from inhabitants of Elands Rivier Ward, Rustenburg, for remission of Repatriation Debts.

from inhabitants of Kearsney, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.

said that the sad and sudden report of the death of Sir David Hunter had come as a great shock to him, and he was sure that he was speaking on behalf of the whole House when he expressed his deep sense of loss at the hon. gentleman’s demise. Sir David Hunter, the Prime Minister went on, came to South Africa in 1879, and ever since the date of his arrival he had rendered great service to Natal and South Africa. For twenty-seven years he was General Manager of the Natal Railways, but the whole of Sir David’s thirty-five years in South Africa were characterised by his untiring efforts in the interests of the country which he had adopted. Sir David Hunter was highly respected by everyone who came into contact with him, and on railway matters he was always regarded as one of the country’s greatest authorities. But he did not limit his activities to the official sphere only. On social, religious and philanthropic matters he also rendered yeoman service to the people in the country. He was always doing his utmost to do something for the country and to improve the conditions of the people. In conclusion, the Prime Minister said that he felt sure that he was voicing the sentiment of this House and of the country at large, when he expressed regret at the hon. gentleman’s demise and when he expressed his sense of condolence with the relatives of the deceased. The Prime Minister then moved:

“ That this House has learned with the deepest regret of the death of Sir David Hunter, K.C.M.G., member for Durban, Central, and places on record its sense of the great loss sustained by Parliament and by the Union in consequence of this sad event. This House also records its appreciation of the valuable services rendered by the late gentleman as a member of this branch of the Legislature, recognising that the generous placing of his talents at the disposal of the country in this manner after a strenuous and distinguished career as General Manager of the Natal Government Railways over a period of twenty-seven years marked the deep and true interest the deceased member took in this country, the land of his adoption.”

in seconding, said that death had laid a heavy hand on both branches of the Legislature since the first establishment of the Union Parliament. In Sir David Hunter it had taken from them one who had not made a single enemy in the House during his membership. Sir David Hunter had rendered distinguished services to this country, and his advice would be sadly missed in discussing important matters in connection with railway development in South Africa, but over and above everything else, Sir David was an example of a class which, unfortunately, was becoming scarcer in South Africa and every other country. He was one of those whose daily life was an example of what true religion really was He lived justly and he loved mercy and worked humbly and the country was poorer by his death. In every movement for the betterment of the people he was an outstanding figure, and not only the House, but the whole country was considerably poorer by his death. The sympathy of the House went out to his family, and especially to the people of Natal, who had lost one of their best and most faithful friends.

said that they on the cross-benches would like to associate themselves with the remarks which had just fallen. They read with the deepest regret the announcement of the death of Sir David Hunter, who, however much one might differ from him politically, always inspired those with whom he came into contact with feelings of affection and respect.

said that, as one of the Natal members and as one of the late Sir David Hunter’s colleagues in the representation of Durban, he might perhaps be allowed to add one word. The news this morning came as a great blow to those who were from Natal, for they had been hoping that he would recover from his severe illness and be with them perhaps during next session. He could only endorse the words that had fallen from the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. Sir David Hunter would be greatly missed in Natal and especially in Durban. He was the “Grand Old Man ” of Durban. He had been associated with them in Durban for many years. He had been associated with every movement for the good of the town. As regarded his personal character, they all knew what it was, and he was indeed a knight “sans peur et sans reproche.”

The motion was agreed to, members rising in their places.

moved the second reading of the Second Appropriation (Part) Bill. He said that when they passed the last Appropriation Bill it was not anticipated that the session would last for such a long period. They had already reached the 22nd of June and there was still work before them. That being so, they had to ask for additional appropriation. The amount that had been asked would carry them as far as the 11th July. He had asked for that amount because it was not right to take further risks in the matter.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that the House resolve-itself into Committee on the Bill.

Agreed to.

moved the second reading of “the Second Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Bill.

moved as an amendment: “That in the opinion of this House the Railway Administration should recognise liability for the cost of damage caused to farmers by fire by sparks from railway engines.” He said that House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to whether the Administration should incur liability for damage caused to farmers by fire.

said the hon. member could speak to the second reading, but the amendment was not in order.

said the matter he wished to bring to the notice of the House was one of the greatest, importance and was one which affected every farmer in the Union of South Africa. Last week he had presented a petition from a farmer of Natal Spruit, near Johannesburg—Mr. J. Wentworth Sykes. That gentleman had been growing a lot of valuable grass. He (Dr. MacNeillie) had also presented a second petition which had been signed by 1,678 farmers throughout the Union. The petition set out that the grass had been set on fire by sparks from an engine. Mr. Sykes sent in a claim to the Railway Administration, which replied that the engine had been properly equipped with spark arresters and therefore they refused to consider the claim. Mr. Sykes brought an action in the Magistrates’ Court for £50 damages, and the Magistrate said the burden of proof was shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant in that case. The Railway Administration was not satisfied with that decision and appealed to the Provincial Division of the High Court, and there the decision of the Court below was unanimously upheld. Then that poor tenant farmer had again to suffer an appeal The case was brought before the Appellate Division of the High Court, and there by a bare majority of one the decision was reversed. It was there held that the onus of proof was on the plaintiff to prove that the engine was not properly equipped with spark arresters. If that was the law to-day then it would be impossible for any farmer to win a similar action for damages. If that is law to-day then it was the duty of this House to see that it did not remain the law for long. He believed that it was a well-established principle in the rules of the law of evidence that in some cases where a party made a negative averment and the facts involved were so peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party that it was practically impossible for the party alleging to prove the negative that the burden of proof was put on the party within whose knowledge the facts were and not on the party alleging If a farmer proved he had sustained damage through a locomotive, then, the burden of proof ought to rest on the Railway Administration to prove that the engine was properly equipped with spark arresters. The Legislature of this country had authorised the construction of railways in this country, they had authorised the use of locomotives on these railways and insofar as—apart from negligence—the use of such things caused damage to others they had no claim, but the Legislature of this country had never authorised negligence, but if the decision of the Appellate Division is to remain law then it means that the Legislature has authorised negligence, for in the future it will be impossible to prove negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. He charged the Railway Administration of not having acted impartially in the past and with having act id unjustly and harshly.

The hon. member contrasted the case of Mr. Sykes with that of a fire on the farm Rusthof in the Transvaal, where 567 gum trees were alleged to have been destroyed through sparks from a locomotive. The manager of the farm put in a claim tor £168 15s., but no explanation was given of the cause of the fire, which might easily have been caused by natives as by sparks from an engine. The grass within the railway fence had been burnt off and was quite clean All engines which passed the farm of Rusthof during the night of the fire were equipped with spark arresters. The Railway Administration sent the Government Horticulturist to assess the damage, and this gentleman said that as far as he could see no trees had been destroyed and that £15 to £20 would pay the whole of the damage. The Railway Administration settled the claim for £20, and the manager of the farm, in acknowledging its receipt, said it would not half cover the cost of replacing the trees. The Railway Administration, said the hon. member, had no right to pay that claim, and in view of this case he thought the treatment of Mr. Sykes was iniquitous. In conclusion, Dr. MacNeillie urged that on the Railway Administration should be thrown the burden of proof as to whether engines were properly equipped with spark arresters and whether these arresters were in good working condition.

said he could not agree with the onus of proof being on the farmer in cases of veld fires. It was exceptionally difficult, not to say impossible, for farmers to prove the number of the engine responsible for the fire, and at the same time to prove negligence. If the train passed in the night time, it was obviously a total impossibility to prove such things. The decision of the court of appeal constituted a great danger for the farmer. How was it possible for the farmer to prove that the spark arrester was not in good order at the time?

held that farmers were placed in an impossible position. He knew of a case where an engine caused a fire, and arrived at Johannesburg with the spark arrester. The question, however, was whether the spark arrester was in order on the engine and in good order when the fire was caused? How was it possible for the farmer to prove that was not the ease? It was impossible. It was unfair to lay the onus of proof on the farmer.

hoped the Government would give the matter its serious attention, as farmers were suffering great hardships through the action of the Railway Department.

said he himself had suffered heavy losses as the result of fires near the railway line. He emphasised that it was impossible for farmers to state what was the number of the engine causing the fires.

said even if an owner of land could give the number of the engine he would have to prove negligence. The trouble, however, was that in addition to the permanent way the farmer had to allow 200 feet on both sides of the line to be burned. After that veld had been burned the farmer ran great risks of losing his cattle, as the result of poisonous weeds growing on the burned parts. The Minister ought to see the seriousness of the complaint.

said that if the damage was done by the railway the public should bear the expense, for whose benefit the railways were run. Referring to Mr. Sykes’ case, the hon. member said that there was a spark arrester on the engine, but whether it had been working efficiently or not was another question. The fireman of the engine had not been called, and it did seem an extraordinary thing that the man who might have been able to throw some light on the matter had not been called. The case had gone to the Supreme Court of Pretoria, where three judges had given judgment in favour of the farmer. The department had then taken that unfortunate man to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, with the result that two judges had given a verdict in favour of Mr. Sykes and three judges against him. He was informed on very reliable authority that if Mr. Sykes wanted to go further— not only that he himself wanted to do so, but several other farmers wanted him to do so and he (Sir T. W. Smartt) understood that £500 or £600 had been subscribed to allow the case to go forward to the Privy Council—he understood the expenses would be £1,200 or £1,300, besides incidental expenses. He asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he considered it quite fair the way the department was acting. He considered it would only be an act of grace to return that man the money he had already expended on the undertaking. It was an extremely difficult thing for an individual to fight a wealthy corporation. He hoped the Minister would go into the matter. He said that the Railway Department should pay an individual compensation when there was such a fire and a reasonable case had been made out that the fire had been caused through a defect on the engine.

