directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to notify Mr. Blackwell that his attendance was required and, on it being reported that Mr. Blackwell was not in the precincts of the House, stated that he would proceed with the matter when the hon. member’s attendance had been secured.

Is it competent, Mr. Speaker, after the report of the Chairman of Committees, to bring to your notice what took place last night, or during the early hours of this morning, when Clause 4 of the Perishable Products Export Control Bill was under consideration, a clause which during the debate the Minister of Railways and Harbours stated was one of the most important clauses of the Bill, in fact, when reference was made to the powers that this board of control get, the Minister of Railways advised us not to devote our attention to Clause 3, but that in Clause 4 most important powers were provided for? When we got to Clause 4, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. dagger), as, I believe, he was perfectly in order in doing, suggested to the Minister that the clause be taken seriatim. If you look at the clause you will find that it contains a number of paragraphs under sub-section (1) running from (a) to (i), and also a second sub-section. Without any discussion of any sort whatsoever, an hon. member moved the closure, and, I regret to have to inform you, the Chairman of Committees accepted that. I only make this statement so that you may see what must have been the feeling of members in this House, and on a Bill of the enormous importance of this Bill—

On a point of order, is there any motion before the House? Is the hon. member in order in addressing the House?

The right hon. gentleman is speaking to a point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I knew from the manner in which you have conducted the business of this House that hon. members would have every right of exercising the privileges which belong to them, and it was on that account that I was bringing the facts to your knowledge. Previously several of the clauses of this Bill were closured, I think every one, before hon. members had an opportunity of discussing them, as we considered, in a fair and reasonable manner.

I understand that the hon. member is pointing out or contending that it is not competent for the Chairman to raise the question now after he has reported progress ?

If I may say so, I am not pointing out what ought to be done. That is for you in your position as Speaker of this Assembly. I am only considering it my duty to bring to your notice what took place on Clause 4.

I do not think we are concerned with what took place in committee,

except the words used by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I do not think we should proceed in his absence. We will deal with the question at a later stage.

On a point of order may I ask you if it is competent for this House to go on with its business, the Order Paper not being placed in possession of members and not being in their files ?

The right hon. gentleman may raise that question after we have disposed of the preliminary business.

I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Before you put that motion, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say that, when the Minister of Railways and Harbours was requested to do so last night, neither he nor any of his colleagues would agree to such a proposition. What I would like to say is that it is rather unfair on the members and the staff of this House, who have been kept up to such an early hour this morning, that we should not have had knowledge that it was the intention of the Prime Munster to allow us a little more rest before we came here again to-day.

May I point out that when I moved to report progress this morning, I did so and stated to the committee that it was with the distinct understanding that the Order Paper would be ready for the House at half-past-ten. That was the information which the officers of Parliament gave me, perfectly bona fide, hoping that the Order Paper would be ready by that time. Unfortunately, they have not been able to complete it. I may say that all this would not have happened it the Opposition had carried out their solemn pledge to us on Friday night, a pledge which was made to my colleague the Minister of Finance and myself, by the Whip of the Opposition.

I may inform you, sir, that the pledge I gave to the Government was absolutely kept in every detail. We undertook to give facilities to the Government to pass these two measures through one stage each. On that the Minister of Finance proposed that he would like to see his financial measures also advanced through one stage each, and I agreed to that on behalf of the Opposition provided that the preceding part of the Order Paper was not over-loaded and that the Government itself did not unduly take up the time of the House. All through the discussion last night the Government took up as much time as the Opposition did. Every speech made from this side was answered from that side. I maintain that we did keep faith. Where we had promised that only one stage should be taken we allowed in one of the financial measures two stages to be taken in order to show our willingness to meet the Government. I distinctly said—

Last night we had no opportunity of discussing it. When a responsible member of this House —one of the oldest members—got up and asked that one particular clause should be considered in detail he is met by a junior member from the other side with the closure.

I have allowed the hon. member to make a declaration in answer to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, but it is not relevant to the discussion now before the House.

I appreciate that, sir, and I defer to your ruling, but I wish to give you a clear understanding as to the temper into which the House had drifted.

May I add a word ? I was connected with what took place between the hon. member who has just spoken and the Minister of Railways and Harbours on Friday evening. I think there is no doubt about it that the undertaking which was given has not been kept either in the letter or the spirit. I know he did his best to carry it out, but it was repudiated by his party. The undertaking he gave us was that two Bills would be advanced a stage. None of us anticipated a night sitting. There is no doubt the undertaking was not carried out.

I do not want to take part in the debate now, but let me just point out to the House that this whole difficulty has arisen because of the inadequate time that was given to two very important Bills. I refer to the Senate Bill and the Perishable Products Bill. The Senate Bill was discussed until after 12 o’clock last night and all sides of the House took part in that debate. The cross benches joined in the debate, which went on as a general debate. There was no measure of delay; no dilatory tactics on our part. Then, after the measure was disposed of, I appealed to the Minister of Railways to be merciful to the House, but he would not. Tempers had flared up. You may give any pledge you like—

I stated if they would allow us to take two stages I would consent to the adjournment.

I am simply looking at it from the point of view of public business. After 12 o’clock we were called upon to proceed with one of the most contentious and difficult measures of the session. How can you expect any progress to be made under such circumstances ? The only charge I make is against the Minister of Railways that he should have commenced the debate after 12 o’clock. I think that was a great mistake and it led to a great deal of temper ; very little advance was made, in fact we are worse off than we were before that was done. I do not want us to make charges of bad faith and breach of agreement. The mistake is just that no proper time was given for the discussion of two very important measures.

I just want to make this remark. It is difficult in these arrangements between the two sides of the House for occasions not to arise at the time the arrangement is to be carried out when there are members who are not aware of the matter. I want to point out that the early adjournment on Friday night was entirely for the convenience of the Opposition.

It was no such thing.

It originated in a request from the Opposition that we might have an early adjournment. I have every respect for the rights and privileges of an Opposition. We know what their business is. When we are in opposition then it is our business to see that matters are scrutinized, but when the Opposition asks for an adjournment for their own convenience, they cannot complain if the arrangement they make does not give them afterwards, in their opinion, sufficient time for discussion. The right hon. gentleman says that the discussion on the Senate Bill was taken part in by both sides of the House, but do the Opposition consider when an arrangement is made, such as was made, it gives them the monopoly of putting forward arguments from their own side of the House? It is never implied for a moment that they shall put forward their argument and there shall be no reply from this side. If the Opposition choose to sacrifice their full liberty of action in return for our acceding to a request of theirs for their convenience it does not lie in their mouth to grumble.

rose to address the House.

I want to point out that this discussion is not relevant to the question before the House. I will allow the hon. member for Cape Town Central) to make a statement and then the debate with regard to the difference between the two parties must close.

I only want to point out the fundamental cause of this unprecedented state of affairs. The mistake the Government has made is in attempting to bring in contentious Bills at the very end of the session. I do not remember a session where we started all-day sittings so early. We have had in a fortnight’s time two all-night sittings. It should be the policy of the Government when you get to this part of the session only to bring in matters that are not contentious. You are in the hands to a large extent, of the Opposition. You have to ask favours and that must be distasteful. A wise Government would take good care when it comes to the last fortnight to only bring in Bills which are absolutely necessary. We went specially out of our way to give facilities for both appropriation Bills. It is folly ; you cannot do it, to bring highly contentious Bills like the Senate Bill and the ether at this late hour of the session.

I want to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Do not forget that Friday night was given up at the request of the Opposition, and the Opposition Whip, and it was agreed that it would be given up provided that certain work would be got through yesterday. That is the whole question. To say that it is because there is too much on the order list for the last week is beside the point. I merely want to point out that had it not been for that we would have had Friday night and the whole of yesterday and this incident would not have occurred.

Is it possible to get these Order Papers, because we do not know what is coming on.

The Order Papers are being distributed now.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question, make a request to the Prime Minister?

The debate is closed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 11.5 a.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is now present, I have to draw his attention to the words he was reported this morning to have used in Committee of the Whole House on the Perishable Products Export Control Bill, and desire to ask whether he has any explanation to make, ?

At five o’clock in the morning after the House had been sitting since 10.30 a.m. the House in Committee was discussing the Agricultural Export Bill. When Clause 4 was called, the Minister of Railways and Harbours moved a verbal amendment in the Dutch text. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) rose and asked the Minister whether, in view of the importance of the clause, he, the Minister, would allow the paragraphs thereof to be taken seriatim. Scarcely had the hon. member commenced to formulate his question—and while he was still speaking—when the closure was moved, and accepted by the Chairman. Every previous clause had been closured. The hon. member for Caledon, while the division bells were ringing, rose and said—

The Chairman then, without calling on the hon. member to withdraw, ordered him to leave the Chamber, which the hon. member proceeded to do. I was so incensed at the incident that I rose to follow the hon. member, and in going out I turned to the Chairman and said—

For this I deseire to apologize and withdraw.

The hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) has withdrawn and apologized for the words. I think the matter can now be regarded as closed.

In view of the complaints which have been made from the Opposition side of the House, to the effect that business is being taken too fast to allow of proper attention being given to it, I shall be willing, if it is so desired by the leaders of the Opposition, on the adjournment of the House at 11 p.m. or thereafter, to move as an unopposed motion that the business of the House be resumed the following afternoon at 2.15 instead of at 10.30 in the morning.

With reference to the proclamation issued by President Kruger on the 26th March, 1898, which relates to the same area as the Kruger National Park, I want to move that the name be altered into National Kruger “Wildtuin.” When the area was originally proclaimed as a game reserve, it was intended for the same purpose as in this Bill. With a view to preserve the historical name, as well as for language considerations, I should like to see the name altered in that way. I understand that the Minister entirely agrees with the amendment, and I hope it will meet with the approval of the House. I move accordingly.

seconded.

What will the name be in English ?

It will remain Kruger National Park.

I am certain none of us will object, but we must be certain that we are not giving a wrong name to the area. I am under the impression that a “wildtuin” is a “zoo” where animals are kept behind railings.

We can accept the amendment because I find the original name was game reserve. The people who gave that name were good linguists, and we can certainly take it that they did not make a mistake.

Is the word “park” not the correct translation?

No, it is not right. The English word “park” is right, but “park” is not right in Afrikaans.

The word “park” will have to be altered in the clauses.

Amendments were made in the Dutch version of Clauses 1 and 19 and the schedule, which did not occur in the English.

Amendments in Clauses 12 (Dutch) and 16 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopte I and read a third time.

I want to raise again the question of the employment of natives. Malaria has been very rampant on the railway construction in that part of the country. The Minister stated that the natives employed came from Pondoland, and they come from a very healthy district to a malarial district. The Minister tried to put the blame on the conti actors who, I understand, are limited to these natives, and they cannot get them from across the border of Portuguese territory—just the sort of natives you want. I think this is carrying things a little bit too far. The point may be stretched and let the contractors and the Railway Department on this occasion recruit the boys they require for this particular bit of work from across the border.

My hon. friend evidently does not quite see what he wants me to do—he wants me to break the law. He forgets that there is a law that, except for certain natives to be recruited in South-West, nobody else has the right to contract to bring in natives. Practically my department is not even concerned with it, but the department of the Interior and the police have the same instructions to-day as they had under the administration of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, namely, you are not allowed to recruit any natives in Mozambique and beyond latitude 22 degrees. A number of natives from time to time come through, it has been the constant practice that we connived a bit, but to ask us to allow these people to recruit, we cannot give them a recruiting licence ; that is against the convention with the Portuguese. Only the other day when Sir Charles Coghlan was here he again reminded us of the agreement with them that we should not allow the natives from Rhodesia to come into the Union. I am afraid that sometimes illicit attempts are made to tempt these natives to come over, notwithstanding. All we can do is to say to the police—

I do not think the Prime Minister quite understands the position. Under our immigration laws it is quite possible for the Minister in charge of that department to permit any natives to come into the Union from Portuguese territory, and that has always been the practice. The police have given these natives inward passes, but that has been stopped.

That was illegal.

Why?

Because it is against the law.

What law ?

The immigration law.

There is no breaking of the law. It is merely an administrative act. The Minister has power under the immigration law to permit any natives to enter the Union.

And what of your business with the Portuguese?

We do not run Mozambique. That is their business, not ours.

But we have to observe the relations.

The convention does not impose any obligation on us inside Mozambique. The Portuguese gave an undertaking that they would keep in operation the same recruiting laws in Mozambique as at the time of the Convention. That is set forth in the Convention. But there is no obligation upon us not to induce natives to come voluntarily over our border. For years the natives have been encouraged to come over, and the Portuguese have not objected. Natives have now been arrested and taken to our magistrates’ courts and imprisoned because they come into the Union. No harm is done to anybody to allow these natives to come in. The contractors on the railway can get all the natives they want if the Government would remove its restriction.

I can quite see that the hon. member would like us to do anything, but may I ask him—

Why?

Because that is not what the hon. member is after. What he is after is that he wants us to open the doors for the importation of Portuguese natives in order that he and others may get more work. That is so. To go and raise it on this is one of those things that, in the first place, if he thinks it should be done, why does he not bring forward a motion ?

Yes, if I had the opportunity.

My hon. friend does not know what really sits behind all this. But I do know. That is the fault I have to find with the hon. member. Last time he was not straight, and he should have told us that he came forward with an attack on the Government and especially on my department, holding the department liable for the deaths caused down there at the railway. It was not that so much, no, there are certain people, let them do so by all means if they advocate it ; let us come into the House and see what can be done, but don’t do it that way. The Minister of Railways and Harbours will tell us how far the line is and when it will be completed.

The main section, about September.

