1.—13

30

the object of improving it ?—I may start off by saying that I have been thirty years in the colony and have never indentured an apprentice. 53. Do you object to the principle of indenturing?— Yes. 54. Can you give reasons for your objection?— Yes. It takes away from the liberty of the individual, either on the one side or the other. . I may say that the first cross I have put against the Bill is at clause 10. 55. What is your objection to clause 10 ? —The fixing of the rate of wages. 56. Have you an objection to the rate of wages being fixed by Act ? —Yes. While I have not many apprentices, or those who would come under the designation of apprentices, they will vary as much as they do in other walks of life, and the terms must necessarily be higher and lower according to the grade in the same class of individuals. We cannot all be on the same plane unfortunately. But this clause 10 is the very essence of levelling. 57. It only provides a minimum?— True enough, but that minimum is regulated by Act of Parliament. In still referring to this clause, I think that to those most interested, and that is the apprentices themselves, it will be very injurious. I take it there will be no spirit of emulation if this is put into operation. Take two brothers, learning the same trade in the same place. One is industrious, and does considerably more than the other, but both get the same pay. Might he not say, " Why should I do so much more than my brother? He get just as much as I do." I think it will retard any spirit of emulation. In a similar way the master may say, "I am not going to pay him more than to the brother, although he does more work." I think there is no necessity for dealing with such a question as this. SK. You think the whole question would be better left to private arrangement ?—To be left as between the master and apprentice. The 11th clause then deals with the increase of wages. There, again, I think it would operate in many cases unfairly. 59. In the same way as the two brothers you quote ? —There are apprentices who get their increases more frequently than those mentioned in this clause, and there are other apprentices whose wages it would be a tax on the employer to increase in the manner set out in this Bill. With.regard .to clause 12, I certainly take exception to subsection (b). All through my history the question of eight hours per day has never been my limit of work, and even our half-holiday now has very seldom affected myself. The reason I brought up the question of eight hours a day is because you are going to tax me again with overtime, for by keeping a book I suppose you mean taking money to the bank and depositing it in so many different names. I think that is a severe tax, and a tax which ought to be put on no master whatever. By clause 15, if I fail to perform that duty for seven days lam liable to a penalty of 10s. Illness or absence might intervene, but there is nothing to protect the master from those circumstances. In clause 16, subsection (3), there is a penalty attached to a master offending against any of the provisions of that section of £10. It seems to me that the masters must be regarded as something worse than inhuman. In clause 17, subsection (2), a master, if he has any one who will come under the heading of apprentice, will be liable to a penalty of not exceeding 20s. for every day, after three months has expired, if the male or female is employed and not apprenticed. Under subsection (3) of the same clause, I take it that any one who has been with me for a shorter or longer period may be withdrawn at the instance of the parties therein mentioned. 60. No, it is the opposite to that ?—I take it that he can take him or her away from me to bind him or her to another person. If that is the right interpretation, then subsection (2) of clause 17 would seem to me to be unworkable, because I would say, " Very well, take them away." Clause 20, I think, is most abhorrent to any honourable master's feelings. It is simply enough to make any one say he would have no apprentices whatever. I have been in communication with a large employer who, I understand, has not been supcenaed to attend here, in Dunedin, and he tells me —he is the head of one of the largest firms in Dunedin—that he and another large firm have resolved, if this Bill becomes law, to insist upon the apprentices being removed, and, if they cannot do that, then all the apprentices coming afterwards will be subject to a premium before being received into the business ; so that I contend, from that, that this Bill is going to very seriously hamper the rising generation, and also to kill the very industries the Government have been anxious to foster. I quite entertain this view, that if I am to have apprentices they will have to bring a premium with them. 61. You object altogether to the provisions of clause 20 ? —Yes. Clause 21 refers to grievances. The grievance may arise on the apprentice's side. It may be just or unjust, and one can always make out a very good case if he has a good advocate. That cuts both ways. An apprentice can get up a grievance, and make a very good case out, and we should be subject to penalties. I see it is £5 by the next clause. The master may have a grievance against the boy or girl, as the case may be, but with the stronger evidence they could bring he gets the worst of it. Under such conditions, what harmony could exist between master and apprentice if they are holding each other at arm's length. If there is a grievance, and it is taken before a Magistrate, what harmony can exist between the master and apprentice ? I contend that it is these Bills which are causing a line of demarcation to be raised between the master and the employed which did not exist before they were brought into operation. This Bill is one of them ; and then there is the Factories Bill, and the Shop and Shop-assistants Bill. 62. Do you not think the Factories Bill a good one ?—No. 63. Are you aware of the condition of things before Mr. Bradshaw's Bill was introduced?— He told me who the delinquents were at that time. 64. Girls were working up to 10 and 12 o'clock, and into Sunday morning ? —Yes. 65. Do you not think that a Bill which has altered that has done some good?—-Yes; but if there is a little disease in the body it does not follow that you should kill the body in order to get at the disease.