said that, as representing a farming district in Natal, where he thought they were more subject to serious loss by such fires than any other part of South Africa, he thought it his duty to say a few words on that matter, more especially as he had been Chairman of the Select Committee which had discussed that matter and had come to certain decisions. He did not quite follow the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition as to the general public having to bear the cost. If the railway carried goods they must add the cost to those whose goods were carried. He was one of those who held that the engines were not supplied with proper spark arresters. (Hear, hear.) The present spark arrester was part of the engine and like a kind of Venetian shutter in the smoke box, and could not get out of order because it was a fixed part of the engine. He thought he could arrest more sparks with a tin umbrella above the chimney than by means of the present spark arrester. (Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt that if the responsibility for these fires was brought home to the Government their frequency would be very greatly reduced. Not only did the Government put all possible hindrances against the man who had sustained damages from obtaining them, but forms were sent to them asking them to indemnify the Government if they had cultivated crops within 300 feet of the railway fences. He had had such a form himself, and he was told that if he had the temerity to cultivate within 300 feet of the railway fence he must indemnify the Government because a fire occurred. (Laughter.) Not only did the Government take 100 feet, but another 300 feet on each side might not be cultivated, because the Government would not bear responsibility. These were the disabilities they were suffering under when they had State control, a matter he had drawn attention to before. (Ironical Labour cheers.) In 1911 the concluding paragraph of the report of the Railway Land Appropriation Select Committee was that the committee further recommended that all locomotives should be fitted with effective spark arresters. He did not think the Government had stirred a hand to further these recommendations. He did appeal to the Minister to do something to prevent fires caused by railway locomotives and that when they had occurred he would accept responsibility for them.

said that it was perfectly clear that if they were going to bring their crops right up to the railways there was no human invention which could prevent these fires. The matter was not such a simple one as his hon. friend (Mr. Fawcus) seemed to think. One session his hon. friend had advocated that crops should be brought close to the railway by narrowing the width taken for the railway and the next session he thought that the thunders of heaven should be brought down on the Railway Department because these fires had occurred. He thought this dragging about of people from Court to Court in connection with claims for compensation for damage caused by fires was an absolute denial of justice.

said that, in supporting the motion, he might quote a ease which bore out what had been said by the right hon. the member for Victoria West in regard to the denial of justice to the poor man. He had in his mind one particularly hard case where a man had been compelled to go to Court and spend a considerable amount of money in order to have his character cleared. He proposed to give the particulars now so that the Minister would have an opportunity, before they came to the Railway Estimates, of making an inquiry. A ticket-examiner in the Railway Service of Natal, and employed at Durban, had a charge laid against him by a passenger. He was brought before the railway officials and an inquiry was instituted and the charge was found to be proved. He was dismissed from the service. He then appealed to the Assistant General Manager and again the charge was supposed to be proved against him. He next appealed to the Railway Board, he (Mr. Boydell) believed, and again his discharge was upheld. He then brought an action in the Court of the Chief Magistrate at Durban and claimed damages for slander and defamation of character. The Chief Magistrate went fully into the case and found that the charge against this man was entirely unjustified. He was awarded damages. What was the position? The man lost his job on account of the charge laid against him and he had had to pay a considerable sum of money in order to clear his character. He wished the Minister to go into this case with a view, if possible, of the reinstatement of the man in the service, or at any rate of reimbursing the costs to which he had been subjected in order to clear himself from this unfounded charge. He had had to spend £100 in order to clear his character

said he was afraid that there was a tendency on the part of the Department to contest in every Court of law every claim for compensation which was brought forward. In this respect they seemed to be following the practice of the English railway companies. On the other hand, he found from the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts one case where the Department had actually paid compensation in breach of their own regulations. An amount of £625 wat paid to Sir Owen Philipps in respect of damage to a motor-car at the docks. He found from the regulations of the Cape that liability was limited to £100. He would like to know what would have happened if this claim had been made by a poor farmer, who was not in such a good position to enforce his claim. He imagined that the Department would have taken the case into Court.

said that if the hon. member for Greyville would come to his office and give him particulars of the case to which he had referred he would certainly inquire into it. He had no recollection of any of the facts to which the hon. member had made reference. In regard to the other matters of claims for compensation, the hon. member for Victoria West was mistake in supposing that the Department contested every claim for compensation. If anything, the tendency was rather in the opposite direction. In many of these cases while ones sympathy in the event of fires caused by passing trains was certainly with the farmers who were affected, there was no doubt that if the claims were not contested the Railway Administration would not be doing its duty to the taxpayers of this country. If they did not contest claims which they were advised were not reasonable claims, they would very soon be flooded8 with applications for compensation. As to the question of the limitation of the department’s liability, he was not going into the details of the case mentioned by the hon. member for-Bloemfontein, but he might say that, not only in the case of Sir Owen Philipps, but in other cases the department’s limit of liability was occasionally departed from. He now came to the other matter which had been raised with regard to fires. He entirely agreed with what had been said on both sides of the House as to what the natural sympathy was He made the House a promise last year that he would go into this question and deal with it at an early opportunity. Although one’s sympathy was with the farmers, and it was one’s desire and intention to minimise the risk of these fires from trains, at the same time he had to bear in mind his duty to the country at large.

They should see that that money was not paid out unnecessarily or unreasonably. There was no doubt that the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had hit one nail on the head in pointing out the importance of the question of the breadth of fire breaks. Farmers naturally wanted them to be as narrow as possible, and he sympathised with them in that. But if they made the breaks too narrow they could not prevent fires. They might have a perfectly good spark arrester, but no arrangement had been devised yet which would prevent sparks flying out of the funnel. The only way they could diminish the risk of fire was by having a fairly wide fire break. There was a new contrivance, but its application to all engines would involve a very heavy expenditure indeed. With regard to the case of Mr. Wentworth Sykes, he wished to say that he never took those cases to courts if he thought the claim was a reasonable one. They were paying out money in connection with fires every day, but in that particular case there had been an important principle involved, and that was the question of negligence. If the Railway Department had to pay out for every fire along the line without taking into consideration the question of negligence, they would have to pay out a large sum of money. What had they got a Court of Appeal for but to take cases to it if they were not satisfied with the decision of the lower court. They had taken that particular case to the Court of Appeal because the question of negligence was raised. Still he had felt that the matter had pressed hardly on Mr. Sykes, and as an important principle of law had been decided, he had instructed the Railway Administration not to press for any costs against Mr. Sykes. It had been felt that the legal point should be settled, otherwise they would be pressed for payment all over the country on similar grounds. The matter of fire had had his earnest consideration during the recess, and he had considered the settling of the central question of the burden of proof. At the first opportunity next session he intended to make the necessary provision for minimising damage which might be caused by fires, and he hoped that they would have fair play for the Railway Administration as well as for the farmers.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved: That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

Agreed to.

asked why the Minister required all that money? He had before him the statement of the Railway Department for the month of April. The expenditure during that month was £1,‘092,000. Taking that as a basis, the total expenditure up to date should be £2,730,000, which left a balance still to be spent of something like a million of money. On a monthly basis that should be sufficient—at any rate half a million should be sufficient to provide for now.

said that about that time of the year they had heavy payments to make for store's in addition to wages. He‘ had delayed the introduction of the Bill for a few days. Their payments were difficult to calculate, and the Bill now made provision up to about July 15.

said that at a previous stage of that session the question had been raised as to the retaining of the old line between Mooi River and Estcourt in Natal. He had understood from the Minister that there would be little chance of the old line being retained. For some time there had been a motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, South, dealing with the running of certain trains over the old portion of the line. That motion was reached last Tuesday, and subsequently the hon. member said he had certain assurances from the Minister and that he would withdraw the motion. He (Mr. Meyler) would like to know the nature of those assurances.

said that when the deviation was decided on the question of whether the old line should still be used was considered, but the Administration had decided that it would not be a business-like thing to do to retain that line. They could not run both lines. The assurance he had given the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, South, was that they would allow the line to be used as long as they reasonably could—that would mean another four or five months.

The clause, together with the remaining clauses, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

moved the third reading of the Workmen’s Compensation Bill.

said that under clause 3 a Civil Servant who was injured and who received special compensation under the Civil Service Act, would be debarred from receiving his ordinary pension. Perhaps the Minister could have the point cleared up in another place, as otherwise the clause was so worded as to lead to cases of hardship.

said what the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had said certainly emphasised the danger of rushing legislation, for under the very thinly veiled threats of the Ministers hon. members felt that adequate discussion of many of these matters had not been possible in committee. He (Mr. Creswell) felt distinct qualms about the first clause, which provided that employers need not pay compensation “ in so far as the incapacity or death would not have been caused, but for a pre-existing diseased condition of the workman and such condition was unknown to the employer.” This might open the door to an enormous amount of litigation. For instance, a man might be rheumatically disposed and might be crippled in the course of his employment, and consequently fall from a scaffold. In another case a man might receive an injury which but for the pre-existing disease would not incapacitate him altogether, but the two combined might lead to his entire incapacitation. The proviso to which he had called attention was an innovation, and would provide employers and insurance companies with a fruitful source of reasons upon which to contest claims for compensation.

said he would look into the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, and make quite sure that members of the public service were properly safeguarded. He would also take notice of the point raised by the hon. member for Jeppe.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved that the amendments be considered.

moved, as an amendment, that the Order for the consideration of the amendments be discharged, and that Chapter I of the Bill, with the exception of clause 5, be recommitted. When hon. members called to their minds the circumstances under which this portion of the Bill went through committee they would see that his request was not an unreasonable one. There was a clear misunderstanding, and the motion that the Chairman leave the Chair was looked upon as an obstructive one, but hon. members on the cross-benches felt that the debate on the second reading had unexpectedly collapsed. The debate on the former motion was unfortunately brought to a very early close through the application of the closure, and the House went into committee without, possibly, that deliberative temper which would best conduce to the discussion of these very important clauses. When they discussed the first long and very complicated clause there was a refusal by the Minister to take the paragraphs seriatim, with the result that the discussion on the whole clause was of the most unsatisfactory nature possible. (Hear, hear.) A number of amendments were before the committee at the same time, and the state of irritation in which the House went into committee was distinctly accentuated.