Practically what happened there is a thing of the past. Every possible precaution was taken, and as was pointed out, there was an extraordinary epidemic raging there last year. In spite of the version of Dr. Park Ross, others differed from him ; and from what we heard here on that occasion, differed from him quite correctly, in saying that there is no such thing as a native immune against malaria. As far as that side of the question is concerned, I do not think that necessarily must lead us to open the gates there—so far as the humanity point of view is concerned. As far as our natives are concerned, I quite admit that up to a certain point these people who live in malarial areas do seem to escape it more than those who freshly come there, but as far as a malarial epidemic is concerned, the one is as liable to succumb as the other. I do not know that I said that the natives that came there were Pondos—some natives do come from Pondoland. But I do not think the hon. member would like it that we should stop those natives going to other places in Zululand. As far as I am concerned, it does not even touch my department, but as far as the question in general is concerned—the admission of natives from outside the territories —the law is there, and at the present moment the Government has no intention of allowing further natives from outside to come into the Union.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), I have allowed him a great deal of latitude in raising this point and in asking his question. The answer has been given. I am afraid I cannot allow discussion on the principle—one which might have been raised on the second reading stage. That principle is not involved in the clause. The hon. member must be satisfied now.

I quite understand; but I want to take exception to the Prime Minister’s telling me that I am not straight. He has imputed a motive to me. I am not straight, and I was seeking other ends. I had some ulterior purpose in bringing this matter forward, and I was not concerned with the mortality of the natives but with the exploitation of their labour—a notion I absolutely deny. I was only concerned in exploiting their labour. That is tantamount to what the Prime Minister said.

May I just explain? I did not intend my words to have that meaning. What I did mean was that this is a matter that is past. I think my hon. friend attaches more importance now that the thing is past. I do not want to impute bad motives to my hon. friend to the extent to which he took it, and I hope he will be satisfied.

I accept that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

Does not the Minister think it would be fairer to do away with this provision that the land will not revert to the owners unless they repay the money ? I take it the railway has run over this land for a good many years. The track is being torn up, and the Minister seems to be adding a somewhat harsh clause to the effect that the farmers will not get their land back unless they repay. The rail ay administration must have had value for the land they got. I move—

I would like to ask the Minister what is the length of this line from Karibib that is being abandoned, and what is the reason for its abandonment? With reference to the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), it depends upon what the ground is worth.

The Government Has had value all these years.

Oh, no. The most I would do is to give the Government some discretion. If it is on the open veld, it might not be much worth, and it could revert to the owners ; but if it is close to Karibib, why give it up ?

With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), and find it is quite impossible to accept it. When we return the land which was expropriated at the time the line was constructed. I think we are doing all that is necessary. The hon. member says we have had value, but the parties, too, have had value; because they have had the line. This has always been recognized.

I do not want to push it.

I am sorry I am not aware of the length of the line. The line was closed in 1922. Unfortunately, parliamentary authority was not taken at that time, as it ought to have been done. The track has been taken up for some little time. I move—

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Col. D. Reitz withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Minister of Railways and Harbours put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

This is rather peculiar. As a rule, before you start a line, you have to get the Governor-General’s sanction. Why is the Minister departing from the general rule ? Here he wants the expenditure authorized on a line before the Governor-General's sanction has been given.

It very often is necessary to spend money on preliminary work before we have the final approval of the different owners. No actual construction work can be undertaken until the Governor-General’s consent is given.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7 and the title put and agreed to.

We had a very full discussion on this matter yesterday, and the Prime Minister dealt fully in his reply with the points I raised. The point he did not seem to appreciate was that as a matter of drafting this sub-section was quite unnecessary except for the words “change of Government.” They did introduce a new principle, namely, that the nominated senators should go out on a change of Government. One cannot expect points of drafting like this, which are sprung on the Prime Minister, to receive immediate attention ; therefore, I put this matter down again, not with the intention of provoking any long debate, but to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had time to consider the points, and what he thinks of them, and whether he does not agree with me that where we are changing the constitution of this country, we should give the most meticulous care to the wording of these sections. I see an interested look on the face of the Minister of Mines and Industries, and I am going to put the point to him as a brother lawyer. I would like to refer to the sections of the South Africa Act which it is proposed to amend. Section 24, sub-section 2, of the South Africa Act states that nominated senators shall hold their seats for 10 years, or until the next succeeding dissolution. The only thing that is new and necessary in sub-section 2 of the present Bill are the words “or until a change of Government has occurred, whichever be the shortest period.” I raise this point as a plea for redrafting. When the matter is gone into in the calmer atmosphere of another place, it may be seen that the points I have urged have been well taken. I move, pursuant to notice—

seconded.

What does the hon. member want to achieve?

Clarity in a constitutional amendment.

The hon. member cannot gain anything by his amendment, whether it is clarity or anything else. I submit that instead of clarity we shall, by adopting his suggestion, obtain obscurity. There are three conditions regarding the life of nominated senators—they may hold their seats for 10 years, or until the next succeeding dissolution of the Senate, or until a change of Government. These are the three alternatives. Suppose we take away the ten-year alternative. The question may arise, and will arise, seeing that you have a later law in which it is said that the duration of the term of office for the Senate will either be until the next dissolution or change of Government, must we not take it that the ten-years provision in the original Act has been tacitly repealed ? That will be the argument which will be used, but you do not get clarity there. The same argument holds in regard to the second alternative, in how far the present law has been tacitly repealed. The third question will arise whether all senators have been appointed only until there is a change of Government. I feel that if we want clarity, we ought to retain these words, so that anybody, immediately on reading the section, says there are three conditions whereby the lifetime of the Senate may be brought to a close, the effluxion of the ten years’ period, the dissolution of Parliament or a change of Government.

I will not press the matter any further.

Amendment put and negatived.

On Clause 2,

I move—

As to the first amendment, the framers of the Act of Union deliberately created the Senate as a chamber of review. Whether the Senate rejects a Bill acting as a chamber of review, or passes a Bill with amendments, it is acting in a similar capacity. But there is a third contingency, namely, that of the Senate failing to pass a measure. That was not a very important matter under the Act of Union, which provided for all the subsequent stages. The Senate had two opportunities of dealing with a measure as a chamber of review, and a third opportunity of dealing with a Bill in a joint sitting. Under those circumstances, it did not matter much what was the exact meaning of the words—

but now we have this drastic alteration, the position is that at the end of the session a Bill may go before the Senate with a mass of other measures, all of which have to be dealt with in the last three days of the session. The result may be that the Bill may actually fail to pass for several reasons which are not the fault of the Senate at all, but are due to circumstances over which the Senate has no control. The Government might even withdraw the Bill, or the Senate might not have time to consider it. The amendment will put the onus on the Senate when it has an opportunity of exercising its functions as a House of review. As to the second amendment, it is a re-enactment of the present position by giving the Senate a second opportunity of review before a Bill comes into force, so making it law automatically without the sanction of the upper House. The Government might very well accept the amendment. Its acceptance would not mean the losing of any time, as a full year must elapse between the first and second introductions of a Bill into the Senate. If there is any force in the contention which has been advanced by the Government, that the joint sittings are a cumbersome proceeding, the answer is that they should not be so. By adopting my amendment we shall be helping to save the dignity of the Senate, which will be lowered by the passing of this Bill as it now stands. There is no reason why the Senate should not have a second opportunity of dealing with a measure, and so allow our laws to go through the ordinary groove without having resort to the extraordinary anomaly provided for in this Bill of Parliament enacting laws without the concurrence of the other branch of the legislature.

seconded.

I don’t know whether the hon. member (Mr. Close) has realized that if his first amendment is accepted, namely, the omission of the words “or fails to pass ”, you may have this difficulty that the words “and if the House of Assembly in the next ordinary session again passes the Bill” will have no effect.

Why?

Because you may have a case where the Senate has neither rejected nor passed a Bill with amendments but has simply allowed the Bill to drift. Then it would be a casus omissus and you would have no provision for it. The Assembly may pass it a second time, but then the requirements of the first part of Clause 63 have not been complied with.

Does not the Government control the work of the Senate ?

The words that are there have been taken over verbatim from the existing section 63.

Where they did not matter, because of the other stages.

If the words are omitted you will have that possible difficulty because it is a sine qua non that before the Asembly can pass it a second time and before that second passing can have any effect or significance, the Senate must have rejected it or passed it with amendments to which the Assembly will not agree. Neither of those two may have occurred. What is the position then? On this ground as regards the first amendment, I cannot accept it.

Amendment, in line 26, put and negatived.

Amendment, in lines 28 to 31, put and agreed to.

On the amendment proposed in line 33,

With regard to the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), this goes to a point of substance and this point of substance has already been discussed on the second reading and was discussed at the committee stage. Of course, the hon. member is fully entitled to discuss it again, but I merely want to point out that the House has had two opportunities now of considering this matter very fully.

I did not raise that matter on the committee stage, because there was such a pressure of other matters for consideration that I deliberately only moved the first simple point about the failing to pass and left the other matter over for consideration today. With the permission of the House, I may say that this point is put here with a view of retaining the right of the Senate to a second hearing and a second consideration of the matter.

I take it that the gist of the amendment of the hon. member is this, that the Senate must have a second opportunity to consider a Bill and to reject it or to fail to pass it or to pass it With amendments to which, possibly, the Assembly may not agree. Take the words in the second part “or fails to pass it”, when will those words apply? Can you say that the Senate has “failed to pass it” until Parliament has been prorogued ? Surely that gives rise again immediately to another difficulty. We readily accepted the amendment, and a very fair amendment, moved by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) yesterday. As the constitution stands to-day there is no doubt at all that “the next session” may take place within ten days, within any period of time. Nowhere in the constitution is it laid down that Parliament shall not meet more than once a year, but it is laid down that it shall meet at least once a year. I think we have met the hon. member for Yeoville, and, having met him to that extent, we have given every opportunity for the full consideration of a Bill emanating from the Assembly by the Senate and a considerable lapse of time until the next ordinary session. I think it is really in effect a repetition of the same point of substance. We have dealt with the matter very fully and I am sorry that I cannot see my way to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Bill, as amended, adopted ; third reading tomorrow.

I move—

The House will remember that there is an Act of 1922 providing a bonus for the manufacture of steel and iron. That bonus runs from the years 1924-1925, 1925-1926, etc., until 1932. It is now proposed in this short Bill to push the schedule forward so that the bonus shall run from the year 1926-1927 for the same number of years as was intended in the Act of 1922, so that any producer of wrought iron or steel will not lose the two years 1924-1925 and 1925-’26. The matter has been enquired into by the Board of Trade and Industries. The request of a certain company, which represents that it will shortly be entitled to the bonus in accordance with the intention of the Act of 1922, was referred to the board of Trade and Industries and the treasury has also had an opportunity to express its views on the matter, as well as the Department of Railways and Harbours and the Government Mining Engineer.

What about Vereeniging?

Vereenining and Newcastle are practically the same now. The company is called the Union Steel Corporation Limited. I cannot now give any further information of any value about the matter. The Government is still considering the whole position and I repeat what I have already told interested parties privately that by taking this step and the payment of the bonuses the Government undertakes no moral or other obligation. Thus it must not be inferred that the Minister is giving or has given any promise or undertaking. The Government in other words must consider the whole matter on its merits and resolve and decide upon it on the merits, but I can only say that the Government has been engaged from time to time considering the matter during the last eighteen months. Of course if anything is to be done it will cost a considerable sum of money as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will understand. Of course it is something about which one cannot merely express a superficial opinion and act on it, and the Government must understand the whole matter very clearly and form a definite opinion about it before it comes to a decision and takes final steps. As to the Pretoria undertaking hon. members know a select committee was appointed last year, a committee which recommended that a certain amount of £5,000 should not be demanded from the Pretoria undertaking. Other interested parties have advocated the cancellation of the agreement with that undertaking and the Government has also refused to do that. The attitude of the Government last year was, and it is the same to-day, that the whole matter must remain open. The Pretoria undertaking has of course no means of its own to continue its business and it may be that an eventual solution will be found by the forming of a company which will take over the Pretoria undertaking, of course at a valuation. The Government in that case will have to take care, if it takes part in the floating of such a company that the Pretoria undertaking is paid nothing more than it is really worth, for that purpose. As already stated the Government came to the conclusion that it was fair in this instance to postpone the application of the 1922 Act for two years, so that the year of commencement shall be 1926-’27. I do not think it is necessary to go more into details and I therefore move the second reading. The Bill is a concession to the extent of two years and it is added in the new schedule that the benefits of the full eight years which were contracted in 1922 shall be given.

Do I understand from the Minister that you have cancelled that agreement with the Pretoria people ? Then there is another point. This applies to steel as well as to pig iron. Is my hon. friend taking precautions to see that none of this scrap iron is mixed with the pig iron?

