from the Zoutpansberg Chamber of Commerce and Mines, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from inhabitants of Marico, for construction of a railway from Buhrmansdrift no Ottoshoop.

from L. J. Davidson, teacher.

from the Municipality of Petrusburg, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from W. H. Logeman, lecturer in physics, South African College.

from the Council of the Dutch Reformed Churches, praying that the preamble of the South Africa Act, 1909, may be so amended that the Supreme Being be acknowledged by the mentioning of His name therein.

The petition was read by the Clerk English and Dutch.

from the Right Reverend Dr. J. Rooney, Roman Catholic Bishop.

read the following message:

The House of Assembly transmits to the Honourable the Senate the Bill “To provide for the appointment, duties, and remuneration of a High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in the United Kingdom,” in which the Honourable the Senate has made certain amendments in clauses 1 and 2.

The House of Assembly has concurred in the amendment in the Dutch version of clause 1, and has made endorsement thereof in the copy herewith sent.

The House of Assembly respectfully submits to the Honourable the Senate that the proposed omission of the words “calculated at a rate” in clause 2 could be construed as having the effect of an increase of expenditure by an allocation of the appropriation of public money, and such omission by the Honourable the Senate would in consequence be in conflict with the provisions of section 60 of the South Africa Act.

The House of Assembly therefore regrets that it is unable to agree to this amendment, and trusts that the Honourable the Senate will not insist upon it.

House of Assembly, 14th March, 1911.

added that yesterday only sub-section 3 of section 60 was referred to, but the correctness of the decision given was made absolutely clear by sub-section 2 of that clause, which said that the Senate may not amend any Bill so far as it imposed taxation or appropriated revenue or moneys for the service of the Government.

asked (1) Whether it is correct that from 1904-1908 (about) Mr. Grant acted as secretary to the Education Department (Orange River Colony) under the designation of Administrative Clerk; (2) whether it is correct that in 1908 Mr. Conradie was appointed secretary to that department instead of Mr. Grant, mainly on the ground that the latter was not sufficiently acquainted with the Dutch language, and particularly in view of the fact that the Director at that time, Mr. Gunn, was also unacquainted with Dutch; (3) whether it is correct that the present Director, Dr. Viljoen, upon the resignation of Mr. Conradie, recommended Mr. Grant for the appointment upon the ground of long service, fitness, and also that he has since qualified himself in Dutch; and, if so, (4) whether he will state why the recommendations of the Director of Education were disregarded by the administration?

said he had no information to give, as the matters referred to were entirely within the province of the Provincial administration. He had, however, been informed that Mr. Conradie had withdrawn his resignation, and that, therefore, it was not necessary to consider the question of a new appointment.

said he would like to know whether Mr. Conradie had withdrawn his resignation in consideration of an increase of salary.

said that notice must be given of the question.

asked: (1) Whether it is a fact that nearly all employees in the Charlestown Railway workshops are being removed to Volksrust; and, if so, (2) whether he is prepared to state the reasons for such removal; and (3) what use will be made of the said workshops in the future?

said he would give the information asked for to-morrow.

asked: (1) Whether the Government contemplates calling for tenders for uniforms for the police, railway, or other Government departments; (2.) whether the Government will differentiate in the advertisements calling for such tenders between uniforms which may be made in the Union and those made outside; and (3) whether with a view to encouraging local industry the Government is prepared to pay a preferential or higher rate in favour of tenders for uniforms to be made in the Union?

said that though the Government desired to encourage local industries it had been found that a substantial saving was effected by importing uniforms directly. The whole question of the treatment to be applied to locally manufactured articles, as compared with imported articles, was, however, receiving the attention of the Government.

asked: (1) Whether he has received a report from the Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of the mine benefit societies, and, if so, whether he will place the same on the table of the House; and (2) if he has not yet received this report, whether he is in a position to state when he is likely to be in possession of the same?

said he laid the papers on the table yesterday.

asked whether it was a fact that a number of ex-convicts were employed by the police as illicit liquor and illicit gold traps, and, if so, how many?

said that so far as the Cape Province was concerned, no ex-convicts were employed for trapping purposes. Owing to the lateness of the question he had not been able to get the necessary information from the Transvaal, but he might tell the hon. member that he felt sure that, as far as the Chief of Police knew, trapping was not done by ex-convicts in the Transvaal.

moved that Messrs. Keyter and Steytler be appointed members of the Select Committee on Expropriation of Land for railway purposes.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the Government be requested to consider the desirability of restoring to all ministers of the Gospel the railway concessions previously enjoyed by them. He considered that the Railway Administration had not dealt justly by ministers of the Gospel. The lattet should be supported by every God-fearing State in spreading civilisation and education. As a rule they earned very little, though they were highly cultured men. Most of them lived far from the large centres of population, to which they have to send their off-spring for educational purposes. They were expected to visit, clothe, and feed the poor. Many clergymen ministered to more than one congregation, but their periodical visits were bound to be affected by the repeal of the concession. They were marriage officers, i.e., unpaid officials, and if they contravened the regulations they were liable to be punished severely. The concession had probably been withdrawn for the sake of revenue, but why did they allow members of Parliament and officials to travel gratis? It was a disgrace to come down on ministers of the Gospel.

in seconding, said that the Minister seemed to think more of sportsmen and members of touring companies who were still able to get concession tickets, than of ministers of religion. He could not see why there should be that disgraceful differentiation, especially in view of the enormous profits made. The mover might have gone further, and referred to the abolition of family excursion tickets.

in supporting, spoke of the good work done by the Church in regard to education, and said that if the travelling expenses of ministers were increased, so much could not be done for the good of the people as before. A minister had as much influence with his congregation as a member of Parliament had, and yet the latter could travel free on the railways. They should abolish concessions for sporting clubs, students, and others before touching those of ministers of the Gospel.

moved, as an amendment, that the words “and all registered nurses” be inserted after “ministers of religion.” If there was one class which deserved more consideration at the hands of the Government it was the nurses. He did not mean that all nurses should get the concession, but only those registered by the Medical Council. He was not asking for a new favour, but what had been on the Statute-book previously.

in seconding, said that he would like to know whether the hon. member for Woodstock meant only qualified nurses?