Instead of having a cool discussion as they should have had, it had become rather a trial of endurance, and one section of the House had been absent altogether. Having referred to clauses 3 and 4, the hon. member assured the Minister that they on the cross-benches would not take the advantage of obstructing, and they did desire discussion under rather different circumstances than had been the case on Friday week. If his motion was agreed to, he thought it would facilitate the passage of that Bill, and have good results. He did not say that they on those benches withdrew one iota of their opposition to the principles of the Bill, but as the House had decided on the Bill, let them have a committee stage in reality and consider these amendments on their merits, and modify some of the roughness of the Bill.

in seconding the amendment, spoke in support of what the previous speaker had said, and said that the amendments on the paper would not receive the same consideration in the House as they would if they were in committee.

said that he hoped the hon. member would not press that motion. After all, they had discussed these clauses. He said that these clauses had been discussed late that night. Clause 1 was discussed for about four hours, and except on a question whether hon. members were absolutely against that on principle, he did not think it could be said that he was unreasonable. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan), in section 3, at the time he had thought it weakened it too much, but he would accept it to-day. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler), in section 4, he had a great deal of sympathy with that amendment, but as soon as they laid down a formula they were at once on very dangerous ground. He had no strong feeling himself on that point, and if the feeling of the House was that some formula should be put in, he would be prepared to accept it. The only section the hon. member could make some point on was going into committee on section 1. He (the Minister) wanted to make it clear that on a second conviction they could only give imprisonment when the fine was not paid. He thought he had met hon. members in as reasonable a way as possible, always assuming that there were certain principles on which they were diametrically opposed to each other. He thought they would only unnecessarily use up the time of the House if at such a late stage of the session the Bill was recommitted.

said that he was sorry to hear the Minister speak as he had done, and he was evidently in the same state of mind as he was in when the Bill had been previously before the House. He admitted that there had been four hours’ debate on clause 1, but most of the discussion had come from the Labour benches. The House had been very attenuated at that time, and it must be frankly confessed that that Bill had not been thoroughly and properly considered by the whole of that Assembly. They were asked to consider amendments now which had been passed by practically only a third of the members, and most of those had been in a somnolent state at the time. The Minister had been reasonable in the latter stages of the Bill, but not in the first part.

The amendment was negatived.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 1,

moved, as a further amendment to the amendment made in committee, in line 34, after the word “or,” to insert the words “in default of payment.”

said that these penalties were altogether too high. The Minister would tell them probably that they were the maximum penalty, but when they came to look at what the “crime” was, he thought the Minister must be bound to admit that these penalties were far too heavy.

As the Minister would understand, the whole of the penalties in this Bill were, in their opinion, too high, and he would suggest that, as, in a subsequent clause, the Minister had reduced the penalty from £200 or 2 years’ imprisonment, he should do the same here. He moved to delete “£200” in the lines 30 and 31 and substitute “£50,” to delete “one year ” in line 32 and substitute “6 months,” and to delete all the words there from to the end of the paragraph.

in seconding, said that the Minister had admitted in other parts of the Bill that the penalties he was imposing were far too high for the offences dealt with. Having admitted that in certain portions of the Bill, he ought consistently to admit that the penalties were too high in clause 1. After all, in the nature of things, these were merely minor offences.

said that in Ireland at the time when the Lord Lieutenant had the power alone of prohibiting meetings the punishment was three months. It did seem to him an excessive punishment for the offences here dealt with, because, after all, this was not a crime like refusing to disperse from a disorderly meeting. They had reduced the penalty upon that very much indeed, and he thought very reasonably. A penalty of £50 or six months’ would, he thought, fit the case, unless they wanted to go back to the brave old days when you could impose death without benefit of clergy.

said that as time went on hon. members seemed to view with less seriousness the events of last July and January. In view of what had been done in later portions of the Bill, it did seem to him that the penalties provided here for the first offence were too high, and he would support the amendment to the extent of reducing the penalty to £50 or six months’ imprisonment. He did not agree with the remainder of the amendment, and he would move in line 33 to delete “5” and substitute “1,” and in the following line to delete “two years ” and substitute “one year.”

seconded.

said he could not understand the hon. gentleman at all. If the Minister would not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe, then, on the principle of accepting half a loaf if they could not get the whole loaf, they would be prepared to support the amendment. He hoped, however, the hon. member for Von Brandis would withdraw his amendment. The right hon. gentleman had mentioned the Irish Crimes Act, or, as it was better known, the Coercion Act. Did the Minister not know-what was the result of that Act in Ireland? The result was not the prevention of meetings, although big gatherings in public places were prevented. What did happen was that these people took to the fields and ditches, and had hole-and-corner meetings, a very bad thing for any community. In short the Irish movement was driven underground. That was what would happen in this country.

said that he was in a peculiar position. Last Saturday night a meeting was to be held in a certain district in Cape Town. When he arrived there he found that the meeting had been prohibited. What would his position have been if he had spoken at that meeting, without knowing that it had been prohibited? He would like the Minister to explain what his position would have been in these circumstances, and also why the meeting was prohibited.

Business was suspended at 12.45 p.m.

continuing, said that last Saturday night, at the same place where they were to hold their meeting, there had been another meeting held earlier. It was held at the same corner. At that particular point at which their meeting was to be held they had held meetings times out of number. He did not see why the police, especially at that particular time, should drive them into side streets and at the same time allow a religious meeting at the same corner.

said that now the Minister was on that clause he would ask him to make certain matters plain. Supposing he (Mr. Haggar) called a meeting at the Good Hope Hall and that meeting was prohibited, and then he called another meeting at Claremont. Because he was refused permission to have a meeting in the Good Hope Hall, could he be prevented from holding that meeting at Claremont? Surely a meeting at one place was not the same thing as a meeting at another place

said he hoped the Minister would see his way to do away altogether with the proposals for fines on persons convicted under that, section. He was afraid those, fines in 99 case? out of 100 would never be paid by the persons themselves, but would be paid by their unfortunate friends, He moved to omit all words after “conviction ” to the word “fine,” and to substitute “to, imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months and on a second and subsequent conviction to imprisonment not exceeding six months.

seconded.

said the Government did not wish, to have an oppressive penalty, but, he had considerably modified the original penalty. It was not a question of what was the, lightest punishment. That was the maximum punishment the Magistrate could impose. Supposing a particular public meeting on the Parade could be prohibited, because the Government feared that the result would be bloodshed, but in spite of that a man insisted on holding the meeting and a good many people were killed, then he thought the maximum punishment was a punishment which a man would deserve. Was £250 or a year’s imprisonment too high a punishment for that? He could not accept any’ amendment which provided for lesser punishment than the punishment provided in the amendment, and he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for George. When the order had been given, rightly or wrongly, prohibiting a meeting, it was the duty of the Government to see that that order was obeyed. No Government in the world would lightly prohibit a public meeting. The Government Would very carefully consider the matter before prohibiting a meeting, but when the order was given it should be obeyed, and any man who disobeyed that order should be severely punished. As regarded the speech of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Maginess), he did not know anything about the prohibition of a meeting on Saturday night. He had tried to get into communication with the police during the luncheon hour to find out the exact circumstances, but he was not successful. It seemed that it was a meeting in the public street which was dealt with by by-laws and that it was just moved on. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Roodepoort, of course a meeting held at Claremont would be an entirely different meeting to the one held at the Good Hope Hall.

said that before the Minister accepted the amendment of the hon. member for George he should consider the matter. What was going to be the position of the Government if they insisted on throwing a popular man into prison under that law? If they did so, the riotous assemblies would become more dangerous to the Government than they had been before, and there would be an uproar among the people. There had been no trouble in Benoni when the meeting there was allowed at the and of June, but there had been, trouble when a meeting was prohibited.

put the question: That all the words after “conviction to” down to “fine”, proposed to be omitted,, stand part of the clause, which was negatived, and the words were accordingly omitted.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Creswell, Mr. Nathan, and the Minister of Justice, dropped.

then put the words proposed by Mr. Currey to be inserted in lieu of the words omitted.

said that on the occasion of the consideration of clause 15 in committee, he withdrew a very important amendment. He understood that clause 15 had received the support of the Government by the mere fact of its inclusion in the Bill, and that it had also the support of a large number of members on the Opposition side of the House. It had been said that he was prompted in the lines he had adopted because he had experienced difficulties in being heard by the public, but he had never yet been refused a hearing personally at any public meeting, but he had been present at meetings when large numbers of people had been refused a hearing. On one occasion Sir Percy Fitzpatrick endeavoured to enter a hall to address a public meeting, and he was hustled and knocked about very seriously, so that his health must have been seriously affected thereby. When he (Mr. Nathan) withdrew the little Bill that he had published, there appeared in a quarter one least expected it—in the columns of “The Worker“—a paragraph condemning the Bill. He thought it would be impossible for any but the Labour Party to hold meetings on the Rand to-day. (Labour cheers and laughter.)

moved as an amendment that the clause should not apply to any meetings held in connection with a contested election. (Laughter.)

The amendment was not seconded.

said he was surprised at the hon. member for Von Brandis persisting in putting this matter before the House. The hon. member wished the House to understand that only Labour sympathisers broke up meetings, but recently there was a meeting at Kimberley which De Beers and their friends tried to break up. Then some Labour members were at Stellenbosch the other night. (Laughter and cheers.) He wished the hon. member for Victoria West had been present, for he would have seen what kind of behaviour his supporters were capable of. There was a policeman at the door, but the speakers did not ask him to throw out the interrupters; they simply waited and got through, and on the whole had a very good time. The speakers should stick to their guns until they obtained a hearing.

The motion for the deletion of the clause was carried.

put the amendments in clause 17.

moved, as an amendment, in line 15, to omit “a”, and to substitute “any other”.

Agreed to.

The amendments, as amended, were agreed to.

put the amendments in the Schedule.

moved, in the third item, after “Preservation ” in the: third, column to insert “Ordinance, 1902.”

Agreed to.

The amendments as amended, were agreed to.