The Board of Trade and Industries have drawn up certain regulations in terms of the Act of 1922 with regard to the payment of premiums. We provide that in the production of any steel there shall be at least 50 per cent, of pig iron from South African ore, and only on 97 per cent. of the pig iron— the remaining three per cent. being regarded as dross—shall bounties be paid. If, say, the Union Steel Corporation produce 100,000 tons, and they have used 50,000 tons of pig iron, they first of all get their 100 per cent. premium on the 50,000 tons of pig iron. Then when that pig iron has been converted into steel they get the bounty on 97 per cent of the pig iron which has been converted into steel. The other regulations I do not think we need mention at this stage. They are all precautionary regulations.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House In Committee :

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

I move—

This is a Bill which it is possible will demand a little more time and trouble, but the principles of it have been discussed and considered for years. We have here to do with the proposed amendment of the Act No. 35 of 1908 of the Transvaal on precious and base metals. In 1922 a Bill was introduced to amend the Act of 1908. That was under the former Government and a select committee was appointed which sat in 1922 and 1923, or rather there was a select committee in 1922 which submitted an amended Bill in 1923. The second reading was taken in 1924, and a commencement was made with the committee stage of the Bill, but it was not completed. It is not proposed to deal in this Bill with all the points which were brought up in the former Bill which was before the House in 1924. I propose to deal here with certain less contentious matters of which the solution is considered necessary. The disposal of ground and its proclamation adjoining municipalities with a large population are not dealt with here. Three matters are dealt with in the Bill. In Clause 2 there is something which was not dealt with or not mentioned in the previous Bill. Hon. members will see that Clause 2 provides that section 30 of Act 35 of 1908 shall be amended by adding after paragraph (c) the following new paragraph—

Hon. members will remember that section 30 of the Gold Law deals (a) with the throwing open and the pegging off of claims ; (b) with the leasing of short claims or pieces of ground or areas such as the new State Areas, etc., and (c) with regard to State mines. Now, in Clause 2 of this Bill, a fourth provision is made, viz., (d). Of course the whole object of it is to make provision for a lottery of claims, or for a lottery of the turns of permission to peg. It is considered necessary to obviate the undesirable conditions which occurred where there were enormous rushes in the ordinary throwing open of mineral ground by way of claims. There are, of course, precedents for this. In the time of the late President Kruger there was similar legislation, and the only Gold Law under President Kruger also, I believe, made provision for a lottery. I think it is very desirable, and I may say in parentheses that we are thinking of following a similar policy in connection with precious stones on alluvial diggings. Then the next provision is simply an amendment of section 95 of the existing Gold Law, which says that no undue influence shall be exercised on the exploiter of a mine or a company, and hitherto the prohibition has been confined to coloured people. We see no necessity to restrict it to the coloured people. Objectionable treatment of any kind should be prevented with respect to any race, white or coloured. In Clause 4 it is provided that in every case where there is a co-operative system the co-operative society must be one that is properly registered. Clauses 5 and 6 we must take and deal with together, as they practically contain the stop-order system. Much can be said on this subject, but the Government has carefully considered the matter and come to the conclusion that the stop-order system on the mines is an unsound system, and should be abolished. It gives the mines a hold and an undue influence which they ought not to have. In this connection I do not want to go so far as the Truck Act in England, and I will be content by saying that it was a basic principle since the existence of the oldest mineral laws of the South African Republic that no mining company or mining undertaking should carry on a trading business or be interested in trading. This provision for the abolition of the stop-order system is practically a logical solution, and a result which logically follows from the principle. I say that the stop-order system stands in close connection with the mineral laws of the old South African Republic insofar as the system is against the spirit of that legislation, and the spirit of that legislation was in principle that no mining company or mining undertaking should be interested in trade or carry on trade. It is said that the mines are not interested in the cooperative societies. The fact is that the mines make the existence of the co-operative societies and of the “Native Recruiting Corporation Stores” possible, and the mines get a hold and influence over them which they ought not to have for the reasons I have already given. The mines issue what are called coupons or orders on the co-operative societies and on the “Native Recruiting Corporation Stores,” and when the natives want anything—they have their numbers—they are given a coupon or an order on the co-operative shop or on the “Native Recruiting Corporation Stores,” and those coupons of hundreds and thousands of natives are practically the business capital of those undertakings. Hon. members can, therefore, appreciate what a hold the mines get on the co-operative societies and on the Native Recruiting Corporation Stores. I cannot, therefore, understand how it can be said that the mines have nothing to do with the co-operative societies and with the Native Recruiting Corporation Stores. I do not suggest that the mines make any profit out of them, but I say that the whole principle is in conflict with the old Republican laws and with the principle which has hitherto been maintained in our Gold Laws. We find that the mining companies are lessors of plots where there are mine stores. We also find, e.g., that the mines control a large petrol supply, but instead of its being sold and used strictly for the purpose of the “employees,” it is often abused by being sold at low prices to outsiders who are not employees of the mine, through influence and friendship. We find that the recreation rooms and clubs are abused to a certain extent. We have the case where people do not live on the mines at all, but they are compelled, and pressure is brought to bear on them, to become members of the recreation rooms or clubs, and they have often trading stocks. I have received letters in which such people complain—

Then we have another case. It is complained that the mines and the compound managers point to the “Native Recruiting Corporation Stores” as Government shops, and that the natives are told that they must go and buy there because they are Government shops. We find that there are native constables who keep the natives out of the traders’ shops and ware-houses and send them to the “Native Recruiting Corporation Stores,” or to one or other of the “mining stand stores,” of which the mines are the lessors, and get considerable rents from the warehouses. Those are the complaints that come in to-day. It is also complained that some of the mining stands are on such invisible and out-of-the-way spots, that there is not proper police supervision available. The object of Clauses 5 and 6 of this Bill is to make sections 95 and 98 of the existing Transvaal Gold Law more severe ; in other words, to give effect to the principle of the mineral laws of the South Africa Republic and of the later mineral laws, and to properly carry out the policy and object behind it. Hon. members will see that in course of time, and with the increase of the native population, the temptations become greater to evade the provisions of the existing laws in one way or another. I want to say that the Chamber of Mines recently sent a deputation to me, and, as a result of the representations which the deputation made to me with reference to this matter, and especially with reference to the chief point in the Bill, viz., the alteration of section 27 of the existing Gold Law, I came to the decision to make certain amendments in the law, which would meet them to a considerable extent. I will, however, go into details about this in the committee stage. I want to stop a moment at the amendment of sections 97 and 98 of the Gold Law. Section 97 deals with penalties to persons developing mines and having an interest in shops on their own mining property, and section 98 deals with penalties for the payment of wages in any other way than in current coin. The object of this Bill is to complete those two sections which already lay down the broad and sound principle, and to remedy the defects in them. I just want to read to hon. members the opinion on the stop-order system of a man like Mr. W. A. Martin, whom hon. members from Johannesburg will know as one of the chief business men in Johannesburg. Mr. Martin wrote a letter to the editor of the “Cape Times,” in which he said, inter alia (I have not got the date, unfortunately, but it is some time, some years, ago)—

That is where the co-operative societies or the stores have the benefit of the stop-order system—

Now, I do not believe that mines recognize stop-orders in favour of the mine employees’ co-operative societies only, to the exclusion of any other, for the purpose of getting a control over their employees whose credit could be stopped in the case of a strike. I do not think that argument can be sustained ; but I do think it possible that the mines adopt this policy to enable their employees to obtain their supplies at the lowest possible prices, so that they may make their salaries and wages go further, and thus prevent an application for an increase.

But if the system of stop-orders, and the recognition of only one trader in connection therewith is sound, why confine it to the employees of the mines ? Why should not the employees in the railway workshops at Salt River, or Uitenhage, or Pretoria, or Bloemfontein, be encouraged to form similar societies, and the Railway Administration recognize stop-orders from these societies, only, as valid against the men’s pay ? If this were done, half the retail shops in Salt River, Uitenhage, Pretoria or Bloemfontein, catering for this class of trade, would close down and their owners go insolvent. Dare the railway or any other Government do this? If not, why should it be possible for the mines to exercise such an enormous power?

The traders who cater for this class of trade on the Rand have bought stands in the townships along the Reef, …

Here the general dealers are spoken about who are not so privileged as to have the stop-orders issued in their favour by the mining companies—

I need not detain the House by showing what the further views of people like Mr. Martin are. Now it is alleged, with reference to the N.R.C. stores, that their actions contain the same undesirable principles once more, that the shops provided themselves years ago during the world war with the urgent necessities of the natives. Hon. members will remember that at that time there was practically a strike, and the great complaint of the natives was that they were being fleeced by the traders. There is no doubt that irregularities took place. The entire spirit at that time was “profiteering,” and making usurious profits to such an extent that the former Government felt itself obliged to introduce special legislation as an attempt to deal with the matter, to solve it partially. We now live, thank God, in normal times once more. The world war is over, and the condition of the natives is quite different to-day to what it was then. In the circumstances I think that we ought to maintain the old principle which I have mentioned so often, and to apply it in all its logical consequences. I have resolutions here from the Chambers of Commerce, e.g., there is a letter from the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa dated Cape Town, 21st April, 1926, in which the standpoint is definitely taken up which we have taken up with reference to the stop-order system. I now come to the last point in the Bill, and that is the revision of section 127 of the existing Gold Law. This clause deals with the compulsory working of mineral bearing ground. Companies have mynpacht, or they have areas or blocks of claims, and reasonable time has passed without their being worked, and the mines are not worked. Then the State, under the existing section 127, has the right to take certain steps, but, as I have foreshadowed on former occasions and during the discussion, I think, on my Estimates, the procedure laid down in section 127 of the existing law is very drastic. At the same time, however, the procedure is very circuitous, and wastes time, and it has actually been found so useless that it is never applied in practice. It may be that the Government hesitated to apply the drastic provision of section 127. Now select committees in former years, I think under the chairmanship of my predecessor, Mr. F. S. Malan, considered the revision of this section, and dealt with it, but nothing was ever passed into law. It was, however, contemplated, and the object now is to make the new section 127 stronger, to shorten the time, but at the same time to make it less drastic than the existing section. In other words, we intend to make more efficacious provision by this new section 127, and in such cases to act where the mines and companies are in default in properly developing and working ground. After consultation, particularly with the representatives of the Chamber of Mines, I shall propose certain amendments at the committee stage. I may say that the revised section can be supported by the consideration that the former Government proposed and included it in a Bill which they intended to pass into law, but which was not actually passed.

This Bill, as the Minister says, is a collection of amendments of the Transvaal Gold Law. Some of them are not very important, but others seem to me to be of very considerable importance. I do not want to touch on all the sections of this Bill, but only on one or two of the more important points. The first one is in regard to the trading by the Native Recruiting Corporation and the prohibition, according to this Bill, of stop-orders. It seems to me that these two matters are really distinct. As far as I know, there is no real connection between the activities of the Native Recruiting Corporation stores and the recognition by the mines of stop-orders on the pay of their European employees. I fully admit that the principle to which the Minister referred is a principle of the old republican gold law, and is a principle of the present gold law, viz., that it is not desirable that mining companies should also be engaged in trading operations on the proclaimed fields.

With their own employees

Yes, or with anybody else. That principle I fully accept. At the same time I would point out that these stores were instituted by the Recruiting Corporation to meet what was then a pressing need. The Minister said that the days of excessive profitmaking by the ordinary mine storekeepers were over, but I take leave to doubt it, because these mine stores, these Reef stores, as they are called, are in the nature of a monopoly. The sites for these stores are given out by the Government by a sort of process of tender or auction. Only one is available, as a rule, in a favoured position near the compounds, and for these sites, when they are given out, very large sums of money have been paid and are being paid, I believe, by those who tender for them and who succeed in getting them, and that fact is enough to show that very considerable profits are made by these storekeepers at the expense of the natives. As the Minister correctly said, the thing went so far at one time that there was actually a strike among the native employees on the ground that they were being unreasonably fleeced for the things which they required to buy from these storekeepers. The other reason for which these stores were started by the Recruiting Corporation, as I understand, was to supply certain necessaries for the natives in the course of their working, boots, for instance.

I am providing for that.

I only mention these facts to show how it was that these stores arose. I agree with the principle laid down by the Minister that it is undesirable that mining companies should establish trading stores to deal with their own employees, and I have no objection to that being curtailed to the narrowest possible limits. When we come to the stop-order system we are on rather different ground. I quite admit that the use of these stop-orders on the men’s pay gives any trading co-operative society on the mines a tremendous pull that no outside trading establishment would have, and, of course, it is taken very much amiss by traders in these reef towns to see so much of the custom going to these co-operative societies instead of coming into their shops in the ordinary way. But, after all, it seems to me to go very far if you are going to prohibit by law a particular class of workmen from forming co-operative societies and from giving a stop-order on their pay. This Bill actually prohibits a mine worker from giving a cession on his pay to anybody. The right to give a cession of his wages is a right every man has. He may abandon that right by contract that is a matter for him to decide, but I do not know anywhere where the law steps in as it does here. I think this is going a long way in interfering with the ordinary rights of a man to do what he likes with his own pay. This is not a question of a man being paid in kind or in goods ; it is a case of a man who has, say, £30 coming to him at the end of the month giving a cession of a part of that amount by means of a stop-order in favour of a co-operative society. As I understand it, these cooperative societies have nothing to do with the employers. They are co-operative societies among the men themselves. I admit the matter is one of very great difficulty, and there is very great pressure being brought by the trading community along the Reef to stop this growth of co-operative societies among the miners. It may be they are right that if these, societies are allowed to grow, it will affect very seriously all the storekeepers along the Reef. That may be so. I do not say the matter does not want looking carefully into, but I do say it is a strong step to prohibit a particular class of worker from giving a cession of his pay, and from forming a co-operative society to enable him to get supplies cheaper than he otherwise could. Then the Minister dealt briefly with Clause 7. Clause 7 I regard as a very important clause, because it is a clause which, unless it is very carefully framed., may do a great deal to shock the confidence of people who would want to put their money in investments in mining securities, and whom it is very desirable, as far as the country is concerned, to so induce. They will not do so if we legislate in such a way as to shock their confidence in the stability of the concerns into which they want to put their money. Again, I accept the principle that a person or a company ought not to be allowed to hold mining rights unless he or it works those rights in a proper and adequate manner. Under the gold law a person, who holds mining rights, has always held them under that condition. So I accept that principle, but I do say that when you are dealing with people who have invested large sums of money in mining propositions you ought to go very carefully before you allow the authority of the State to step in and take away from that man or company the property in which he or it has invested large sums of money. The conditions under which you can do that should be so carefully laid down that they will not give any shock to the sense of security in this country and, above all, outside this country, in the stability of titles in the mining industry here. The Minister says he is going to introduce amendments which will considerably modify the scope of the clause. The Minister has indicated that the amendments are such as to bring the present clause into line with the similar clause in the Bill introduced by the late Government in 1924. If that is so, I am glad to hear it, because this clause goes considerably further and, I think, deals with the matter in a less desirable way, than the Bill of 1924. In the Bill of 1924 the constitution of the commission which was to be appointed by the Minister to enquire into the reason for non-working, was definitely laid down, and the person concerned was allowed to have representation on that commission. There is nothing about that in this Bill. Then, when the commission had enquired they had to recommend the course to be adopted by the Minister, but under this Bill the Minister can take action under sub-section 6. That sub-section seems to me to be far too vague in its definition of the grounds on which the Governor-General can act. It is always to the public interest that the mines should work, rather than that they should not work. There may be good and sufficient reasons why the holder is not working it. It is even to the public interest that a mine should be worked at a loss under private ownership. I do not say it is desirable that a property should be worked by the State at a loss, in order to keep up a certain amount of employment and circulation of money. This ground seems to be far too wide, and I trust it is one of the things for which the Minister will propose an amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to put his amendments on the paper, so that we will have an opportunity of seeing them.

