction up to that of the Transvaal magistrate. The tendency all over the world was to increase jurisdiction, so as to save expenses.

said that the rate of wages in the Transvaal was higher than at the Cape, therefore the jurisdiction should be lower, at the Cape. He suggested that the clause should, be left out.

said that for a crime in the Transvaal where a maximum penalty was £75 a man could be brought before a magistrate, but if the jurisdiction was not raised in the Cape that could not be done there or in the other Provinces. In the case of the Cape a man would have to wait for the Criminal Sessions or the Circuit Court.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 19, Special Criminal Courts for trial of certain offences mentioned in this Act,

said that the Minister had brought forward no evidence to show that the jury system had broken down. It was a system that had stood the test of years. He moved the deletion of the clause.

said he supposed it would be no use appealing to the Minister to withdraw the clause, but he thought that the Minister would have to bring Very strong reasons before the House before he would get the clause accepted. In dealing with the constitution of the court, he said personally he had the highest, respect few their judges, hut he would call attention to a speech delivered by the Minister of Finance some time back in which he referred in rather uncomplimentary terms to one judge. If the Government had been called upon to nominate a court at that time that particular judge very probably would not have found a place. He did not say that the judges would be deliberately selected to gain certain ends, but he would only draw the Committee’s attention to the case of this particular judge of the supreme court. If it were so important that these cases should be tried by a special court, and that the ordinary process should be set aside, he thought the court should at least consist of three judges. He moved the deletion in lines 56 and 57 of the words “at least two and not more than,” and in line 58 to omit all the words from “if it consist” down to “court” in line 61.

said that the jury system had stood the test of centuries in England, and he thought that that system had one good effect. It encouraged the people of the country to take an interest in the administration of justice, and made people feel their responsibilities in regard to the administration of justice. All the arguments that would be raised in connection with this matter were raised in 1904. when the; Government of the Cape, which was headed by Sir Starr Jameson, gave back trial by jury to Kimberley, and there had been no evil effects as the result.

Supposing in a strike a man killed another unlawfully, by premeditation, he would be guilty of murder and would have to go before a judge and jury, but under this Bill, if instead of committing a murder he jibed at a man, he would have to go before two judges. Surely that was an anomalous position. It was an insult to the people of the country to say that they were not fit to try cases in their capacity as jurymen. The clause was unnecessary and would lead to anomaly.

said he had for some time advocated the abolition of trial by jury. He took it that a special court had been suggested in order to be fair to the accused, who might suffer because of popular prejudices against them.

moved as an alternative to omit line 35 paragraph (a), and also the words “sedition or public violence” in paragraph (b) so that only charges of high treason should be dealt with by the special court. In cases of a semi-political character a jury would be exceedingly careful to see that the prosecution proved its case up to the hilt, and that was a most important safeguard. All the offences in chapters 1 and 2 of the Bill were in the nature of political offences. As to judges not being actuated by political bias, he could not follow that when a man was translated to the Bench he left all his preconceived ideas behind him. To give the Government or the Attorney-General the power to abolish trial by jury would be most dangerous.

said an innocent person would be as safe before a court of judges as he was before a jury. The Minister went on to describe the system adopted in relation to the assignment of judges to various Provincial divisions, and said he thought it was unnecessary to say in this clause that there should always be three judges, because he did not want to tie down the judge-presidents to send him three judges. There was no doubt that when a crime took place during industrial disturbances people’s minds were inflamed, and in such time it was dangerous to have a man brought before a jury. The Attorney-General, therefore, should have the right to apply for a court of judges to try an indictment in the circumstances indicated in this clause. He (the Minister) did not desire to go into the question of whether trial by jury was a good thing or not It was a difficult question on which much was to be said for or against. He thought in a Bill like the present, which dealt with special circumstances, and as this court would only be constituted under special circumstances, it was very advisable to have the power to constitute such a court. The amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe proposed to limit the jurisdiction to cases of high treason. That would make the clause absolutely worthless. There was no danger of trivial cases being brought before such a court, and in fact it was only very important matters that it was proposed should be heard before this proposed court of judges.

said that this clause seemed to be bound up with the next clause, under which the foreign-born person who was convicted before such a court could be deported. He would be in favour of a special tribunal, but not in favour of such a special tribunal if clause 20, which dealt with deportation, were retained. If the Minister would take out clause 20 altogether, he (Mr. Jagger) would support this clause. He was not in favour of the clause as it stood, with the ultimate result that deportation of the “foreign adventurer” might follow upon conviction by this special court.

said he was a believer that the time had passed for trial by jury, but he did not think it was right to introduce such a change into this Act only and not bring it in as a general principle. (Hear, hear.) How many of these cases contemplated under this section would go to the higher courts? Not one in 20. He had had a good deal of experience of magistrates, and he believed that no charge of prejudice could be fairly lodged against them, but why should they only give one man in 20 the benefit of trial before two judges? He thought that with two judges they would be perfectly safe as regarded any question of the evidence being fully dissected. If, however, three judges sat, their verdict should be unanimous in order to secure a conviction. He was against a majority verdict in such a case. After all, it came down to this, that the judges were appointed by the Government, who acted through the Minister of Justice. He did not think that any person holding the portfolio of Minister of Justice would consent to be a party to nominating judges for the purpose of obtaining a conviction. He believed, with the hon. member for Yon Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that it was more in the interests of a prisoner to be tried by a judge than by a jury.

said that the Minister of Justice had not made out a case for the change, which did not seem to be quite fair to the prisoner. Were not judges only human? If judges were singled out to try such a case, would they not think that the offence was something enormous, and would that not prejudice them? If all cases were tried in the same fashion, there would not be such a great objection. He did not see why they in that Bill should experiment without a better case being made out for the change.

said that there seemed to be a progression through that Bill of taking away the liberties of the people. Quite innocuous acts were to become offensive, and instead of being tried by the ordinary courts of the land for them, they were now to have special courts. It might be necessary perhaps, for the Minister, in order to get a conviction. The Minister of Finance had stated, in regard to the deportations, that a conviction could not have been obtained in the ordinary courts of the land. The Minister and those who agreed with him were afraid of the common-sense view of twelve jurymen.