On clause 1, Prohibition of public gatherings in public places in certain events and penalties for convening meetings in contravention of such prohibition,

moved in sub-section (1), line 12, after “district” to insert: “Provided that in respect to a public meeting within the area of a municipality the magistrate shall consult with and obtain from the Mayor of such municipality his opinion in writing as to whether such meeting should be prohibited before any such meeting is prohibited under this section.” He said he did not think that sufficient attention had been paid to the question of the grave responsibility which was thrown upon one man in deciding whether a meeting should be prohibited or not Personally, he did not believe in the prohibition of any meeting until it had become disorderly. The Minister considered that it was necessary to prohibit a meeting if the magistrate or some other person thought it might become disorderly. He (Mr. Sampson) considered that in placing that power in the hands of the Magistrate he was imposing too great a responsibility upon him. It was desirable that that responsibility should be shared, and he thought there was no better person with whom that responsibility should be shared than the Mayor of the town. In this connection the hon. member quoted from an article in “Harper’s Weekly” in reference to two meetings held in New York on April 4th and 11th of this year of the unemployed, one of which resulted in a number of casualties after the police had attempted to break up the meeting, and the other, although much more numerously attended, ended peacefully, no attempt being made by the police to break up the meeting.

in seconding, alluded to a meeting held during the railway strike in Durban in 1909, during which, he said, they had a very good illustration of the necessity of inserting a proviso of this description in the Bill, so as to enable the magistrate to consult with the Mayor of the town. Some 2,000 railwaymen were on strike. It was arranged that a big meeting should be held. The Government brought down troops from Pietermaritzburg. The police of Durban were a borough force. The hon. member for Victoria County (Mr. Henwood), who was then Mayor of Durban, intervened, and requested the military to remain on Government property. He stated that the men concerned were citizens, that he could trust them, and that, as Mayor, he had got charge of the order of the town. As a result of the Mayor’s action, everything passed off peacefully.

said he thought there was rather too much protestation from hon. members on the cross-benche3. It seemed to him that one effect of this proviso would be to drag the unfortunate Mayor of the town into the political quarrels of the day. He pointed out that, without any provision of this kind, during the January troubles the Mayor of Cape Town and the Chief Magistrate conferred together, and no disorder of any kind took place in the city.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Struben) had stated that the effect of this proviso would be to drag the unfortunate Mayor into political quarrels. Was that the object of the Bill? It seemed to him that the object of the Bill was to try and put down Labour meetings. The fact of the matter was that the ultimate decision with regard to the prohibition or breaking up of meetings rested with the police. They claimed that the chief civic officer of the town was most likely to know his citizens and to be in a position to advise as to what would be the best course of action in regard to meetings. Wherever a meeting was referred to in this Bill was about to be held, or was being held within the bounds of a municipality, the Mayor of the town was the man who should be conferred with by the magistrate before that meeting was prohibited.

said he did not see very much objection to the insertion of this amendment, only he did not see any necessity for having the Mayor’s opinion in writing. He would be inclined to support the amendment if the words “and obtain from” and “his opinion in writing” were deleted, and he accordingly moved the deletion of these words.

seconded.

said the proposal that the Mayor should express his opinion in writing was done with the object of protecting the Mayor in subsequent investigations. In times of excitement different people held different views as to what had occurred, and that had been proved in Johannesburg. If the Mayor did definitely say something to the Magistrate or to the police it should be written down so that there could be no misunderstanding as to what he had meant. That was, however, not a material point, and if they could get the larger principle adopted he did not think the mover of the amendment would mind. Self-government should be carried as far as possible. Let them take the case of Manchester. During the railway trouble of two or three years ago, the Mayor of Manchester had said that it was entirely in consequence of the action of the Government authorities that any disorder or bloodshed took place. He wished the police all over South Africa were in the same position as the police in Durban and other Natal towns—that was, under the control of the municipalities.

said he did not like the prohibition of meetings much, but now that they had got prohibition, the Minister had shown himself as in a very “coming on” frame of mind. He had lowered the penalties and had met with a storm of opposition and a derision. That was disheartening to anybody. His hon. friend who had just spoken did not show much knowledge of the affairs of this country. In Manchester the Mayor was a Magistrate, he was the Chief Magistrate, but here they had an entirely different state of affairs. The Magistrate here was an officer of the Government, he was a stipendiary, and did not act without being specially instructed to act by the Minister.

They had got that in the Bill, and surely they ought to be satisfied with it. While the Mayor was hesitating, they might have the whole place in a state of uproar. The chief object of officers of the Government was not to be popular; the chief object was to see that the laws were obeyed. He hoped the Minister would let the clause pass as it was Some places had not got a Mayor, and all meetings were not held in municipalities. He had unhappily known people break the law outside municipalities.

said the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken had, as usual, led them all adrift. They agreed that the Minister had met them and they were glad of it. With regard to that particular matter he wanted to impress on the Minister that he was going to do no harm by accepting it. It was not a question of a breach of the law. It was a question of whether they were going to prohibit a meeting which would otherwise be legal. It was a question of whether they were going to make Crime or not He did not think the Magistrate was the best man to advise the police. The Mayor should be consulted. They suggested that they should have some documentary evidence of the consultation with the Mayor. The utmost that could happen would be that the Mayor would disagree with the Magistrate and the whole responsibility would be thrown on the Magistrate.

said he would support the amendment if it would forward a good purpose, but he did not see that it could be of any service. Supposing a Mayor and a Magistrate differed, who was going to rule? He thought the Minister would make a mistake by accepting the amendment.

said that question had been discussed in committee and had been rejected by a very large majority. He did not think the Mayors could claim the mantle of infallibility which had been thrown over them by come hon. members. The Magistrates were the responsible custodians of law and order. The Mayor was not responsible for law and order. If the police were in the same position as those in Durban, under the control of the municipality, the matter would be different. If so many safeguards were put into the Bill it seemed to him that it would take about three months before a meeting could be prohibited. The Magistrate naturally would consult people if he was not quite clear what advice he should tender to the Ministry. He hoped the House would reject the amendment.

Mr. Henderson’s amendment to Mr. Sampson’s amendment was agreed to,

put Mr. Sampson’s amendment, as amended.

moved the omission of the following: “Or if, owing to urgency or any other cause whatever any such notice cannot be printed, published, distributed, or affixed, then the prohibition may he by sufficient oral public announcement in that locality.” The mover said that the trouble on Johannesburg Market Square last July was largely due to the fact that not sufficient notice was given that the meeting had been prohibited. Oral notice, he maintained, was insufficient and extremely dangerous. Notices should be given in the newspapers or be affixed on public buildings.

seconded.

said he was aware that the Minister of Justice would say that they were repeating what was discussed in the small hours of Saturday morning. Once a meeting was assembled there was a condition provided for in section 4 which applied to the breaking up of meetings. Far less risk would be run by the authorities relying on section 4 than depending on prohibiting a meeting merely by word of mouth.

said he entirely agreed with the hon. members on the cross-benches that when a meeting was already assembled it would be far less dangerous to allow it to go on and deal with violence as it might occur. There would be just as much danger in dispersing a meeting at the beginning as later on.

said he wanted to correct a misapprehension. This matter was exhaustively discussed long before 12 o’clock on Friday night. By deleting the words they would encourage people to hold meetings privately. If there was not time to print notices prohibiting the meeting there would be time to warn people as they assembled that the meeting had beeh prohibited.

put the question: That the words in lines 20 to 23, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

moved in sub-section (1), lines 15 and 16, to omit “or any other public gathering by which the public peace would be seriously endangered.” He said he would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he was prepared to accept this amendment.

said he would accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was also agreed to.

On clause 4, Dispersal of prohibited or unlawful gathering and manner of dispersal,

moved in line 50, to omit all the words after “and” down to “times” in line 56 and to substitute: “if they do not disperse immediately he shall, after having attracted their attention by means of a bugle or drum, order them to disperse by calling out three times in a loud voice ‘In the name of the King all persons here assembled are commanded to disperse forthwith, and to depart peaceably to their homes or lawful business, and if they do not so depart within (a time to be specified by such police officer at his discretion, not being less than half an hour) force will be used ’ ”; and in line 57, to omit “and information.” He said that this amendment was one of considerable importance, and when he moved a somewhat more drastic amendment in Committee, the division was taken at something like halfpast five in the morning, when less than 43 per cent, of the total membership of the House took part. He was glad to hear from the Minister that if the House were in favour of the amendment he would be prepared to allow it to go in (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) His idea was not in any way to weaken the Bill, but he did think they should have something more formal-than appeared in the Bill as printed. Although he had put forward a certain formula of words, if the Minister did not like those particular words, he (Mr. Meyler) would be prepared to accept any suggestion he had to make with regard to fresh words. He desired to safeguard the public so that they might have due warning when force was about to be employed at any meeting. According to the clause as printed, a police officer was to obtain the attention of the public according to the means he deemed most suitable. He thought it was desirable that some means should be specified other than the human voice, so that the crowd might have some warning as to what was about to take place.

seconded the amendment.

said he would ask the Minister to give this amendment his close and sympathetic consideration. What one desired was that there should be a certain solemn formula used before the force of law was brought to bear upon a crowd.

said that this was a most difficult subject and one upon which he had no very decided opinion. It was a question upon which there was much to be said for or against. His own personal opinion was that, looking at it more from the point of view of the unfortunate police officer who was called upon to disperse a meeting, the more he was weighted with these formulae and regulations, the more difficult was it for him to carry out his duties properly. If a police officer called upon a meeting to disperse and omitted one of these words in the formula of the hon. member, it would be argued in a Court of law that he had not carried out his duties properly, and the whole thing would be illegal, and everything would be upset, because the officer had not followed the exact formula which had been laid down in the law. Nobody would have been put to any disadvantage by it, but simply because the formula had not been carried out this officer would render himself liable to punishment. From his personal point of view, it seemed to him that they had put the matter quite clearly in the clause, that the officer should endeavour to obtain the attention of these persons by such lawful means as he deemed most suitable. In Law 6, 1894 (Transvaal) they had a very brief, crisp formula which read: “Obedience to the law; disperse, otherwise force will be used.” He thought the amendment as it stood put the onus upon the unfortunate police officer of either blowing the bugle or beating the drum himself.

said he was not so hidebound to the formula, but he did think that what was provided in the clause at present was hardly sufficient notice to the public. The matter might perhaps be considered by the Minister and, if necessary, an amendment could be inserted when the Bill was brought before the Senate.