Yes, after to-morrow.

It is very desirable. The principle of the clause is sound enough, but the difficulty is to deal fairly with people who have sunk large sums of money in industrial enterprises, and give confidence to people who want to sink money in our mining industry. It is a Bill that, it seems to me, can best be considered in committee, as there is no principle underlying it.

I think, as far as the country is concerned, a Bill of this description will be welcomed ; but I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government should include Clause 6 in a Bill of this description. The object of the old law was to prevent abuses by the mining houses, such as the abuse that caused the introduction of the Truck Act in other countries. It appears to me, and to many working men on the Witwatersrand, that as far as the commercial community are concerned, they think that the Truck Act has been introduced for the purpose of protecting the commercial community, instead of to protect the working class against the working community and employers generally. The object of the Minister is to prevent the mines trading directly and indirectly. With that I am in perfect accord, so are the workers, and the members of these co-operative societies. The Minister bases the whole of his objections to these co-operative societies on the case put forward by the chambers of commerce. When they first fought against these co-operative societies on the Witwatersrand, they put up the case that these co-operative societies did not pay any taxes, and that if they were established on the mines they had no rent to pay, but that if only they were established in the townships they would have no complaint to make. The workers established shops in the townships, and another objection was made, which was that the employees did their work on the mines, and after that work was finished, they did work in those stores—and that was unfair competition. A higher wage was paid than in the other stores. We now find the commercial community coming forward and saying that these men have the stop order, and round that statement all sorts of misrepresentations are made by the commercial community, in order to damage the co-operative societies. The Minister’s own departmental report bears out what these men say, and it states that there is no mining capital in these stores, and no pressure whatever placed on them to deal with the stores. The men are perfectly free agents. I challenge the Minister to go around and to mix with the men, and ask whether any official of the company ever suggests to them, directly or indirectly, that it is to their benefit to deal with the co-operative stores. They are not interfered with in the slightest degree. The only thing left to the commercial community to-day is the stop-order. Shorn of 99 per cent. of the camouflage of the case put up by the commercial community, you will find that the commercial community in the mass are entirely opposed to the principle of cooperation. That is the root of the trouble. When the Co-operative Societies Bill was introduced into this House, the commercial community brought pressure to bear to curb the activities of the co-operative societies. They are not allowed to give credit, and in that respect cannot compete with the ordinary commercial man. That was put into the Act by the pressure of the commercial men in this House. Other attempts have been made by the commercial community to prevent co-operative societies from having the same privileges as the commercial community possess in carrying out the trade of the country. If the Government are going to prevent stop-orders, they should stop them as a whole, if they are wrong in principle. In this Bill the principle is recognized, as stop-orders are allowed for certain purposes. Why allow a stop-order for a sick benefit society? What justification is there for allowing the mining industry— the employers—to deduct so much per month from the wages of the men for a sick benefit society, if they are not going to allow deductions for food, clothing, etc. ? The principle is exactly the same. Why do the Government allow the Civil Service and the railway employees to have stop-orders with insurance companies ? Why allow the Defence Force at Roberts Heights to deal with stores there, and even to purchase clothing on the stop-order ? They are going so far as to purchase clothing for their wives and children from the stores at Roberts Heights through the stop-order system. Municipalities and the Government have recognized that where the men can club together and work together for their own benefit, and thus secure greater purchasing power, they are entitled to do so without interference from other people who are financially interested. Why does the Government stop contributions to pension funds from wages ? If the principle is wrong, why not pay the men full salary or wages and allow them to pay in their contribution ? Why not, in fairness, make the principle which the Minister desires introduced into legislation through this Bill applicable to the commercial men themselves? If a man works on a mine he will not be able to sign a stop-order for his own benefit ; but the man living next door, who works for a commercial man, will be able to sign as many as he likes. In Benoni district, we have an iron and steel industry, and men working on that will be able to sign stop-orders, but not the men working on the mine next door. We have no right to single out the mining employ for sectional legislation. If we say the wages and salaries of the working class should be paid in current coin, that should apply to all employees. The proper way to deal with this question, if the evil exists, is not to deal with it under the Gold Law ; but to bring in a Truck Act applicable to the whole of South Africa. The Minister, in dealing with Clause 6, said there was an unhealthy system on the mines, and that it gave the mines an unnecessary advantage. I have gone into the question and satisfied myself, and the departmental committee which went into the matter proved that the mine has no unnecessary advantage whatever. The Minister said he did not want to go as far as the Truck Act, but what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. The Minister said stop-orders gave the mines an influence they should not possess. I do not agree. I understand the Minister made a statement that the mines issue orders on the co-operative societies for goods. That is not correct. The employees deal with the cooperative societies and sign a stop-order for the amount they purchase. If the mines were issuing cards or orders to the employees to go and purchase at these, stores, they would be bringing undue influence to bear on the employee to deal at a particular store, but it is not done. The mines do not recognize any other stop-order. When the Labour party were in control of the Benoni town council, we were approached by the municipal employees in connection with the same question during the war, when there was profiteering, and we said we could not recognize stop-orders on everybody in the town, as you would find, when it came to paving out, that the men had run accounts at different places, and there would not be enough money to go round. We had to fix on one trader. These men are recognizing the principle of stop-orders in connection with their own societies and getting the benefit of dealing with their own society; so why should they agree to allow stop-orders on any other traders for the traders’ benefit? I know many members of this Parliament have been asked to investigate the books of these societies, and have not done so ; but that does not prevent them mounting platforms and making wrong statements in connection with the matter. The East Rand Co-operative Society are still waiting for these members of Parliament to come along. I was against this society until I satisfied myself that my case was wrong, and I am prepared to admit I was wrong, and to stand for a fair deal for these men. I don’t know whether the Minister thinks the mines have any indirect interest in the co-operative societies, but if so he should read the Departmental Committee’s report. After all, why should not these societies sell for cash to non-members ? They pay rent, rates and wages, like any other business firms.

Do they pay income tax ?

I do not know, but I will give the details at the committee stage. The Minister said there was no abuse in connection with the recreation rooms on the mines. I admit that to a certain extent. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the commercial community, which indulged in a great deal of profiteering during the war, there is abuse by the clubs, as they sell certain articles which the tradespeople think they should not do. But things are sold here in Parliament which tradespeople would naturally prefer should be purchased from them. I don’t like to see the Minister mixing up the question of employees’ co-operative societies and mine trading concerns. In the former case the employees combined together to buy commodities at the lowest possible price, and shared in the resulting profits. If the stop-order system is to be eliminated, do it for all wage-earners, and not for mine employees only. The mere fact of a man signing a stop-order enables the co-operative society to trade on their own credit. The handicap on the working classes in the past has been their lack of sufficient capital to carry on these societies under the credit system, which is the curse of the country, the good buyer having to pay for the bad. But under the co-operative system every man has to pay for his own purchases. Most of the members of the working classes are good, honest, sober men, but there are some men who spend in the bars what they should expend on their families, but the co-operative system does away with this evil. The workers should be protected against themselves when anything is happening which is detrimental to them. It has been urged that the stop-order system would enable the Chamber of Mines to know exactly what it costs a man to live, and therefore the chamber might be induced to reduce wages. Well, if the Chamber of Mines does not know what the cost of living is, its intelligence is of a very low order. The membership of the East Rand Co-operative Society, for which I am particularly speaking, has doubled itself in the last two years, proving conclusively its utility to the men. It has now 800 members. We are continually having legislation introduced into this House to try to eliminate the middleman in agricultural transactions. If the same thing could be done where the working man is concerned, he would benefit greatly, and even if that meant the closing down of certain shops, it would be to the benefit of South Africa. It has been argued that because the shopkeepers have bought stands and put up shops in those towns, they ought to be bolstered up. I suppose that SO or 95 per cent. of shopkeepers on the Witwatersrand do not own their premises at all. These shops have been put up for speculative purposes by landlords. The agitation against the high rents charged, I think, bears out that contention. Even had these gentlemen bought the stands and erected the shops, has the State ever given any guarantee to any of the people who have bought stands in a township and erected shops that they were going to be safeguarded ? As far as the resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce are concerned, I say that those are resolutions by interested individuals who are out, not in the interests of the workers themselves, but to canvass and exploit the prejudice that may exist in the minds of many members of this House against the Chamber of Mines, in order to damage a genuine working-class organization. If I see the Chamber of Mines doing any good work at all. I am prepared to give them credit for it. In this particular instance, although I have been accused of being in the pockets of the Chamber of Mines on this question, I am prepared to continue this fight on behalf of the members of the organization concerned, because I know that it has been of untold benefit to the working people in the Boksburg area, and that it has not only benefited men in the Boksburg and other districts by keeping down the cost of living and enabling them to accumulate a certain amount which is paid out to them in dividends periodically, but it has had the effect of keeping down the prices of the surrounding shopkeepers. Boksburg is losing population. I say that the evil is not in connection with the co-operative society, but it largely consists in the fact that our commercial community in South Africa is top-heavy. Visit any town you like on the Witwatersrand, or take a walk round Cape Town, and you will see shops dotted everywhere, and I say that there is not a sufficient number of highly-paid white workers to maintain the commercial community that we have in South Africa to-day. I refuse to be drawn into the net, for political or any other purposes, of the commercial community against what I believe to be the best interests of the employees. I would not care if stop-orders were signed by the whole of the working classes of South Africa, providing it was beneficial to the whole of the men concerned. I believe that as far as members of Parliament are concerned, if they care to give a cession of their salaries, they can do that, too. It might be against some of the rules of the House. I cannot say. I think we are now stepping in as members of Parliament and trying to prevent the mine workers from doing what we can do ourselves. If the Government wish to be logical on this question, then they must make stop-orders illegal for the public servants of this country, for the municipal employees, and for every other worker in South Africa. The Government have no right to single out the mining industry or the workers on the mines by special and sectional legislation. Stop-orders are either right or they are wrong. If they are right, I say that the Government have no right to interfere with them. If they are wrong in principle, then this Bill ought not to make provision for any form of stop-order whatsoever.

According to the Bill proposed, the Minister intends to prohibit the stop-order system and to completely abolish it. The Minister quoted a letter from Mr. Martin, of Johannesburg, at some length. None the less there are co-operative societies on the other hand who plead for the continuance of the stop-order system. We have just listened to the plea of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), but I want to refer the Minister to the report of the select committee of 1921 in the matter of trading on mines. As members of that select committee there were various members who are still members of this House, e.g., the Rev. Mr. Mullineux, Mr. Pretorius, Mr. Madeley, Mr. Marwick. The report on the stop-order system says on page 8—

That is the report of a committee whose operations obtained evidence from various shopkeepers and mine employees and the managements of the mines on the Witwatersrand. Their conclusion is that they could not make the recommendation with reference to the stop-order system, because the miners were in favour of it. The Minister must, therefore, be very careful in this connection seeing the miners are themselves in favour of a voluntary stop-order system. Another point is whether certain institutions, which exist on the various mines, on the Sabie mines in my district and various smaller mines also come under it. They are recreation places for persons who work in the mines. In the report of the select committee they are called recreation clubs, and I read—

encourage them to thrift, these recreation clubs on the mines on the whole should be continually allowed.

Now the question is how far these recreation clubs are also hit by the provisions of this Bill. The system is applied there in such a way that the miners can drink their cup of tea or coffee in such a refreshment club, and then not pay cash, but give an I.O.U. or something of the sort, and then have the amount due at the end of the month deducted from their salary. Only a few weeks ago I received a letter in connection with the matter which I handed to the Minister, but I have so far received no reply from the department whether such clubs will also fall under the provisions of this Bill. If that is actually the case, then I will propose an amendment in committee to provide for it. I think that where the miners themselves desire it, both for buying groceries wholesale for their families and retail, the Minister will not be doing right in abolishing it entirely.