Nine.

went on to say that men in the position of judge or magistrate were generally unconsciously biassed in connection with offences such as these, which were political offences. He referred to the case of Mr. Colin Wade, where the magistrate had fined him £30 for a technical offence, and proceeded to say that he had more faith in the jury system. It might allow the prisoner to escape occasionally, but rather let 100 guilty men escape than that one innocent person should be convicted. He, as an inhabitant of Germiston, would rather submit himself to jurymen at Pretoria than to judges for a political offence, to deal with what the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) had said. The Minister was going to force that through the House, but they (on the cross-benches) were going to make another protest against a further encroachment against their liberties.

said that from the general way in which it had been put that evening, it seemed that if they were going to be tried by a jury they had a better chance of getting off than if they were tried by a judge. He had had large experience of juries, and he had known of juries convicting a man where he should have had the benefit of the doubt. He would much prefer to see any man he cared for tried by two judges for a political offence, rather than, by a jury. What he did not like about this question was the fact that there was a possibility of the courts being brought into some sort of disrepute. His experience led him to-say that on the matter of political trials, the jury system would always be unsatisfactory. If they wanted to see a man punished when he was guilty and found not guilty when he was innocent, then this would give more satisfaction.

We don’t want to see them nunished.

said he quite admitted that the hon. member had tried to show that they did not want a man to be convicted. He would relate one experience of the jury system. He defended a client who was tried on several counts. On certain of these counts the man was plainly innocent, but to his (Mr. Van der Riet’s) surprise the foreman of the jury walked in to court and delivered a verdict of guilty on all counts. The man got six months on each count. He spoke to a member of the jury afterwards, and he said that the jury retired, considered the matter, and decided to acquit the prisoner on three out of the five counts. Owing to the way in which the Registrar put the question the foreman became mixed and said guilty on all counts. This juryman spoke to the foreman about the matter afterwards, and the foreman admitted the correctness of what he said, but stated that he (the foreman) had changed his mind in coming into court. That man served 18 months extra because of the tolly of a foreman and the fact that not one member of the jury drew attention to what had happened.

Appeal.

was understood to say that there was no appeal. The foreman delivered the jury’s verdict and that was the end of the matter.

said that the Minister wanted to get people convicted, and that was why he got a special court. He referred to the effect of such courts on the positions of judges in this country, and said that one good thing about the jury system was that it kept the judge out of all suggestion of political bias. Then there was the old-established custom that a man had the right of being tried by his peers. He personally had a great regard for the judges of this country, but he felt it his duty to point out that they belonged to one class and a class that was in a minority.

asked whether it was possible to remove the venue of a trial from one Province to another?

said he did not think so. He had very little experience of criminal practice. He believed that a case could be moved from one place to another in a Province by leave of the court. He did not think, however, that a case could be removed from one Province to another.

said he took it the real reason they wanted a special court was the fear that the Crown would not be able to get a conviction before a local jury. Would it not be better to remove the venue to some distant part where there would be no prejudice in the mind of the jury?

said that in times of excitement, say on the Rand. if they had the trial at Johannesburg it was almost certain that there would be an acquittal, but if the trial were removed to Potchefstroom the chances were that there would be a conviction without even the hearing of the evidence. (Laughter.)

said that in order to change the venue it would be necessary for an Attorney-General apply to the supreme court, but in order to have a case tried by the special tribunal it would be necessary only for the Attorney-General to state his reasons to the Government. He preferred to rely on the supreme court rather than on the written statements of an Attorney-General.

said an Attorney-General could indict a man in any court in his Province, but once having indicted a man before one division the venue of the trial could be changed only by permission of the supreme, court.

said surely it would be most extraordinary to indict a man at Pretoria for an offence committed at Johannesburg.

said the Minister was incorrect in stating that a criminal trial could not be removed from one Province to another. Surely it was not going to be said that because the public was excited in one Province a man could not safely be tried by jury in one of the three other Provinces. It would be very much better to leave the law as it was.

put the question that paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) proposed to be omitted, be retained, upon which the Committee divided, with the following result:

Ayes—53.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes. Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Eigidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. C. Becker and F. R. Cron je, tellers,

Noes—11

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

H. W. Sampson and D. M. Brown, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the first part of the amendment, proposed by Mr. Creswell, negatived.

The remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Creswell, and the amendments proposed by Dr. Watkins, were negatived.

Clause 19, as printed, was put.

moved that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again.

was understood to say that they should go on for another half-hour.

supported going on with the Bill.

said that he was willing to withdraw his motion— (dissent)—but an understanding had been arrived at with hon. members.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported accordingly, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.