said that the Transvaal Law not only provided for the words mentioned being declared by the officer of police, but he had to call attention by means of a drum or bugle and to call out the words three times in a loud voice. A formula of some sort had been used in England for the last 200 years. Surely it was not essential that the police officer should commit it to memory. In any disorder in England the Riot Act was read. If the officer had the formula in print before him he would not be likely to make any mistake in the language. He wished the Minister would devote a third of his zeal in the interest of the police officer to the ordinary citizen. The police officer did not stand much chance of being shot, but he was going to be the cause of the trouble. No stone should be left unturned by them in seeing that the people who were most concerned should thoroughly understand the drift of what was happening on the platform when the officer was taking steps to disperse the meeting.

put the question: That the words in lines 50 to 56, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

moved, the following addition to clause 20: “Provided further that this section shall only apply to persons (a) who have been convicted of the crimes mentioned herein by a Provincial or Local Division or by the Special Criminal Court constituted under section 18; and (b) in whose case a recommendation has been made by the Court before which they were so convicted that the provisions of this section should be applied.” Sir T. W. Smartt said his reason for making that proposal was that the Opposition had thought it advisable that under no circumstances should anybody be deported except he had been convicted by a judge and, besides his conviction, the character of his crime was of such a nature that deportation should be carried out. It was an entirely different provision to the deportation which had taken place some time ago. The previous deportations took place at a time when there was no legislation such as was provided in that Bill to deal with unrest of that character. The position in that case was entirely different from the position which it was proposed to deal with in the Bill. If the clause went through without amendment, it meant that that House had established a principle that a Minister could by his own sweet will deport anybody convicted under the Bill for a political offence. Personally, he thought the Minister would have been well advised to have dropped that clause out of the Bill at a previous stage. It would have saved a great deal of time, and would have met with a great deal of approval in the country. The inclusion of such a clause now before the House would cause a great deal of suspicion and a great deal of legitimate discontent throughout the country. The Minister had said that he was prepared to take out the words with reference to people born in South Africa, but that if he did so it would still remain impossible to deport anyone who had been born in this country. That being so, the Minister should see the invidious distinction that would be drawn between two sections of the population. Should the House under any circumstances place in the hands of the Government the power to deport people for political offences without first having to come to Parliament for authority? In the cases of the recent deportations the Government was not indemnified without an Act of Parliament, but under this Bill power would be given to Government to deport for political offences. He hoped his hon. friend would reconsider the position and would accept as a compromise that before people were deported, judges should recommend that this should be done in the interests of the general peace of the country. (Opposition cheers.)

seconded the amendment.

said it would be most unfortunate for this House to drag a Court of Law into such a position that it would, have to express an opinion on the question of deportation. That would be throwing a most odious duty on the Judges. Our Judges had deservedly a high reputation, and if they were called upon to settle such points opportunity would be given for everyone to throw mud at them. The two Judges who held the inquiry into the Rand disturbances had been subjected to a great deal of criticism, and if they were to go further the clause might as well be deleted altogether. (Hear, hear.) It would be putting a most odious onus on Judges which they ought not to exercise, and if he were a judge he would say that the Government should bear the brunt of it and not shelter itself behind the report of the Judges. If he had to choose between accepting the recommendations of Judges and deleting the clause, he would rather do the latter. After all, it was a question of policy which the Government had to carry out and had to defend in this House. He thought Parliament would have a ready way of dealing with any Minister who debased his office by utilising the power given him for the purposes of political consideration. The Minister than moved to amend the amendment by deleting “by” after “herein” and substituting “before” and to omit all the words after “eighteen.”

said that while the Judges might be put in an invidious position, the Minister was proposing to place himself and the Government in a much more invidious position by arrogating to themselves part of the functions of a judicial body. They would be taking the right to administer additional punishments to those inflicted by the Court If the Minister would not see that deportation was mediæval and should have no place in our law then one had to bow to the majority.

was sorry to hear the Minister of Justice say he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He (Mr. Merriman) felt, with the very greatest regret, obliged to vote against the Minister whom he had tried to support throughout the Bill, although some of the provisions went rather far. On the whole he was anxious to see the Minister’s hands strengthened in the maintenance of law and order, but when they came to a question dealing with the very first principles of freedom he must part company with the Minister. He (Mr. Merriman) had seen too much in this country—a great deal which had made him abhor and detest any exercise of arbitrary powers of the sort. He did not like the idea of a special Court, and the giving up of the safeguard of trial by jury. (Hear, hear.) But at any rate this function would be given to a body of men who would be beyond reproach in this country—although we should throw on them the invidious task of sentencing for what might be considered political crimes, we had confidence in their judgment. But by the Minister’s proposal they said that after a man had served his sentence he went away with a brand upon him and subject to a secondary penalty which could be exercised only by a political officer. The Minister had remarked, “Surely no Minister would do such a thing like that.” Why, we had seen in this country over and oven again the most arbitrary exercise of powers of this kind. He remembered one night when ten men were taken at Paarl and carried off to a distant part of the country, and when they applied to the court they found it was powerless to grant them justice.

Martial Law.

This is Martial Law What is Martial Law except arbitrary power exercised by force? We have seen, too much of that kind of thing of what parties will do. (Cheers.) I remember some honest gentlemen on the other side—I will not give their names now—who said the country would go on well enough if you deport certain gentlemen on this side, including, I think the present Minister of Railways and Harbours. This is the sort of spirit in which Ministers and parties go to work in times of strong feeling. This law is not going to be confined to people who are considered the enemies of human kind—it will be used with regard to political people Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said it would be a very grave danger to have a provision like that on the Statute-book. The amendment of his hon. friend introduced a very invidious thing. The whole intention of the Court to be set up would be abhorred by the judges, and if they had the clause standing as it was at present it would make the judges think twice or three times if they convicted a man. It was not right that further punishment should be inflicted at the whim of a Minister. The whole Bill was a distasteful Bill, and though the circumstances of this country called for measures like that, toy all means they should keep within reasonable bounds of justice and not place in the hands of a political officer the right to confer a secondary punishment upon a person who had already been punished by the Courts.

added his voice to the appeal to the Minister to reconsider that matter. They on that side of the House had supported that measure in the interests of the country, and they made that appeal because they felt, as the right hon. gentleman had said, that it was placing in the hands of the political officer the power to inflict punishment upon political opponents. Such power as that had never appeared on the pages of the Statute-book.

Yes, it did, when the Indemnity Bill was passed.

said the hon. member was confusing the issue. That was in connection with something that had been done, and afterwards the people who had done it came to Parliament for condonation.

was understood to say that it was a Bill of attainder.

said that now they were putting on the Statute-book a principle of law. Proceeding, he said that judges were officials appointed by the State whom they could look on as men of impartiality, men who would not be influenced by political passions. Now they were knocking down the whole of that structure when they allowed a Minister of the Crown to pass sentence. That was the effect of the principle laid down by the hon. Minister. It would create a bad feeling not only among his political opponents but also among a great number of his political friends.

said he was glad to be in the same boat as the hon. member for Victoria West on that occasion. It was unnecessary for either of them to come to the House with apologies for their action on the question of deportations. He was sorry the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had left a loophole through which the Minister was now endeavouring to escape. The amendment which he (Mr. Meyler) moved in the committee stage was very much stronger. Unfortunately there was that loophole in the hon. member’s amendment for the Minister, who would accept sub-clause (a), which was of minor importance, and throw out clause (b), which was of vital importance. It would have been far better if they could include all under one heading, as he had set it down in his amendment on the Order Paper. He therefore proposed a further amendment; to add at the end of clause 20 “and provided further that no person convicted of a crime mentioned in this section shall be removed from the Union unless he shall have been convicted before a superior court or a special criminal court constituted under section 18 of this Act, and unless such court shall have made a recommendation to the Government in favour of such removal. Any such court shall be and is hereby empowered to make such recommendations.” The last clause, he said, was quite essential, for there was nothing in our law which would allow a recommendation to be made. He thought they should have a straight fight on that all-important matter; it was a very far reaching principle which was at stake. They must not overlook the fact that the judge would have all the incidents of the case before him to aid him in deciding whether the additional punishment was merited. He would be in a far better position to judge than anyone else.

said he rather favoured the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen in preference to that of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He accordingly seconded it. They on the cross-benches had already said how much they were against the principle of any Minister having the power to deport, and they were now asked to put in some safeguard under which deportation could be made. It was a pity that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had brought his amendment forward in that form. The result, was that the Minister accepted one portion and left the other. It would not do away with the complaint that if the Minister did not think the court had inflicted sufficient penalty on the person he could inflict the further penalty of deportation. If that power was given it should be given to the judges, and when they were sentencing a man after conviction they would take into consideration the whole sentence, and include banishment, if they thought fit to do so; but if the Court had sentenced a man, it would be quite wrong to give the Minister power to inflict a still further punishment. That was against all reason and justice. He regretted that the Minister could accept the first portion of the amendment and refuse the latter part.

said that if they had to take a thing they did not like it was well they should have a safeguard. He strongly supported the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, or, in the alternative, to delete the clause altogether. It was curious that the Minister should use the argument at the time that they on the Opposition side of the House used when the clause was under discussion. They had pointed out that if they took that matter away from the jury, and left it in the hands of the judges, there would be a certain amount of odium attached to the work. It would lower the standing of the judges in the eyes of the people. They would not get a conviction very easily from the Courts under such circumstances.

He objected to this, first of all, because it was an attack upon liberty. Then there had probably been more feeling aroused over this clause than over any other part of the Bill, for the reason that they felt that a differentiation was drawn between those who were born in the country and those who were born outside the country.

said that, personally, he did not very much mind whether the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort or the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen was adopted, or the clause was deleted altogether. He very much regretted to see this punishment of banishment introduced into this Bill. It was put in for certain offences and for certain persons of the Union who may have lived for years in the country. That seemed to him a different principle from the principle we already had in the law in regard to prohibited immigrants.

pointed out that the clause itself was not now under discussion.

said that the hon. member opposite had spoken about the effect of this on one class of the population, that there was a feeling that it was specially aimed at this class, and, although he fully realised what the Minister had done in regard to meeting this feeling, he thought there was still a lingering doubt which could not be got away from, especially after the explanation of the Minister that he did not think that this banishment would apply to any except those who were not born in the country.

said that clause 19 was part of the Bill and could not be debated now.

said that what he desired to argue was that this should be limited as closely as possible.