There has certainly been a great deal of pressure exercised on the Minister in connection with this matter. It has often been before Parliament, and the townspeople insisted upon it. I know that in Krugersdorp people are bitterly disposed towards the co-operative society that was established there. On the West Rand, because the opinion exists in Krugersdorp to-day that the trade is being attracted and done by the cooperative society which was established under the Co-operative Societies Act. Pressure has undoubtedly been exercised on the Minister to try and have the stop-order system abolished by legislation. It is difficult for me to take up an attitude for or against the stop-order system, because I know if I speak against it I shall certainly have trouble with the inhabitants of Krugersdorp when I go back there. Under the Co-operative Societies Act any number of persons are entitled to establish co-operative societies to carry on business. This Bill conflicts with the Co-operative Societies Act, because co-operative societies have already been established under it. What took place is simply that the workers on the West Rand belong to the co-operative societies, and on account of their being members of them they get their clothing and other necessaries cheaper than what they can buy them for in Krugersdorp. Formerly the West Rand workmen used to go to Krugersdorp to make their purchases, but the business has been taken away from the shop keepers there, as a result of the establishment of the societies. The institutions themselves are supported by the wholesale houses.

Because they have the stop-order system.

The confidence which the business houses have in the shopkeepers is as a result of the business capital they have. Why should we now stop the stop-order system under which the people can get their goods cheaper ? It is a voluntary matter, and no one can stop me if I want to give a stop-order to deduct a certain amount per month out of my income. If, by this Bill, we want to protect the business houses, I say very well, but I think it is a wrong step that is being taken here. We must not forget that the largest number of the workmen do not get large salaries, and that they have to come out on them. When they receive their salaries on Saturday they have very little over to take to their wives and children. In the case of the stop-order system the people are secured against getting more at the shops than the amount of their salaries. We are, therefore, assisting them to economize. The Bill will do just as much harm to those people as to the townspeople. It is a two-edged sword. I am pleading for those people, and I hope the inhabitants of Krugersdorp will not take it amiss of me, because I think that it would be unfair if the co-operative societies, who supply the people with their household requirements, should be interfered with. There are also Afrikaans-speaking people who live at Band fontein and belong to the societies and buy all their necessities through the co-operative societies. I say that it is wrong to take away the chance they have to-day under the existing Co-operative Societies Act, and I think that the Minister should reconsider the matter so that the people should not be prevented from doing what they did before.

My regret is that the Minister has not adopted the whole of the select committee’s recommendations, which have caused us a great deal of trouble, and on which the Committee took a great deal of evidence. In adopting the whole of the committee’s report the Minister would have found it would have had as easy a time in going through the House as these two clauses—these two contentious clauses would take us as long to discuss as the whole of the report. The measures brought forward in the Bill are practically identical with the recommendations made by the committee. These two clauses, as the Minister has stated, deal particularly with the penalty for inducing a person to buy from a particular licensed holder. I wish I could dismiss the subject as easily as the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has done this afternoon, in saying that it was only the interests of two co-operative societies involved. It has been found necessary in the vicinity of our mining areas to establish townships where trading stands have been sold by the mining companies and also by the Government, and that the trade should be carried on by competition inside those areas, where they could be properly supervized and be under the control of the Government and the municipality. This is a form of tenure which the traders have established for themselves along the Wit-watersrand. We have had the Government in the past, also for the protection of the natives, issuing trading stands for the natives, the object being that the native is better able to be controlled than by allowing him to roam about in the trading areas where he is more or less unrestricted and unrestrained. The public, who own this land, have sold it for trading purposes, and people have bought it in good faith on the understanding that trading would be by competition. The previous Government has recognized the necessity of largely abolishing these trading monopolies. The tendency has been to abolish these stands entirely, and restrict as far as possible the trading in those areas, where the competition shall be in the sense we have enumerated. Apart from that, we have the mining companies themselves after the disturbances at Benoni in 1914 and 1920—we have them adducing evidence in which it was stated that the natives were being charged unduly high prices by storekeepers, and it was found that there was a great deal of unrest among them. The companies thought it necessary to establish stores for the protection of the natives. The Government of the day recognized that this was a very unholy thing, for the companies to support these, their own, subsidiary corporations and do the trading themselves. The select committee took the evidence of Mr. Charles de Villiers, who said that the establishment of the stores was, to a certain extent, to meet the natives in regard to the increased cost of living rather than to give them an increase of wages ; and so means to satisfy the natives temporarily. I think the reason exists to-day—the cost of living has come down, but the cost of these requirements is still in excess of the cost in 1914. I would ask the hon. member for Brakpan, if he is going to allow this trading under the stop-order system, how is he going to prevent the companies themselves forming these societies under the native recruiting corporation ? If the hon. member could satisfy us that these co-operative stores were actually to the benefit of the men, there would be a great deal to be said for his argument, but I am not convinced that these stores are for the benefit of the men themselves. I have yet to learn that the control of these men’s wages through the stop-order is for their benefit. It is a very poor individual who cannot be trusted with his own wages with his own requirements so as to ensure his getting a decent living. It is a pernicious credit system which encourages them to buy unnecessary stuff. That is not the only aspect of this stop-order system. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) will remember that during the period of the strike these mine employees were entirely dependent on the stop-order system. Supplies at that particular moment were entirely cut off, and many of the traders kept these strike people going long after the strike, when they were out of employment. I do not think it is a healthy condition for the employees to fall into the hands of their employers to the extent that they control their living through these stop-orders. If the men were self-reliant, and depended upon their own resources, they would be in a better position, in case of emergency, or calamity like a strike. I am at one who the hon. member for Brakpan that these three co-operative societies at Boksburg, Western Krugersdorp and on the East Band, are perfectly legitimate. I do not think they are being influenced in the same way as the Native Recruiting Corporation Stores were influenced by the mining companies. I believe they are an honest endeavour of the men to get the most for their wages, and to get the best conditions they can for themselves. But the Bill does not preclude these people from forming their co-operative societies. All it does is to say—

The difference is not so much that it is necessary for the hon. member for Brakpan to quarrel over the stop-order. The position the men have secured for themselves in running the co-operative societies successfully is of so much advantage that I do not think the position is going to be bettered by their becoming dependent on this stop-order system. One of these societies has a turnover of something like £56,000, and another something like £18,000. One of them paid quite a substantial dividend. I think the Minister is wise in adopting the select committee’s recommendation here. In regard to Clause 127, I do not know whether I understood the Minister aright, that there were amendments which would be dealt with in the committee stage. As far as I am concerned, the clause as it stands is a very much more milk-and-watery clause than the committee originally set up. Hon. members will see that the select committee of 1923 set forth in great detail their objects in tightening up the old Clause 127. We thought we covered every loophole, without doing any injustice to anybody concerned, where these mining companies were holding up ground. I hope the further amendments will be discussed in the spirit in which this measure was introduced, when the committee dealt with it at that time, or at all events that we shall be allowed to bring forward some of the suggestions which have been left out of the Bill. I think the House is agreed upon the necessity for this measure. The old measure, as contained in the previous Gold Law, had this effect, that while it described all the shortcomings and the evils which arose from the non-prosecution of the work, the old law did not prescribe the remedy or say how these persons were to be dealt with. In select committee we had representatives of the chamber, and also of the public interests on the other side. The committee went very fully into it, and there was a good deal of compromise. I am glad to see the amendment here in connection with Clause 8, in regard to notice to be given of the intention to discharge mine employees or curtail mining operations. This is a position that arose shortly after the troubles of 1920, when the industry was dislocated, either through the mines themselves stopping work, or the employees stopping, and the committee found it necessary to recommend that the Government should provide in its legislation in future that such dislocations, which were one of the causes which resulted in the strike of 1922, as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) knows, should be prevented. That is probably one of the reasons which has led to the great strike in Europe. The Government is in a peculiar position as custodians of the mineral wealth of the State, and we find it necesary that the Government should make the necessary provision that this industry should not be handicapped by any arbitrary closing down of mines before an enquiry is held into the matter. That was the object of the select committee in inserting Clause 8 in the Bill. It is just as important as any other subject the committee had to deal with. With regard to section 3, I hope hon. members are not under the impression that this is another attempt to camouflage a colour bar, for the section simply provides that it shall be applicable irrespective of colour. With these few words, I hope the Minister will let us have ample opportunity in the committee stage of making suggestions to him without it being considered that they are being advanced in a party spirit.

As a member of the select committee which sat on this subject a few years ago and brought a Bill into the House, I welcome the present measure. So far as this Bill goes, I think the House ought to support it. The Bill to which I first referred made an attempt to deal with problems which have grown up on the Rand as a result of the evolution of the Witwatersrand from a mining camp into a series of towns in which people have made their homes, some of them their permanent homes. If the conditions which apply to a mining camp had been permitted to continue, they would have resulted in turning many parts of the Rand into slum areas. I do not want to go into the question of leasehold V. freehold townships in detail, but we should welcome an attempt to deal with the matter legislatively. Another subject which should be grappled with is that of the deproclamation of mining areas, but that problem is not touched by the Bill before us, although the question is of importance to practically every person on the Reef. Immediate attention to this problem is essential if we wish to have a happy and contented population on the Rand.

More than a century ago in Great Britain, a law was passed called the Truck Act. At that time it was found in Great Britain that a workman rarely received his wages in full. Some of them hardly received any wages at all ; they were paid in kind. Many abuses went on, and ultimately the state of things existing led to that law being passed. That law incorporates a principle, and that is that the workman shall receive his wages in full in coin of the realm without stoppages, and that he shall be free to spend those wages as he deems meet. That principle is incorporated in the legislation of practically every European country to-day, and it is rarely departed from. The only departure I know of is when the State steps in and compels men to spend part of their earnings on insurance for sickness, invalidity, unemployment and various other eventualities of life. With that I quite agree. There is no doubt that in this country in the early days of the goldfields, similar abuses prevailed to those that prevailed in other parts of the world. In our earliest Gold Law, and in the Act of 1908, we find incorporated that very same principle of the Truck Act, that a workman shall be paid his earnings in full in the coin of the colony, and without any stoppages, and that he shall be free to spend those earnings where and how he chooses. I think that is a principle to which every hon. member on these benches is committed in full, and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) himself said that if that was the principle, and if it applied universally in this country, he would agree to it. I know he would. I agree with him in that regard that we are only considering this question piecemeal, because we happen to be dealing with a law that applies only to mining areas. My hon. friend the member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) allowed me to see some statistics relating to the police force this afternoon. I saw that as many as 6,300 stop-orders per month are recognized in regard to the police force alone in this country, and it is stated in this document that this stop-order system has led to tremendous abuse amongst the natives, who are misled by insurance agents into signing stop-orders for payments which they can never carry on for a great length of time, and ultimately they have to forfeit their premiums. That is only in one department of State. No doubt the ramifications of these abuses are going on in every walk of life in this country. This system is not fair to the merchants of this country. The hon. member for Brakpan has stated the case, and stated it well, for the co-operative societies. I agree with him that the societies he was pleading for here this afternoon are bodies where the capital is owned and controlled and the whole business controlled by the workers themselves, and, furthermore, there are many other things to be said for them. I have been told, and I am very glad to state, that when, in 1922, many of the workers on the Rand were in great distress, and the private merchants had stopped their credit, these co-operative societies came to the rescue of many men. That is a thing they are to be applauded for. But, what has the co-operative system got to do with the stop-order system ? What connection is there between these two distinct things ? It is on that point where my hon. friend (Mr. Waterston) failed to convince me. He stated to the House that this co-operative society that he mentioned could not exist without the stop-order system. I think of the co-operative system as I know it to exist in Great Britain, with its millions of co-operators, and its wholesale and retail stores. They exist without the stop-order system, without any assistance from the Government, without any preferential legislation, without any large employers pleading their case. The co-operative system of Great Britain has been built up in the teeth of the opposition of a large body of employers. The stop-order system is not essential. Why should it be essential ? I take it that this particular store is in much the same position as any other store. Many stores in this country are started practically without capital ; they are supported by the credit of the wholesaler. They get so many days’ credit, and they pay their bills. I do not know what the system-is on the E.R.P.M., but I know that, generally speaking, on the Witwatersrand men are paid weekly. Some are paid monthly. The E.R.P.M., I am told, is on the monthly system. Why cannot those men pay their bills at the end of every month, which will allow ample time for the stores to pay the wholesalers for any goods that have been supplied ? I do not see the need for this stop-order system. The ordinary redress of the courts is open to these stores, if their customers will not pay their debts. Why should these co-operative stores receive preferential treatment over the other traders of the Rand ? Stores operated on the stop-order system are not always a distinct advantage to the men concerned. So much depends upon the wife, when there is credit to be obtained at the stores.

So with the private trader.

Exactly, but the private trader has only recourse to the courts, whilst in this case the men’s wages are mortgaged through the employer to the co-operative society for what they have supplied to him. I have met a lot of men on the Reef who are in favour of the stop-order system, and it is a very hard thing to answer when a man says—

On the other hand, I can assure this House that there is a very large body of opinion on the Witwatersrand that is entirely against the stop-order system, and I should think the majority are on that side. I think I have shown to this House, and, I hope, my hon. friend, that the stop-order system is not essential to any particular co-operative society, and is not essential to the co-operative system. As a matter of fact, if it is, then it rests on a very weak reed, for the day when the employer says that he is not going to be bothered about the co-operative stores, that he is not going to have his books complicated by stoppages, and that he is going to pay the employee the money that he owes him direct, then, if the co-operative system is dependent upon that practice, it will go by the board. This stop-order system might lead to officials of the mines allowing their own particular friends to canvass and obtain custom at the mines where strangers cannot go without their consent. In the circumstances, I submit that this principle which the workers all over the world support of no stoppages from wages being allowed, is worth retaining. I would also ask the Minister to consider the other points which I mentioned earlier. After all, this is a matter of life and death to the Witwatersrand, in my opinion. Tens of thousands of people are affected. What man is going to improve his property if it is situate on a leasehold stand, the lease of which is going to expire in three or four years ? Obviously he neglects the property, and it becomes derelict, and that district drifts into a slum. The select committee pointed out to the Government a way out of the difficulty, and I would suggest that the Minister might take that matter into very serious consideration during the recess. I do not mind dealing with this legislation by instalments. I recognize the original Bill was a sort of omnibus Bill, but I hope the Minister will not allow too long between the instalments. There arises out of this the very urgent matter of supplying the municipality with land for public purposes. Mining areas are becoming more and more unsightly by reason of the factories that are being put up without any order or regularity as regards building. Surely all that land should at as early a date as possible be brought under the municipalities to be dealt with by them.