The hon. member can only argue upon the proviso to the clause.

I am sorry I cannot understand. I would merely say I hope the House will adopt one of these amendments. I feel that, although it will put considerable responsibility upon the judges, it is not beyond the responsibility to which the judges ought to be prepared to go. I think, on the whole we shall reach the object the Minister has in view if this clause is limited as is proposed now.

said his only regret was that neither of these amendments went far enough, and that they limited the demand that judges’ condemnation should be antecedent to deportation to merely the offences mentioned in this Bill. To his view all the offences for which a man was liable to be classed as a prohibited immigrant should only be visited by this punishment of banishment upon the decision of a Court. For his own part he preferred the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen, though he admitted that the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, if carried in its entirety, came to the same thing. The important thing was that the power of fixing punishment for any offence should be left to the judicial authority and not to the Executive of the country. He thought the House would agree that it was a dangerous power in the hands of any Government to be able to banish any of its citizens at its own sweet will. If such a sentence were to be pronounced, it should be pronounced from the mouth of a judge, and not from the mouth of a Minister.

put the amendment moved by Mr. Meyler, upon which the House divided, with the following result:

Ayes—35.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Crea well, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess Thomas

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Orr, Thomas

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben Charles Frederick William

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Walton, Edgar Hands

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

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

Noes— 49.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoemun, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

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

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

The first part of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, in para graph (a), to omit “by” and to substitute “before”, and at the end of the paragraph to omit “and”, was agreed to.

The second part of the amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt, viz., the insertion of paragraph (b), was put.

moved the following new clause to follow clause 20: “Whenever any public gathering has been prohibited under the provisions of section 1, and whenever a police officer has called upon the persons assembled at a public gathering to disperse under the provisions of section 4, and whenever a special court has been constituted under the provisions of section 18, and whenever any person has been removed from the Union under the provisions of section 19, the Minister shall report the circumstances to both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days if Parliament be then sitting, and otherwise within fourteen days after the commencement of its next ensuing session.” The mover said that they should insist on the sovereignty of Parliament. It might be possible that those powers would be exercised without Parliament having knowledge of them and he thought that should be guarded against. It would be a safeguard against excessive and unnecessary use of those powers. He understood that the Government was prepared favourably to consider the matter.

seconded the amendment.

I am prepared to accept that. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted.

moved that the third reading be set down for Wednesday.

said he objected to Wednesday, and moved that the third reading be taken on Friday. The House had been promised certain remedial legislation, and while they had got the Workmen’s Compensation Bill to the third reading stage there was another important Bill which ought to be got through, and that was the Miners’ Phthisis Bill.

seconded. He said he wanted the Minister to endeavour to realise that the whole of that repressive legislation had arisen from the fact that miners’ phthisis

No, no.

said if the Miners’ Phthisis Bill were not carried before the Riotous Assemblies Bill then the people, especially those chiefly affected, would come to the conclusion that they had been duped. No remedial legislation bad yet been carried.

put the question: That the word “Wednesday” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

moved that the paragraphs of the clause be taken seriatim.

made some suggestions to the Minister of Finance regarding the constitution of the Courts, which were not quite audible in the Press Gallery.

moved an amendment in sub-section (2) of clause 24 to insert, after “person” in line 7, the words “one of whom shall be a barrister and the other an accountant, each of not less than ten years’ standing.”

pointed to a difficulty in connection with the words “within a prescribed period,” in lines 1 and 2. That, he thought, left the matter entirely open in the hands of the Government. He did not suggest that a Minister would make a misuse of that, but he suggested that a definite period should be fixed, and he would move to insert the words “thirty days.”

pointed out to the hon. member that the point was met in sub-section 3. He said that he saw no objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and suggested that the sub-section should read: “Any Courts so constituted shall consist of three persons, one of whom shall be a barrister and the other an accountant, each of not less than ten years’ standing.” He moved accordingly.

moved an amendment which would have the effect of setting up a Court for each Province.

asked what the position would be in places where there was neither a barrister nor an accountant. People there would have to be put to very heavy expenses in securing such people to decide their appeals. Therefore he hoped the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would not be accepted.

did not think the hon. member for Durban, Berea, was reasonable in his amendment.

explained that he did not look upon the matter from a provincial point of view, but from that of the convenience of the people in different parts of the country.

replying to the hon. member for Vryheid, said that cases were often complicated owing to matters of bookkeeping, and it was the proper course to have a barrister and an accountant in the Court. It would be impossible to have a Court in small districts.

replying to a question by Mr. P. Grobler (Rustenburg), said the Court would be a Circuit Court.

wanted protection for those accountants who had qualified in the Union, and suggested that they should add the words “certified in the Union.” What was the use, he asked, of a young man training for that profession if he could not get protection. He would find an opportunity to discuss the matter with the hon. Minister before the third reading.

hoped the Minister would see his way to accept the proposal. He himself had an amendment dealing with that matter; to put in “duly qualified accountant.”

The effect of section 8 was that only, when the claim of the Commissioner was held to be unreasonable, or the grounds of appeal there from to be frivolous were costs awarded. That seemed to be a very great hardship. Under this clause a man would have to pay his own costs in the ordinary course, and the Commissioner would have to pay his own costs. He did not think that was fair. He thought from the point of view of the Government and the taxpayer on the one hand and the appellant on the other it was only fair that costs should follow the result. He moved to delete all the words after “appeal ” in line 38 to the end of the sub-section.

said that the Minister had followed the wording of the old Cape Act. This Court was a travelling Court, and the costs were very slight indeed.

said that in this section there seemed to be a double attempt at dealing with the period. An attempt was made in sub-section (1) to prescribe a period, and then in sub-section (3) a period of 21 days was mentioned. He thought that 21 days was not a sufficient period, and that 30 days should be substituted. He would suggest to the Minister that they should simply say “unless the taxpayer gives notice of such appeal within 30 days,” and that they should leave out the first portion of subsection (3).

said he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands.

said he did not think he could accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands. He had taken this from the old Cape Law, the object being to discourage frivolous objections. In regard to the point of the hon. member for Uitenfiage, it was just a question whether the words in sub-section (1) were necessary, but that point might be considered at a later stage. He did not think that 21 days was too short a notice. Sub-section (3) was in order.

withdrew his amendment.

withdrew his amendment.

The amendment of the Minister of Finance was agreed to.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was agreed to,

Mr. Struben’s amendment was negatived.

Clause 24 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 25, Reservation of questions of law for decision of Court of Law,

moved in line 48 to omit “of ” and substitute “in.”

said that the Minister had decided to put in another Court. He was sorry that that should be necessary. A man might be dragged to the Appellate division by the Government which he thought was very undesirable.

The Supreme Court was the Court of Appeal under the old law.

said that under the old law the Commissioner was able to submit a case to the decision of the Supreme Court, whose decision was conclusive. There was no appeal, but now an appeal had been put in He was afraid that that would add to the expensiveness of proceedings.

said the trouble was that they might have conflicting decisions on absolutely the same point in the various Provincial Divisions and they had found on several occasions that the limitation of the appeal really did not work well in that respect. Although it might add to the expense in some important case or other, he thought they had better leave the clause as it stood.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved the addition of the following proviso: “Provided that this notice shall not take away the right of any taxpayer to pay his tax either through the post or personally at the chief office of the Commissioner. ”

Yes, I accept that.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 35, General provisions as to companies,

moved to delete sub-section 10, as follows: “(10) Company’ shall include any association incorporated or registered under any law in force in any part of the Union relating to companies, banking companies, or insurance companies, and shall further include any such association which though incorporated or registered outside the Union carries on business or has an office or place of business therein.” He further moved, in subsection (5), line 49, to omit “affairs” and to substitute “officer”, in sub-section (8), line 5, page 26, after “have” to insert “been”.

The amendments were agreed to.

On clause 37, Company regarded as agent for absent shareholders,

on behalf of Sir H. H. Juta (Cape Town, Harbour), moved to add the following sub-section: “(2)

Every company assessed for income tax shall be entitled to deduct from any dividends becoming payable within twelve months after the payment of the tax an amount calculated at the same rate per pound as the rate at which the company has been assessed.”

said he would agree to the new sub-section being included, provided it was prefixed by the following words, “subject to any agreement or contract affecting the rights of shareholders or the relative status of different classes of shareholders.” He would accept the amendment if those words preceded it, and moved to amend it accordingly.

accepted the Minister’s suggestion.

The amendment was agreed to.

The new sub-section (2), as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 42, Circumstances in which refund can be made of amounts paid in excess to Commissioner,

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

The motion was agreed to.

then moved the deletion of sub-section (2) and the substitution of the following: “Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, it shall be lawful for any person domiciled in the Union at any time within three months of the payment of the tax to claim a refund of such portion of the tax paid by a representative taxpayer or payers in respect of the income of such person as exceeds the amount of the tax which would have been payable by such person if his income had been separately assessed; and such portion of the tax shall forthwith be refunded to such person by the Commissioner.” The mover said that the principle of collection at the source was an important one, and he was glad the Minister had accepted that principle. But it was not fair, however, that in the case of a rich company which had to pay income tax at the rate of 1s. 6d. in the £ that this should be deducted from the amount handed over to the shareholder, no matter how poor he might be For instance, a widow with an income of £200 a year would have to pay income tax amounting to £15 a year if her capital was represented by shares in a rich company, say, the Premier Mine. (Laughter.) On the other hand, a bachelor might be drawing £950 a year from concerns which were not limited, and thus he would escape payment of the income tax altogether. The Minister was rolling in riches, and the House had compelled him to take £40,000 a year more than he wanted to take, so that he could well afford to make the concession. The exemption, however, should be confined to our own people, following on the lines of England, which did not allow exemptions to foreign shareholders. Injustice on a very large scale would be committed if sub-section (2) were allowed to stand in its original form, as follows: “If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the tax has been claimed or paid in respect of any income other than that derived from any share in a company, which by reason of the smallness of the income of the person finally beneficially entitled there to, would be exempt from taxation if it had been included by such person in a return made of his income, the Commissioner may cause the amount of the tax to be refunded as aforesaid.” Continuing, Mr. Fremantle urged that the matter be dealt with now, as there would not be another chance of going into this question again for many years to come. The sub-section was taken from the Cape Act of 1904, which was introduced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, when he was at his wits’ end for money. Every man’s income should be assessed according to his income, and not according to the income of the company from which he drew his dividends.

said that there was no question about it being a matter of justice in that at all. A man might have £300 a year from business or as salary, or from a farm, and he would be exempt, but if he happened to get £300 from a company he had to pay a tax of 1s. 6d. in the £ on that. Where was the justice there, 1s. 6d. in the £ on a small income of £300, and other people could draw up to £999 and did not have to pay a single penny, if it did not happen to be derived from shares? He had with him a list of the shareholders of the Board of Executors here in Cape Town, the balance-sheet and so forth, which showed a profit last year of £17,875. That at 1s. 2d. in the £ would amount to about £1,000 which those people would have to pay. There were in that company 120 shareholders holding 180 shares; the majority of the shareholders held one share. The dividend paid was £99 3s., and on that they paid a tax of £5 12s. 6d. Was there any sense of justice there? A man might have an income of £999 from anything except shares and he would not have to pay a single sixpence, whereas they had to pay £5 12s. 6d. on less than £100. The difficulty was inherent in the way the Bill was drawn up. The tax was paid at the high rate. The Minister ought to have brought in his Bill in the form the matter was dealt with in the United States, where they had a first tax, and then individuals whose income was more than £1,000 were made to pay an additional tax. He ventured to say that if the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage was carried there would have to be a refund to every shareholder.

said that when the Minister proposed his income tax Bill he made a statement that it was his intention to tax people only whose income was over £1,000 a year. In his second reading speech he (Mr. Oliver) pointed out that by that Bill the hon. Minister was really taxing people with very small incomes, and not only taxing that income, but taxing it at a very high rate, in some cases at 1s. 6d. a £. He (Mr. Oliver) quoted an illustration, and said that the hon. member for Kimberley need not argue further, he (the Minister) would attend to the poor widow when they came to the committee stage. That promise, which he (the speaker) accepted in good faith, led to his tabling the new sub-section which was printed in the Votes and Proceedings. He agreed, with the hon. member for Uitenhage that the right course was to tax the actual income, and it was quite right there should be a refund of whatever excess had been charged. If the hon. Minister would give him an assurance that he was prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage or anything like it, he (Mr. Oliver) would withdraw his amendment, but if not he would move his amendment, because he had the promise over the floor of the House that the Minister would meet the “case in the illustration” quoted. The hon. member moved a new sub-section 2, to read: “Any shareholder in a company, which has paid income tax in respect of its income, shall be entitled on receiving any dividends paid out of such income, to receive a certificate from the company stating the amount of income tax paid by the company applicable to such dividend. On presentation of such certificate to the Commissioner of Taxes, the person named therein shall be entitled to a refund of the income tax shown as applicable to his dividends, if his total income including such dividend does not exceed one thousand pounds.”

said he did not know why the Minister drew distinctions between dividends arising from shares or incomes arising from investments and mortgages, provided the income derived from those sources together was less than £1,000. The object of the Bill was to tax none unless their incomes were over £1,000, and therefore subject to any explanation the hon. Minister might make, the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, ought to be accepted. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in lines 40 and 46 of the clause just passed they found the word “shall,” why then in line 54 should they find the word “may” in other words if it might please the grace of the Government to make refunds to these people ? He moved in line 54 to omit “may” and insert “shall.” He thought the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage had some objectionable features, and he would suggest to the Minister that he should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

referred to the case of a widow who had invested all her capital of £300 in a company, from which investment she drew £22 10s. per annum. The widow would have to pay income tax in such a case. Yet the Minister of Finance had definitely promised that he would not tax such small incomes, and the promise ought to be adhered to. He thought the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage should be accepted.

said that if the hon. member for Kimberley would look at the section he would see that his point would be entirely met by the deletion of the words “other than that derived from any share in a company.” In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage, he thought what the hon. member had proposed was really an independent clause. They must first deal with sub-section (2), and then his amendment could follow as a new clause 43. If, as he (the Minister) sincerely hoped, they carried sub-section (2) the hon. member’s proposal would go. It really was not possible for him to meet the hon. member on this point. They had heard a great deal during this debate about poor widows and orphans. He was not looking out for the lady at all. (Laughter.) They were dealing with persons, and a company was as much a person in law as any natural person. They had a company and that company had an income of £10,000 or £20,000. They taxed that company. He did not probe into legal mysteries about widows and orphans and other estimable persons. No doubt these people to some extent shared in the £20,000 income of the company and received dividends, etc. He had nothing to do with that. He was satisfied with the income of the company, and he applied the tax on the scale fixed here to the income of that company. If it were hard upon particular individuals, that, of course, was part of the fortunes of war. If this alteration were made then they would have to forego enormous revenue. If the amendment of the hon. member were carried the result would be enormous upon this Bill. There was no doubt that the incomes which would be taxed in the Union would very largely be incomes of companies. That being so, he would urge upon the committee to pass sub-section (2) as it stood, otherwise the whole scheme would be emasculated.

said he could not follow the Minister’s arguments, and believed that after what the Minister had said more members than he thought would vote against the clause. The Minister said he regarded a company as a person, with the result that each one of its shareholders would have to pay on the total profits made by a company. But the basis of the Bill was that everyone was to pay according to his income. If they had a company in which there were 50 investors, whose income was each less than £1,000, the income of the company might be £10,000, and for that reason every investor would have to be taxed as if he had over £1,000. In the future it would, therefore, only pay the rich man to invest in a company. Although a company in law might be regarded as a person, the present Bill was a means of obtaining revenue from persons having a certain income. Why should these certain people then be taxed individually in the manner proposed? The proposal certainly was not in accord with the fundamental principle of the Bill. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendments of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, as otherwise the Bill would affect not the rich man, but the poor man. Only wealthy people would in future invest their money in such companies.

said they had heard of the terrible things that were done by moneylenders and financial sharks, but on the present occasion the Minister of Finance was playing something of a part of one of those moneylenders. He did not think one man in ten had had any idea that by a legal interpretation the Minister would tax persons with incomes below £1,000. If the Minister had put that matter clearly before the House at the time there would have been much more talk about it than there had been.

said that, of course, they might say from one point of view that the Bill was unjust. At the same time he would like to be shown any income tax which was theoretically just. That sort of argument had been heard over and over again. If they accepted the amendment of his hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle) they would strike at the principle of taxing the income at the source. In 1899 they had had exactly the same clause. That was taken over by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) in 1904, and he was afraid he (Mr. Merriman) had not seen his way to alter it in 1908. But they had had a flat rate of 1s. on the company, and now they were going to make it 1s. 6d. He did not see any way of amending the clause, and he thought the amendments got them deeper into the mud. He was quite prepared to say that they did not want an Income Tax Bill at all, but if they were going to have one, let it be a practical one.

said the right hon. gentleman had said they must get their money some way, even if they robbed people.

All taxation is robbery. (Laughter.)

said it might be the case that no income tax was just, but had the right hon. gentleman ever seen an income tax which was more unjust than that one? Although they had had the same clause in 1908, there had been a very low exemption. He was astonished at the defence of the Minister, who had said that they could not go past the companies. In Great Britain they did go past the companies and they also did it in the U.S.A. and in Australia. As a matter of fact, a company was an aggregation of citizens. It was not the company that was taxed, it was the shareholders. They taxed the citizens of the State who happened to be shareholders of the company at a very much higher rate than other citizens. The only argument of his hon. friend was the argument he wound up with, that he would have an enormous amount of money to refund. He (Mr. Jagger) moved: In line 50, to omit “other than that derived from any share in a company.”

said he thought a great deal of misunderstanding had arisen in discussing that matter, and he thought a great deal of false sympathy had been brought in by dragging in widows and poor men. Everybody was in agreement that those large corporations should be made to contribute to the revenue on their incomes. Now they were asked to examine a list of shareholders which constituted the corporation. If people wanted to have the advantages and benefits of the Joint Stock Company Law and wanted to register themselves as a corporation and limit their liability as a corporation, they must be treated in law as a corporate body, and they could not say, “do not treat us as a corporation for taxing purposes, but treat us as individuals. ” A corporation should be dealt with as a “persona” in law. (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. member for Victoria West had said that they could not find an income tax that was perfect. There were income taxes in the world which tried to do what was fair—where they taxed people with small incomes they gave a refund. That was the case in Great Britain, and he thought it was a good example for them to follow. Instead of taking the money from people with small incomes of one, two, or three hundred pounds, let them make a graduation over £5,000. Let them tax people who had five or ten thousand a year more heavily rather than place an income tax on persons with small incomes. The Minister had not shown how he was going to carry out the promises he had made to him (Mr. Oliver) during the second reading debate.

said the Minister had admitted that under the present Bill the poor widow would be taxed. He held that the Minister had promised to tax only the wealthy, and now he proposed to tax the poorest of the poor. He (Mr. Keyter) was not going to give his vote in favour of this clause. If they intended to tax the very poor, they should say so.

said that the Minister in framing the Bill had not given any thought to the circumstances of South Africa, but had picked the measure up from any source he could. He (Mr. Fremantle) was astounded at the speech of the hon. member for Barberton. (Hear, hear.) The Minister took the English principle when it pressed cruelly on the people, but he abstained from taking the English principle when it contained a certain amount of alleviation. There should be an entire recasting of the whole scheme, but as that could not be done they must take away the obvious, glaring, crying injustices. A very large proportion of shareholders in South African companies lived oversea, and they would not be affected by the amendment. There was nothing in the Minister’s argument that this would knock the bottom out of his financial scheme.