This is an exceedingly difficult and technical Bill. A Bill was introduced in 1922 by Mr. Malan, the then Minister of Mines and Industries in the first Government. That Bill was referred to a select committee, and a great deal of work was done in that committee. The Bill was reported back to the House. It was a Bill which attained very respectable dimensions and considerably modified and improved the gold law. Its intention was to try and deal with the changing set of circumstances that we are faced with this year and last year. I share the disappointment expressed by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) that the Minister of Mines and Industries has merely taken one or two clauses from this Bill and left the rest apparently alone. The clauses he has left out were equally essential and necessary. I share the surprise expressed by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that this Bill is now introduced at this stage. Leave to introduce was given on the 29th of March last, and the Bill was then read a first time. It was put very low down in the order paper, and has never been reached until it was reached this afternoon. The Bill is so difficult and technical that even if members get adequate time to consider the proposed amendments in detail, it is very doubtful if it would receive proper consideration at all. It would have been advisable to have had it considered again by a select committee. I want to deal with Clause 4, which prohibits any co-operative society from carrying on business on land held under mining title unless it is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. I do not think there can be any real objection to agreeing to that, because it has been a principle of our mining legislation that trade on mining grounds should be properly regulated. In Clause 5 it is provided that a mining company shall not trade with its own employees. I support that principle. Clause 5 is merely an extension of the principle to deal with the movement that arose during the war, when mining companies on the Rand traded with their employees through an organization known as the Native Recruiting Organization. It is undesirable in principle, and we should re affirm that a mining company directly or indirectly should not trade with its employees.

Why is it undesirable?

Because it is a violation of the Truck Act. Because it is a fundamental principle of our mining legislation that a company should not trade with its own employees. That principle has been enshrined in legislation in England for over 100 years. The employees are able to sign cards and can take out goods during the month, and they are discouraged from trading with anyone but the companies. This has brought about what is known as the Kimberly system, and we do not want it. This Clause 5 is nothing more than a re-affirmation of the principle in the gold law extended to meet a new set of circumstances that have arisen. We come now to the vexed question of stop-orders. I do not see with the Minister that this question has anything to do with the Truck Act. What we are endeavouring to do is to prevent the men’s co-operative societies from carrying on business by means of stop-orders. Section 5 has nothing to do with section 6. These in section 6 are European societies. We must discuss these stop-orders entirely apart from any question of the Truck Act.

The Truck Act is a stoppage.

The Truck Act says you shall not stop money from a man’s wages for goods which the employer supplies to him. I have in this connection to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). I have this in common with him, that I, like him, have changed my views ; but whereas he has changed from antagonism to the stop-order system to support of it, I have changed from support to antagonism. I want to give the House and the hon. member in particular my reasons for making that change. I am not against the system as such ; I am not against stop-orders ; what I am against is discrimination in stop-orders. In other words what I am against is the system on the Rand where a mining company will honour stop-orders from co-operative societies, but not stop-orders given to any outside merchants. Whether it be right or wrong, there is, in fact, this discrimination to-day. I say the dice is loaded against the ordinary merchant who carries on business there.

Would you extend it to everybody ?

I would extend it to everybody, but if this discrimination must still exist let us stop the whole thing. The towns of the Reef, from Krugersdorp to Springs, came into existence side by side with the mines. The money invested in building up those towns was invested on the understanding that they had the mine trade, and for 40 years that system has been allowed to grow up. Now the shopkeepers are faced with virtual ruin. It does not affect the shopkeepers only ; one knows how the modern community interlocks. They are threatened with ruin unless this system of unfair discrimination is put an end to. I do not want to stop any mine worker from forming with his friends into a co-operative society. I want to encourage him. But I say, let it be a genuine co-operative society. Let them put up working capital and do trading. Let it be in fair, but not unequal, competition. Have these co-operative societies any working capital ? Precious little. How do they finance themselves ? By handing over goods for stop-orders, and they get cheques from the mines at the end of the month, and pay the merchants. That is not a genuine co-operative society as we understand it. The merchant is not allowed to do that. I say that we, as a State, must take the larger view. Three years ago, when the wine industry in the Western Province was practically due for extinction because the wine farmers would not co-operate, the State had to step in and regulate the trade and say that the rights of the State are superior to private contracts, and had to set them aside in the greater interests of the State. These co-operative societies have not spread, because it was known that the present and the past Governments were likely to interfere, and it has been known that legislation of this sort has been agitated for for some time. You may sneer at your merchants. I am speaking entirely without bias, and merely as a citizen of Johannesburg. The merchants and all who are dependent on them will go to the wall entirely. We have a finger post in Kimberley to what the Rand might follow. We know what happened in that town when the mining trade was made a close corporation, and we do not want to “Kimberleyize” the Reef. I do not want to see the dice loaded against any section of the community. There are many notable and regrettable omissions in the present Act as compared with the Act which the Minister took over from his predecessor, and has the blessing of all the members of the select committee. This is a non-party question and a non-party Act. One of the questions that exercised the minds of the committee is the definition of precious and base metals. A new definition was framed in the Act of 1922. We took a great step in advance by giving more generous discoverers’ rights. We said they should get one hundred claims on Crown land and fifty on private land, and power was given to the Minister to extend that, in order to open out mining lands. We took steps to exempt the surface of proclaimed land. One knows that the whole of the Reef is tied up because it is proclaimed land, and the same applies to the Lydenburg and Pilgrims Rest districts. We took power under that Act to deal with it; and it is regrettable that the Minister has not included it. Most important of all, we realized that we were approaching an era on the Rand of deproclamation. You have to deal with a very complicated subject in dealing with deproclamation—what should be done to the original owner of the soil; what should be done with reference to the rights of the community which has grown up on that proclaimed land, and to the rights of the State? We laid down a compromise in that regard, and apparently all our labours have gone for nought. I hope the Minister will tell us whether he is making provision for that. One knows that the payment of claim moneys has been the death of many a promising mining venture. Our Act provided that there should be a remission of practically all licence money on prospecting and diggers’ claims, where a genuine working was taking place.

What about the owner’s half share ?

We could not deal with that. Then what is to be done with the tailing heaps after the land has been deproclaimed ? We tackled that, and we thought we had solved that in that Bill. It is left untackled in this Bill, yet it is a problem that must be tackled one of these days. I am disappointed that the Minister did not give us any indication with regard to the policy of the Government of future mining development. We seem to have reached a stationary phase. Mines are closing down, or are on the eve of closing down, and no mines are being opened up. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said, all the future prognostications of the Government about debt redemption and so forth will be falsified unless new mines can be opened up side by side with the closing of the old mines. An article by Mr. Webber in the “Cape Times” within the last fortnight did strike a pessimistic note, but we have to face this: that new mines are now being opened, and nothing seems to be done in the direction of mining development. I have not heard from the Government any move in the direction of encouraging that. This Bill of ours did make a move along that direction—I do not say it solved the problem—of course it did not—but it was a move in that direction. Insofar as the encouragement of mining development is concerned, the present Bill before us is worth nothing at all. The only new thing in this Bill, which consists almost entirely of snippets from our own Bill, is the amendment of Section 30. I could not quite follow the reason for the addition of a subsection to paragraphs 30 of the old Act, which provided ways in which the Government could give out mining land. The Governor might declare a portion or a whole open to the public, or lease the land, or establish a State mine. A fourth way is to be added by the Minister. It says the Governor, that is, the Minister, may by regulation provide for the allotment of claims to licence-holders of any proclaimed digging or portion thereof. Why do they need that power, and how do they propose to exercise it ? Why should the Government have power of distributing largesse to claim-holders ? I have heard of—

and I am wondering if the last phase of the matter will be—

As the representative of a constituency with a lot of silent mines, I wish to thank the Minister for bringing forward this Bill, and I hope he will be able to put it through within the next few days. I had some misgivings when I heard that there were some amendments suggested by the chamber of mines for so far as I can see, the present draft is sufficiently modified to suit the most moderate, and if the Minister is going to allow it to be further watered, it will not be of much use to us. However, I am still confident that the Minister will stick to this measure practically in its present form, and if he puts it on the Statute Book, he will undoubtedly do a lot of good in opening up mines that have been closed. I disagree with the views expressed that it will not apply to new mines, for as I read it, it will apply to any mining area. Although the main principle of the Bill is that to compel the working of mines, there has been more discussion with regard to trading aspects, and we have had a lot of discussion in regard to the stop order system, but little upon the working of the mines upon which people depend for a living. In regard to the trading question, it is a deep-rooted idea on the Witwatersrand that the mines should restrict themselves to mining and leave trading to other people. That was probably based on the experience of Kimberley, where dire consequences to the trading public have followed the mines taking part in trading. In consequence anything that looked like trading has been viewed with suspicion, and there have been occasions where this suspicion has been justified. We have had something said about the Native Recruiting Corporation and I would like to tell the House that the agreement of January 6th, 1925, which disposed of the business to Mr. Isaac Adams, seems to me so unbusinesslike as to indicate that the end in view is not exactly what appears on the surface, and other circumstances lend colour to this view. The deed of sale shows that Mr. Adams, who was formerly manager of the company, took over the concern and gave bonds to the amount of £70,000, practically all on stock. The agreement was signed by the president of the chamber of mines and it is very unusual for men of that class to accept bonds for such a large amount on such security as movable assets. That it was done in this case gives grave doubts as to the genuineness of the transaction. The suspicion was justified when it is said that sixteen months after the concern was supposed to have been sold the mines were still issuing orders on the N.R.G. stores. I have here an order given to a native of the Van Ryn Estates Mine, dated April last, authorising the store to give the native goods to the value of £1. I have also heard of one private trader who supplied on a similar order brought to his store inadvertently. He had great difficulty in getting payment and was told he would not be paid if the same thing occurred again. He accepted the assurance of the companies that one store was the same as another to them and this was the result. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has argued that the stop orders should be legalised for mine cooperative stores or the whole system of stop orders swept away altogether, but I do not think we are called upon to discuss that question. This is a mining measure, and we need only discuss them as they apply to mining. If these stop orders were really going to benefit all the men, I would support the system, but I do not think that view is justified. It does not follow that because people get credit easily as they do by the stop orders that thrift is engendered. Quite a number of these people on the mines, from their training and outlook, and the experience they have of the unfortunate credit system, whenever they get a chance of buying goods on credit, buy, irrespective of whether they can pay or not, and there is quite a lot of over-buying in the co-operative stores, which ultimately gets the purchasers into difficulties. There is one material difference between buying in a co-operative store on a stop order and giving a stop order in connection with insurance premiums, or a sick benefit society. I consider there should be stop orders for the latter, until we have a State medical service so as to protect the workers and their families in case of sickness. Then with insurance premiums, the amount is limited to the amount of the premium, but under the stop order system in co-operative stores there is no limit, except the amount of money the man is going to draw at the end of the month. A man earning £25 a month not infrequently draws up to about £24 through the co-operative society stop order, and has perhaps only 30s. to draw from the mine. A private trader who knew he had to collect his money in a legitimate way would never give credit in the way the co-operative societies do. When the butcher, baker, etc., have to be paid, with what remains over, the workers often get into difficulties. I have a document here which is a certified copy of proceedings in the Civil Court at Boksburg, and shows that for the first four weeks of January, 38 civil imprisonment orders, ranging from 7 days to 3 months, were issued against men who I have been told were working on the E.R.P.M. Mines, and were members of the co-operative society. What has happened is that these men and their wives have drawn all the money they were entitled to and at the end of the month they have had no money to pay people, other than the co-operative society. So instead of this system doing these people a lot of good by allowing them to purchase cheaply it has resulted in orders for civil imprisonment. When 38 cases were pushed as far as civil imprisonment orders, it can be taken that at least 200 further summonses would be issued which never got as far as civil imprisonment opplications. There people should be protected against their own and their wives’ extravagance. Seeing that these men spend their money extravagantly and have no money left for the traders, the traders have a good reason to feel that they have a grievance. No one objects to the workers having the right to co-operate, but they should not co-operate at the expense of the traders who are men like themselves who also have a right to live. I have inspected the books of the East-Rand Cooperative Society. I am not an accountant but, as far as I could see, they do a large and legitimate business, and I do not think they get any assistance from the mines, except that the mines collect their money for them. But I think the society has done so well during the past few years that it can now go on without this stop order. During the few good years, they have built up strong reserve funds, and provided those workmen are willing to play the game by each other, and pay their money monthly as it becomes due, there is no need for them to come to the House and ask us to legalize the stop order system. I trust the Minister will not be swayed by the arguments brought forward and will insist on the stop order clause being retained in the Bill.

When the member for Brakpan stated in his speech that either the stop order system was right or it was wrong, I think he focussed our attention on the main point, but I do not think that without its favoured position the co-operative society of which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) spoke would stand going through the crucible if the stop order system applied to every trader along the Reef. The East Rand co-operative stores has an immense turnover, and yet its capital is only £500. It is impossible for any concern standing on its own legs to do the business that society transacts with such a small capital, but for the fact that it has the protection of the mining company by means of stop orders and is thus able to obtain credit wherever they choose, the wholesale merchants knowing that the debt is secure. If the stop order system is right, by all means let us apply it to every trader, whether a man works for the E.R.P.M. or any other company. Then it would not be a stop order system, but next door to the truck system. In the interests of the employees themselves it is wrong that a person earning, say, £30 a month should be placed in such a position, that he may— owing to the extensive purchases he makes on the stop order system—find that he has only 10 per cent. of the money he has earned paid to him in cash, the remainder having been paid out under the stop order system. There is a great deal of complaint against a system among the big drapery firms in Cape Town under which the girl employees can buy silks and clothing, the amount of their purchases being deducted from their wages. It is wrong that the girls should be placed in the position by which they are thus enabled to contract liabilities far beyond their legitimate means or needs, even although they may be agreeable to have the amount of their purchases deducted from their non too princely wages. Unfortunately under the stop order system there is growing up a practice under which a housewife whose husband is a member of the co-operative store may be in particular need of, say, 30s. Having credit at the co-operative store she buys goods to the value of, say, 25s. from the store and sells the articles to her next door neighbour for £1 ; she thus pays 25 per cent. interest on the loan for the short space of one month. Therefore one sees how easily this system lends itself to abuse, which is found not only in the case of co-operative societies but also is creeping in to the recreation clubs on some of the mines. There can, of course, be no abuse in the case of a sick fund, but I was told of an instance of a man going to one of the recreation clubs and buying a big box of Flag cigarettes, for which he probably paid 25s. He took the cigarettes down town and disposed of them for 17s. 6d., the proceeds very probably being disbursed on a very enjoyable evening.

Abusing the Flag!

Outside the sick benefit fund the stop order system is wrong and wicked, and becomes a danger to the people who take advantage of it. I now wish to say a few words in regard to the reversion of the surface ground of worked out mines along the Reef. Something certainly should have been done to deal with the matter long since. Mines are being worked out along the Reef and we read of the dreadful position that is going to face the people of Johannesburg when that process is completed. Personally, however, I don’t believe in these predictions of Mr. H. O. K. Webber, who is the “gloomy Dean” of Johannesburg, and he probably hopes to stampede the Minister of Mines into giving further relief to the mines. It is not the mines that require relief in Johannesburg, but the town which desires and needs further security of tenure. As the municipalities have built up these towns with their commerce and industries, it is but right that when the mining companies have worked out the minerals the surface ground should be given to the municipalities. In the days preceding the discovery of the gold mines whenever a town was established it was given a large amount of ground as town lands. I believe Pretoria built its town hall from the proceeds of the sale of a portion of its own lands. In the case of Reef towns no provisions were made for town lands. The Johannesburg municipality proposes to spend about £15,000 or £20,000 to acquire land for further industrial undertakings, and this shows the necessity of some fair treatment being accorded the municipalities in this matter. I feel quite satisfied with the Bill in other respects, but I trust the question of the reversion of disused mining ground will be dealt with in the near future.

I have great confidence in the longevity of the Pact party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has appealed to me to attend to these omissions which he has detailed, and he evidently expects that next year, or the year after, that legislation will be introduced by the Pact Government in the shape of the Bill of my predecessor. He must be sharing that confidence, otherwise he would think that his own Government would re-introduce this Bill, but he is appealing to me. I do not share the view that this Bill is a very intricate or complicated measure. The principles enunciated in it are perfectly intelligible. The first is that we should give out claims by way of lot, or that we shall determine by lot the order or turns for pegging claims.

Where does it say by lot?

It says we can make regulations. Perhaps the hon. member was not here when I made my second reading speech. If the word “allotment” is not perfectly plain, I can amend the second clause in committee. The next principle that is dealt with is contained in Clauses 5 and 6. I see a very direct connection between the two, but I am not astute enough to establish the connection. I object to the principle of a mining company being interested in or having anything to do with trading in both cases. That is what I am trying to remedy. Clause 7 deals with the compulsory working of claims. Those principles are perfectly intelligible, but if I had attempted during this session to deal with the old Bill as a whole, then it would have been a very intricate, a very technical, and a very complicated measure. I hope to find time during the recess to prepare something for next session ; in fact, I think a revision of the Precious and Base Metals Act in toto will, perhaps, be very desirable to bring the whole thing up-to-date. What has struck me about these co-operative societies is that there are only three. If they are so wonderfully desirable as has been indicated by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), I can only ask why are they confined to only three up to now ? I think the real test I ought to apply is this, will the hon. member contemplate with equanimity the conversion of 180,000 natives into co-operative societies ? What will be the result of that—the conversion of the whole of the Witwatersrand into one huge compound ? The hon. member will recognize that in this Act which has been in force since 1908 there can be no payment of any salary or wage except in coin. The spirit of the whole thing was that there should be actual coin passed, and the implications of that principle are what I am endeavouring to describe and set out in this Bill. I do not say that at present it is absolutely forbidden, according to the letter of the Gold Law, to pay wages in full otherwise than in coin or to cede wages, but it falls within the mischief contemplated by the statute. If it does not, then it ought to fall. I want to deal very briefly with the various points raised. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) pointed out to me that the select committee’s Bill of 1923 made provision for representation of the holders of the mining titles on a commission to be appointed under section 127. That is so. I would point out to him that the present Gold Law does not make any special provision for it. It is there provided that the Government Mining Engineer shall be a member. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) asked me whether this was a Bill in favour of the middlemen, and whether it was a Bill for the protection of the commercial community as against the working man. Nothing of the sort. I am not actuated in bringing this measure at all by consideration for the commercial community. I simply think that the principles of the Gold Law ought to be logically applied, that the principles there enunciated are sound, and that the wording of the Gold Law as it stands at present is not sufficient to embody all that was intended by those principles. Then I was referred to the departmental report. It is true that a departmental report was made, but it is also obvious that no Government or Minister should necessarily be bound by any report made by any committee, departmental or otherwise, appointed. The report was made on the 22nd February, 1926, and it was signed by Mr. J. P. du Toit, the Mining Commissioner of Johannesburg, and Mr. E. R. Jacklin, Senior Inspector of the Division of Co-operation. I find in the report that there are three co-operative societies along the whole Reef—the Randfontein Cooperative Stores, Ltd., the Simmer & Jack Co-operative Society, Ltd., and the East Rand Co-operative Stores, Ltd. But then the committee say this, and here I join issue with them and the hon. member for Brakpan—

That is literally correct, and I do not for a moment wish to impute to any mine or mining company on the Rand any improper motives in regard to this stop-order system. I do believe that they made use of that system in order to benefit their employees, and I also believe that they established the N.R.C. stores with the same object. It is, nevertheless, an infraction of this principle that I have endeavoured to set forth this afternoon. It is not a question of what has actually been done, but of what can be done, so we ought not to be faced with even a potential evil. We have a special problem along the Reef, and therefore this legislation was introduced in years past, and has existed all along. The hon. member gave an instance, and said why should the stop-order apply in regard to sick benefit. The answer is obvious. A man is not in the habit of squandering his money in sick benefit contributions, and therefore they are deducted from his pay. The position is this. If there is anything like loyalty among themselves, they can co-operate and co-operate efficiently without this adventitious aid of stop-orders. I have already told the House that there are certain amendments which I propose bringing forward at the committee stage. These amendments cannot appear on the Order Paper in print unless the second reading is passed. I hope the second reading will go through to-night, so that members can have these amendments on the Order Paper to-morrow. I will conclude with an examination of a ticket I have in my hand, an instance of the many tickets issued. Here you have the Van Ryn Gold Mines Estate, Limited; passport No. so-and-so; mine No. so-and-so; to the value of £1, signed by an officer of the company, and addressed to the N.R.C. stores, New Modderfontein. As a matter of fact, these stores, some 19 of them, have been taken over under a heavy mortgage bond by a Mr. Adams. He admitted to me that he took them over because he thought it would obviate the necessity for this legislation. It matters very little to me whether the order is issued from the company to the stores to supply the goods, or whether the person who presents the order to get the goods draws on the company. The effect is exactly the same ; you can take it either way. I think the principles embodied in this Bill are sound, and I hope the second reading will now be accepted.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 3rd June.

I move—

I move—

1. (a) two pounds for every day during which he attends a meeting of the House or any Committee thereof of which he is a member but not exceeding two hundred pounds in all, and
2. (b) one pound for every complete twenty-four hours’ absence from the place where he is domiciled, but not exceeding one hundred pounds in all: Provided that such absence is due to his attending a meeting of the House or any Committee thereof of which he is a member ; and provided further that such place is not within a radius of twenty miles from, the Houses of Parliament.”;

and in line 15, to omit “six” and to substitute “three ”.

I am not one of the members who has said that hon. members are getting sufficient at present. Anything I am doing to-night is to make it a more equitable form of payment. It will save money, and at the same time it will be just to hon. members. It may appear to be hard on some of the Cape Town members, but there is a strong feeling in the country that members of Parliament are voting themselves more money. I am going on the system of the old Cape House, where members had a subsistence allowance of 15s. a day while they attended. The Senate has sat on an average 50 days, and members are allowed to remain absent for 15 days. Some of them have taken full advantage of it, and that leaves 35 days. They get £20 per day for every day they attend—is that reasonable? You could save £6,000 on the Senate vote alone. Can hon. members acquit their consciences and their responsibility to the country by putting the amount of the allowance to the Senate on the same basis as the other? I know the Minister will not accept it, but in his common, sound sense, he knows my amendment is right. There are responsibilities of office which prevent a man from doing what he himself feels is right. Let us come to members of this House. The Minister has laid down a £6 penalty. I have not been absent a day in the present session. I submit a member is not responsible to this House, whether he attends to his duties or not, but he is responsible to his constituents. Some constituencies are satisfied if an hon. member puts in a few days’ appearance—probably he can render as much service in a few days as other hon. members all the days of the session. In my amendment, I penalise the absent member in the same way. First of all he loses his £3, and his £2 per day for attendance, and £1 a day for sustenance. That would be equal to £6. I submit, however, that my amendment is more equitable. [Time limit.]

I move—

I feel that there is another case for which provision should be made ; the case of serious illness or death of a member’s wife. We know that if a member’s wife is ill, he will not stop in Cape Town, but will go home, and may be kept there several days. Supposing he remained for 10 days only, he would find at the end of the month that £60 would be deducted from his salary, which might be a very serious consideration, in addition to the expense he might have. An hon. member says: What about the child ? The child is a different case. The mother is there to take care of the child, and between the mother and the doctor the child will have ample attention, and it may not be necessary for the father to go there too. Provision is made that it must be condoned by the Sessional Committee, in the case of the Senate, and by the Standing Rules and Orders Committee in the case of the Assembly. I thought it necessary to make that provision in order not to place the Clerk of the House in the invidious position of having to decide doubtful cases.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels). My position in regard to this question is that I have opposed this Bill, not because I think the amount proposed to be paid is too much for the necessities of the case, but because I think this is not the time when a change like this should be made.

When is the time?

How can I say? I am not like a prophet, as the hon. member sometimes professes to be ; but my own opinion is that now is not the time, because there are large numbers of public servants and other persons pressing for an increase in emoluments, and we are refusing them, and I think we are taking up an invidious position if we increase our emoluments and refuse to increase theirs.

They get pensions.

If we are going to make this increase for heaven’s sake do not let us set up this invidious distinction between members who will feel compelled to apply and those who may be able to say that they are well enough off not to require it. Either we are entitled to it or not. If the law says it is to be so much, everyone should be able to draw it without going through the humiliating position of applying for it in writing.

Even if they voted against it ?

Yes.

For party purposes ?

I leave it to the Minister to probe into the motives of hon. members. A member is entitled to vote for or against a measure, but we shall be making a very invidious and undesirable distinction between members of this House if some of them are to be remunerated at a certain rate because they choose to apply for it, and others are not, because they choose not to apply. It seems to me that the law ought to fix the amount, and that there should be no distinction. Another point is that apparently the choice is made once for all. Either within 20 days from the commencement of the Act, or within 30 days of a member’s election, he makes his choice, and cannot change his mind. His circumstances may alter, and it may be that this extra allowance which he declined to ask for when the Act first came in, may mean a great deal to him at a later time, and it seems to me unreasonable and unfair that he should be debarred from changing his mind and asking for what he now feels necessary for him. My main objection is that in this House we meet as representatives of the people with exactly the same right and title, and our emoluments ought to be fixed by law—and I am glad they are going to be fixed by law, and not merely by a vote on the estimates—and they ought to be the same for all. I know this amendment is thought to be rather a clever party move, but it will have no effect on me whatever. The idea is that it is thought that this amendment will put some hon. members in a difficult position.

Is it not to test their sincerity ?

It is not worth twopence as a test of sincerity. An hon. member can vote with perfect sincerity against this increase because he thinks now is not the time, and be perfectly sincere in accepting this amount if the Bill is placed on the statute book. We shall be doing a bad day’s service, as members of this House, to ourselves and those who are going to come after us, if, in order to do a trick like this, we bring about, between members, a distinction which ought not to exist, and which, in the eyes of the law, does not exist.