said his hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle) had talked a great deal about the position of England as a crediting country, but we had our thumbs on the companies who were drawing money out of this country. His hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle) proposed to tax the widow in England, no matter how poor she might be, and then he talked about justice. On, fie! (Laughter.) So it was convenient to tax people oversea, but inconvenient to tax people here—because they had votes. He (Mr. Merriman) wished the Minister had not brought in an income tax, but the Minister having done so let them make the Act as good as they could. The income tax was not torture—only eighteen pence in the £. (Laughter.)

said if his hon. friend had lived a few centuries ago he would probably have remarked, “It is not torture; we have only taken off four of the man’s toes.” (Laughter.) Under certain circumstances, to take away eighteen pence in the £ was a gross injustice. He (Mr. Fremantle) was as much astonished at his hon. friend as his hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) professed to be at him. It was perfectly just to tax an oversea investor whose income we had no means of ascertaining, but the Minister’s proposal was a gross injustice.

said that the clause came from the Cape of Good Hope where it was in force from 1904 to 1910, and it was from that Province that the Minister had taken it. In every income tax Bill there were certain hard cases, and that on the face of it was a very hard case, but if the committee agreed to the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage then they must go a very great deal further because they must apply the same principle exactly to the profits tax They could not make those exemptions with regard to the income tax and not deal with the profits tax in the same way, and if they dealt in that way with the profits tax on the gold mines arid diamonds, the hon. Minister’s revenue was going to disappear, or at any rate a large portion of it. A vast number of shareholders in those companies were small people, and the wealthy shareholders could easily avoid the tax by a pretence o£ dividing their shares up amongst their friends and relations, and a great deal of that profits tax, which was counted by millions, would disappear. Therefore the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Uitenhage raised a very important principle, which they were asked to vote upon.

said they should not deal with the matter without regard to justice, and simply to get as much as they could. He went on to say that the hon. member for Victoria West criticised taxing the oversea investor and not the local one, but the local man was subject to very heavy taxation through the Customs which the oversea investor did not pay.

reminded the hon. member that if people were fortunate enough to live in England, the home of the brave and the free, they had to pay income tax there, so that they would pay income tax twice over.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis was agreed to.

Sub-section (2), as amended, was put,

moved: In sub-section (2), line 65, to omit “provinces” and to substitute “premises.”

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 47 and 46 inclusive were agreed to without discussion.

On clause 49, Interpretation of terms,

moved an amendment: Before the definition of “imprisonment,” to insert the following: “company” shall include any association incorporated or registered under any law in force in any part of the Union relating to companies, banking companies or insurance companies, or under a special law, and shall further include any such association which though incorporated or registered outside the Union carries on business or has an office or place of business therein.

moved, in the definition of “income,” line 52, to omit “or by any means”; and in line 59, to omit all the words after “annuity” to the end of the definition.

said he was going to move out “or by any means.”

moved the following definition of “company” as an amendment to the one moved by the Minister of Finance: “Company includes everybody, association, or society, firm or partnership, whether corporate or unincorporate, registered or unregistered, carrying on business within the Union or elsewhere.” He said that this was much larger than the proposal of the Minister, and included a firm.

said he preferred his own amendment.

said that his amendment was much broader than, the Minister’s, and was taken from the Cape Act of 1909.

said that the difference between the two proposals was that under the one the partnership would not pay on the whole of its profits, but each member would pay according to his share of the profits.

said that a case had just been put to him where two partners might make £1,900 a year. Under the present proposal those two partners would escape the income tax altogether. They had heard a tremendous lot, and in fact the rafters had been made to ring with the sorrows of the poor widow, but now when they came to wealthy partners it was proposed that when these two made together £1,900 they should be let off.

said that by the Roman-Dutch law a partnership was not a persona.

Why do we have statute law at all, if we are to have Roman-Dutch law? This clause which I have quoted was taken over from the Australian Act, and it passed the scrutiny of two of the finest Roman-Dutch lawyers in this country, the late Sir Richard Solomon and Mr. Schreiner, who subjected this Act to the most meticulous criticism, if he might borrow the expression from a learned judge.

The new definition as moved by the Minister of Finance was agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West accordingly drops.

Mr. Fremantle’s amendment to omit “or by any means” was agreed to.

On the further portion of the amendment moved by Mr. Fremantle,

said he did not see any reason why a man who owned a large residence should not be taxed for the value of that residence. Another less fortunate man who did not own such a residence had got to pay for his house, and he was taxed.

said it would lead to great confusion ultimately. Take the case of a man who had a shop on one side of the street and a residence in the suburbs. That was easy to understand. The one was used for business and the other for residence. Take the case of a man living on a farm, where his farm was used for the income on which he was taxed. They got a great difficulty always in trying to differentiate between the various cases. He had come to the conclusion that it would lead to some confusion, and moreover they would get little money from it.

said he would appeal to the committee to have some sense of fairness. Why should they not go a step further towards pruning down the effect of this tax at every point where it affected the owner of the land?

said the value of houses in the towns was much greater than the value of houses in the country. If they taxed the people on the houses they would not tax the people in the country nearly as much as the people in the town. They had no machinery with which to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan). How could they assess the annual value of a house in a town? It was not a practical suggestion.

said that supposing the hon. member for Uitenhage paid £500 a year in rent for a house he would have to pay income tax on that, but if he owned a house he escaped taxation altogether. In 1904 they had taxed on the annual value—

No, certainly not.

said it would be obviously just to do so. Probably the man who owned a house would be better able to pay than a man who paid rent.

said that, as a matter of fact, they could not carry out the suggestion unless they had a proper valuation. If they were to do it they would have to have a valuation of all the property they had in the country. There ought to be a property tax combined with the Bill.

said the wealthy proprietor certainly did get off under the Bill. Those were the little injustices which occurred in the Bill and which his hon. friend had been so bitter about a little while ago. He suggested that they should take a much more precise definition which had been in a former Act.

said the annual value of property had been calculated under an old tax. He had had to put in his income tax return the rent he would have got for his house if he had not occupied it. Now the Minister proposed to exempt the happy owners who happened to live in their own houses. If a man were not living in his own house he would be paying rent.

moved, in line 67, after “town board ”, to insert “local board”, and in line 68, after “school board ”, to insert “district councils, the Transkei General Council, and the Pondoland General Council ”.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was adopted.

On clause 4, Levy of income tax and the rate thereof.

moved the omission of the following words from sub-section 5: And income received or accrued by virtue of any contract for the sale of goods in the Union, whether such goods have been delivered or are to be delivered in or out of the Union, arid income received or accrued from any service rendered or work or labour done in the carrying on in the Union of any business, trade, profession or occupation, whether the payment for such services, or work or labour is made, or is to be made, by a person resident in or out of the Union, and wherever payment for such services or work or labour is made or is to be made, shall be deemed to be income received or accrued from sources within the Union.

said the words were necessary and were taken from the Act of 1908.

The amendment was negatived.

An amendment which had been previously moved by Mr. Fremantle was withdrawn.

said that the hon. member for Uitenhage wanted to avoid the Bill being made up of one amendment after another, so finally they came together to discuss the matter and with his assistance they had framed a new sub-section 6. As sub-section 6 stood the farmer who wished to depart from the ordinary returns going simply on profits and losses had to give notice to that effect, so that he could go on the new system. The hon. member for Uitenhage had persuaded him (the Minister) to cross the policy with regard to the two alternatives so as to make the notice apply to the other choice; so that unless a notice was given by the farmer he would pay on purchases and sales but he could give a notice to pay income tax on the increases or decrease of stock reckoned at the end of the year. It did not make much difference. A form Would be sent to the farmer, on which there would be a notification that he had his choice whether to pay income tax on increase or decrease of stock as at the beginning of the year as compared with the end of the year, or pay income tax on purchases and sales, the only condition being that he must not jump from one to the other in following years. He moved the new sub-section, putting the matter in that form, which simply turned round the choice but otherwise made no alteration. It read as follows: (6) In assessing the income of a person carrying on pastoral, agricultural or other farming operations, the Commissioner, subject to the proviso hereto, shall not take into account the value of such person’s livestock or agricultural produce not disposed of by him at the beginning and end of the year of assessment: Provided that if any such person desires that such value shall be taken into account in the assessment of his income he shall, when furnishing his return under section 17 of this Act, give notice in writing to that effect signed by him or by his agent. Every such notice shall be irrevocable by such person, and in assessing the income of such person the Commissioner shall take into account the value of such person’s livestock and agricultural produce not disposed of at the beginning and end of the year of assessment.

did not see why the matter should be made irrevocable.

said the notice was given to the farmer, so that he would not lightly make his choice and so that he would know that he would be bound afterwards.

said it was impossible for a highly involved clause of that kind to be properly discussed by them after simply being read out.

asked if it was quite fair to the farmers themselves. In the first place they would have been inclined to take the option not to take account of their stock. If it had stood as at first, the farmers would have taken the first course, the difference between the increase and decrease, of their stock, but how as the other’ course was put first they would take that option.

said he did not think it would have that effect. The farmers would have before them the form. He had noticed that he must make up his mind on which basis he should be taxed. There would practically be no difference.

thought it should not be irrevocable. The section did not say it was binding on future years., If a man did not sell anything for three years he would be taxed on the third year’s income, possibly on a much higher scale.

said the fact that a man had to put an increase on the stock which had not been sold was felt to be a hardship, and was a great hardship. He was glad that the Minister gave the choice to people that they should not do that, unless they deliberately elected to do it

said that the difficulty he saw was the irrevocability of it. If a man had chosen one alternative was there no possible arrangement to be made under the Bill to enable him to change to the other system if he altered the character of his farming?

said it seemed to him that this all depended upon the Bill of next year. He was sorry that the Minister had not replied to his hon. friend.

It was agreed to omit sub-section (6) as printed.

The new sub-section as moved by the Minister of Finance was agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 14, Deductions from taxable amount,

moved in lines 41 and 45 to insert “buildings” before “machinery,” and to delete the proviso at the end of the subsection.

moved to report progress; and ask leave to sit again. He said that this clause would take some time, and he hoped the Minister would agree to report progress at this stage.

intimated that he would raise no objection to the motion

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to resume to-morrow (Tuesday).