There are many members who would like to serve their country free and without reward, but there is no provision in the Bill to enable members to return their allowances to the Government legally. I had an experience of that ruse in military service when payment was insisted on, and I know there are many hon. members, particularly on the Opposition side who would like to serve their country free of fees or allowances, as they represent big interests and look after them in this House. There are also the “titled links of Empire” who would probably like to emulate the House of Lords, whose members receive no salaries. They are our lesser nobility. It is said that members can give their parliamentary allowance to charity, but members are apt to think that charity begins and remains at home. I know of some such examples to us. I should be sorry to force any “jolly roger” on members of this House. We want no flag of spoliation to be forced on them. There are several favourably situated professional men, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and others who are able to attend to their professional duties and treat Parliament as a side occupation. They also have the great advantage of living in Cape Town, but those from the north—unless they are like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who during the session can rush up to the north to perform professional duties and return in time to give us snatches of his natural eloquence—are put to much expense during the session. There are doubtless many hon. members living in Cape Town who would be glad to say that they take no Parliamentary fee, or only a very nominal fee, but that does not apply to members from the north, for unless you have private resources you cannot possibly live here respectably on the present allowance. I do not know how members with families and homes elsewhere come out on the present allowance. I move—

(5) member may decline to accept all or part of the allowance provided in sub-section (1).

I can understand that hon. members opposite are scheming to get out of trouble by proposing amendments such as that of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) because they voted for a motion against which the people are. When the Bill was introduced I prophesied that there would be protests in the country, and that has proved to be correct. The people outside will, however, not allow sand to be thrown in their eyes. I do not agree with my honoured leader (Gen. Smuts) when he said that £500 a year is too little. Members of Parliament ought to come out on that amount, especially the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers), and moreover hon. members knew what the allowance was when they allowed themselves to be elected—that it was £500 and not £700. It is the hon. members on the cross-benches who insist on the increase, and I am certain that there are members of the Nationalist party who are not actually in favour of the Bill. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) ran away from the second reading. The principle of the Bill has already been adopted, but as there is an opportunity to-night to move amendments the hon. member for Frankfort introduces an amendment like this. I should like the Government to publish the names of members who take the increased allowance so that people on the countryside can see who draws it.

Will you apply for the increased allowance?

I shall apply for it and I said so on the introduction of the Bill because as the Government has taken the responsibility of having the Bill passed I shall make the application without the least hesitation. I can spend the money better than leaving it in the Treasury. A few Nationalists have said to me—

My conscience is quite clear in this respect, and if an amendment is proposed to reduce the allowance to £500 I will vote for it. I can come out on £500, and other hon. members ought also to be able to do so if they will be careful. Some hon. members, nowever, want high life. I have already heard a great deal of the so-called patriots who will not make any sacrifices for their people. I call them pocket patriots.

I was not in the House when this Bill was discussed the first time, so that I do not know whether the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) enlightened the House at the time as to the motive underlying this proposal. Why this House should voluntarily impose upon itself the indignity of having to go to the Clerk of the House and make application for this salary, I do not understand. It seems to me a childish and transparent ruse, and an indignity which is quite unworthy of this House, and as to its being a test of sincerity or honesty, I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that it is not worth twopence, as a test of that kind. I will have no hesitation in applying, if that humiliation is to be imposed upon me. It is no test of sincerity, and I repeat that I, and, I hope, every member on this side, will have no hesitation in making this application to the Clerk of the House, if we have to so demean ourselves. If hon. members think that they are going to put us in an awkward predicament they are very much mistaken. The responsibility for passing this Bill is on the Government, and I shall certainly feel no embarrassment if I am asked on a platform—

“ Yes. If I am asked whether I shall apply I shall say “Certainly.” It will be no test of my sincerity or my insincerity. This Bill merely shows the depths to which this House is sinking nowadays under the guidance of the Government. Are we going to treat the House like a pack of schoolboys ? We shall make ourselves a laughing stock not only in our own country, but in all democratic countries, if we are going to treat our members like schoolboys. It is a piece of childish tomfoolery. That is what this clause amounts to and I sincerely hope that this House will think more of its own dignity than to pass a proposal of this sort.

It is a pity you did not start out with that outlook.

What outlook?

Attacking this Bill.

We voted against it. What more could we do?

There is no sincerity about it.

What right have you to say that?

I am satisfied that it is so.

You are a fool., that is what you are.

The Minister ought to have more thought for his position than to bring such a charge based on such flimsy evidence. The emolument of £500 is, in the case of many members, insufficient, but that is not the point. I am not voting against this not because I think we are overpaid ; I think we are underpaid ; but now is not the time. It is always an invidious thing to vote yourself money out of the taxpayer’s pocket. The hon. member has not even taken the trouble to tell us why he has introduced this amendment. If the Government is going to accept it, I hope they will tell us why they want to place us in this humiliating and childish position. We all of us on this side, as representatives of the people, object to being subjected to an inquisitorial test of sincerity by the Clerk of the House or anyone else. It is undignified, humiliating, childish. It is no test, either of sincerity or otherwise. The Labour party always tell us they are the poor man’s party, and yet they are going to put a stigma on the poor member, because it is the poor member who will, in most cases, apply for this. That is the intention, and I say it is an unworthy piece of tomfoolery that this House should certainly not countenance. I sincerely hope that the Government will think twice before accepting an amendment like this. If the Government are foolish enough to accept an amendment of this sort, I hope another place will have a better comprehension of the dignity due to this House.

Unlike the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, I am most anxious to go back to my constituency, but even at the cost of delaying my return I must deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort. One would have thought that the hon. member would have given some reason for the extraordinary amendment he has placed on the paper. One can only suppose that his feeling was so strong that he could hardly trust himself to speak. The Minister of Labour, however, has let the cat out of the bag and asks why those who have opposed this Bill should be allowed to participate in the increase. There is the whole thing in a nutshell. The gyrations of a caterpillar on the point of a pin are nothing compared with the antics of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who find themselves hoist with their own petard. The object of the hon. member is to confine this increased salary to the Pact. Then, I think he would have been more candid if he had said that the increase is to be enjoyed by the Pact party only, and by nobody else. But he never thought of what he was doing, or how far reaching this amendment was going to be. He is under the impression that after having once signed this crawling document he has signed it for all time. He never made a greater mistake. It lasts only until the next general election, and when that comes there is going to be another gentleman anxious to hold the hon. member’s seat and who will offer to do the work for £500 ; that he is going to be followed by a gentleman who will say that he is willing to work for £500 a year, and is the hon. gentleman willing to have to work for that. If he refuses to agree to do so he will not be selected. Really, it is too ridiculous and contemptible, and the whole debate is bringing Parliament into disrepute in the minds of the electorates and the public generally.

We have all heard of the man who was looking for work and hoping to goodness he would not find it. Here we have the spectacle of certain hon. members voting and speaking against a measure, and hoping to goodness it will be passed. The Minister of Finance should pay no attention whatsoever to these tom fool amendments which have been moved, either from one side of the House or from the other. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) brought into strong relief the absurb contention that the Senators would in future get £20 for every sitting, and the press has also published figures showing how much each member of the Assembly will receive. In 1920, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who was then Prime Minister, saw fit to bring in a measure increasing members allowances by £200, and rightly said that—

Members perform many public services when this House is not sitting which they would not be called upon to do were they not members of Parliament. The principle of an increased allowance has been carried in this House, and although the South African party decided to treat this Bill as a party question I know that many of them were quite in favour of the extra allowance. I would point out to members like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that if the Government do not provide an allowance sufficient to permit of hon. members living decently in Cape Town there will assuredly arise an agitation for the legislative capital to be shifted from this centre. A great part of each member’s allowance is spent in Cape Town and no doubt, indirectly, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) reaps a fairly large share. During the election of 1921 a gentleman who is now a member of this House made much political capital out of the fact that I had voted in support of the right hon. member for Standerton’s motion in 1920. There is no question that the majority of the South African party realise that the present allowance is altogether inadequate, but for purely party political reasons they are opposing it.

What did you promise the public servants at Maritzburg during the election ?

I don’t want to reply to a man who was prepared to scab on British seamen. I hope these amendments will not be persisted in, and that the House will adopt the Bill as it stands.

I think that every member of the Assembly wishes that there was another body to decide on their salaries, but as that is unfortunately not the case we must do so our-selves. Some of the arguments used have grieved me. I think that we ought to maintain the dignity of the House, and I want to appeal to the proposers of amendments to withdraw them. Everybody has acknowledged that it is necessary for members of Parliament to be better paid in the circumstances for the work they do, and the Government has introduced a Bill to amend the provisions in the Constitution in this connection. Let us now keep to the alteration which is proposed. If we have the courage to vote for it let us do so, but those who do not wish to vote for it need not do so. One thing is certain, viz., that all will accept the increased allowance after the Bill is passed. The country also knows that, has always known it, and I can also enquire after the passing of the Bill about whether hon. members have accepted the increase or not. They can refuse to accept the amount without its being necessary to pass the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels). I think it will be better to drop the amendment, also that of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown), because his amendment is merely a misrepresentation. Let us pass the clause as proposed by the Minister.

With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is it his intention that those members who do not draw any allowance will still have to pay £6 a day for each absence from the House ?

They can draw all or part.

The amendment has been called a tom-fool amendment, and we can leave it at that. But I should like to suggest that if this increased allowance is given to members no member of Parliament serving on a commission should receive any additional emoluments. I wish to suggest to the Minister that every member of Parliament who is absent from a select committee should also have part of his salary deducted. Some members never attend a select committee at all. In regard to commissions, the original idea was that members of Parliament should not be paid when serving on commissions. They are paid now merely because there is some difference of opinion amongst the legal advisers. I think we ought to say, if the salary is increased, that in future members serving on committees shall get no pay and the Minister should bring in an amendment on the report stage, if necessary, to prohibit members of Parliament from getting any pay when they serve on commissions.

I vote against the measure for two very honest reasons. The first is that I do not think the country can afford it. It means that if you increase your own emoluments you cannot deny a like increase to the public servants. Another is that I do not believe half of you are worth £700 a year. As an employer of labour, I would be sorry to pay the crowd of you £700 a year. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), it is only going to show the meanness and pettiness of soul of the great Pact.

It is a great pity that there should be any attempt to make party capital out of a question like this, and that it should not be left to the unfettered opinion of members of the House. The Opposition have agreed in principle with the Bill. I dislike the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels). If the House is going to grant an increase in the salaries of members of Parliament, then every member of this House is entitled to that increase, whether he applies for it or not.

I want to say very frankly that the appeal which the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) has made to me and also the accusations which have come from the opposite side have left me completely cold. When I proposed the amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) I knew well what I was doing and hon. members knew just as well as I what the intention was. I could clearly hear the sigh of relief raised by the hon. members of the Opposition when they got assistance from this side of the House. Let me say that the chief reason for my proposing the amendment was that I wanted to try to put an end once and for all to the hypocrisy shown when we discuss the motion. One of the chief arguments of hon. members opposite was that we were in the unpleasant position of benefitting ourselves.

On a point of order. Has the hon. member the right to accuse members of the House of hypocrisy ?

If the hon. member did that he is out of order.

I did not accuse hon. members themselves, but I repeat that it was a very hypocritical act on the part of hon. members opposite. If I may not say that, then I will withdraw it. I have not yet with-drawn it, but if the Chairman says that it is unparliamentary then I will withdraw it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central)

will surely understand what I mean.

The word is unparlia-

mentary.

But—

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. I used the amendment to prevent hon. members opposite from acting as if they were against the increase and simply say the time is not yet ripe. Hon. members knew quite well that the Government was in favour of the increase, and that the increase of £200 would be granted. They, however, thought that they could put the unpleasantness on to us, while they still would get all the advantages. I shall put the amendment through if I can. When hon. members had to ask for a certificate to bring their wives and children to Cape Town no one made any objection. The fact is that in this case hon. members want to try to make political capital out of it and to bring us into disfavour, while they know quite well that they will gain the benefit. I feel that this matter could have been settled much better mutually without making a party matter of it. I am going to try and stop the Opposition making political capital out of it. I should have had much more respect for hon. members opposite if they had said—

Hon. members opposite are again talking like great patriots who have sacrificed so much for the country. There are on this side of the House men who have sacrificed more than four dozen of the kind of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). I shall not allow myself to be frightened by that. We always hear a lot of the patriotism of the other side of the House, and many of the hon. members—I will not say all—never had any appreciation of the meaning of it. I am certain that the hon. member for Johannesburg will be much quicker with his application than I shall.

He will write three letters.

Yes, in case the first gets lost. The post office will have a lot of work to do because many letters will be registered. We hear from hon. members that the members of the present Parliament knew that they were only to get £500. That is true, but formerly they knew that they would only get £400 and notwithstanding that they subsequently accepted £600, and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and many other of the patriots were amongst them. They put it in their pockets very quickly. In the first year something may have been given to the church and to charity. In the first year the church possibly got £20 or £30, but never again thereafter. I can well imagine that by this increase the church during the first year will get beautiful organs and magnificent lamps, but the second year it will be less, and nothing at all the third year. I persist in my amendment.

I simply wish to remove a misapprehension owing to what has fallen from the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He suggests that fines inflicted for non-attendance would have then to be paid out of his private income by a member declining an allowance. If he had understood my amendment he would have followed that a member has the option to decline all or part ; so that any member could accept so much of the allowance as would pay for fines inflicted for non-attendance in Parliament.

I have tried to avoid any personalities. In spite of all that has been said, I submit that I am following the precedent of the old Cape House, which worked successfully and was just. I wish to be fair to the taxpayers. I recognize, as much as any person, that an hon. member has duties to perform all the year round. My motion might be a little harsh, but for the general good someone has to suffer. A person who comes from the country has to pay an amount which no other member has to pay. I have always stated that there ought to be an increase in the allowance The position is that you cannot do it in that way justly. I am sure it is the opinion of the Minister of Finance that the system I have laid down is the only just system, and I hope the Minister will see that it is a reasonable amendment. It is undignified to compel any member to write for his allowance, as suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels).

There are still evidently a number of hon. members who would like to make a debate of that matter.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.