Yes.

Then I will have to move another amendment, as I want the probationers also included. (Laughter.) I hope that the hon. member will amend his amendment so that all nurses in hospitals will be included.

supported the hon. member for Middelburg. He said that certain poor congregations had but one minister, and the removal of concessions had resulted in considerably more expenses being incurred.

said he hoped the Minister of Railways would harden his heart and grant none of the concessions asked for. He considered that concessions ought to be strictly limited. If the Minister opened the door again to ministers of religion and nurses, it would be found that other classes would seek concessions with the same amount of plausibility and with the same desire to do good. Surely those who supported the ministers in their various denominations should provide them with the necessary means to travel about the country, and as regarded qualified nurses, he thought their fees for services should include travelling expenses.

supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat), because he felt that if there was one class of the community who ought to receive concessions it was the nursing class. He would like to point out to the hon. member who had just spoken (Mr. Orr) that, by granting the concessions which were asked for, they were not opening the door, because it was already open. Concessions had been granted, and if any class deserved concessions it was the nursing class. Speaking of hospital nurses up-country, he said that some received nothing at all, and others received very small pay. They worked very long hours day and night, and they needed a change at: least once a year. He had known of nurses who had been ordered to the coast for a change of air, but who bad to go to a farm in the neighbourhood of the hospital in which they were employed, owing to the fact that they could not afford travelling expenses’ to the coast. He wished to urge upon the Minister that it was an absolute necessity if they wished to have the work in hospitals carried on satisfactorily that the nurses should be given an opportunity of a change at the coast at least annually. The nurses were paid £40, £50, and £60 a year, and out of that it was impossible to come down to the coast and pay the full fare. After all the concession was one which would not be misused, because previously the rule was observed of refusing a nurse a concession unless she presented a certificate signed by the matron of the hospital. In that way it would be impossible for anyone to dress up as a nurse, and so obtain a concession on false pretences. He suggested that this rule could be followed again, or if the Minister liked he could arrange to get a certificate from a Justice of the Peace. If he liked, he could also restrict the nurses to a concession once a year.

said the amendment of the hon. member for Woodstock would stultify the motion. The withdrawal of the concession greatly inconvenienced missionaries—a very deserving class of people.

moved a further amendment in favour of concessions being granted to hospital nurses. These were the people, he said, they wanted to meet, and not the registered nurses, who were engaged in private practice, and could well afford to pay for travelling facilities on the railways out of their fees. He strongly urged the Minister to restore the concessions to hospital nurses. They were to a large extent in the employ of the Government, and as railway employees were given a concession annually, he thought it should be extended to them.

seconded the amendment.

said he was prepared to withdraw his amendment in favour of Dr. MacNeillie’s.

said he hoped the Minister would not harden his heart, as he had been advised to do, and that he would grant the very reasonable request which had been made.

said it appeared to him that this was a matter that rested, not with the Minister of Railways, but with the Minister of Finance. If hon. members would only read the Act of Union, they would find that the Railway Administration could charge all services rendered of a non-paying nature at the end of each year against the Treasury of the country. That meant that if they granted concessions, hon. members must be prepared, when the Estimates came up in the future, to make provision for them. In the past, concessions were given by the railways throughout the country, and no one knew the value of them. Under the Act of Union, however, the value of the concessions would have to be obtained. It was just as well to bear in mind that in granting concessions, no matter how desirable the cause might be, it was opening the door to others. If they granted concessions to ministers and nurses, they would be asked to grant them to doctors, lawyers, members of Parliament, and to every visitor. (Cries of “No. no.”)

proposed to insert after “hospital nurses,” the words “and school teachers.”

seconded the amendment.

hoped that an end would be put to that discussion, for the House had any amount of business to transact, and surely no one would think that Parliament would agree to such a motion. The next thing would be that they would have someone proposing that members’ wives and their families— (laughter)—should travel free—and some of the members had very big families. (Laughter.) Then there were some men who earned only 5s. a day. No one would dream of giving a concession to nurses and ministers, and yet refuse it to men getting only 5s. a day. The whole thing (added Mr. Quinn) was wrong entirely. Why had no one told them what these concessions would cost?

said he could not congratulate the last speaker on his efforts to save the time of the House. School teachers, he proceeded, were entitled to concession tickets twice a year, and that he thought was sufficient.

supported the motion, but regretted that the other amendments had been moved, which would tend to wreck that innocent little motion of the hon. member. (Laughter.)

proposed, as a further amendment, the addition of the words “and unemployed persons in search of employment, and Government employees earning less than 5s. a day.” (Cheers.)

seconded the amendment.

said he quite appreciated the motives which animated the hon. member who had proposed the motion, but the matter was not quite so easy as he thought. There was no doubt that ministers of religion and missionaries did very good work, and in many cases they were not amply remunerated for their services. But then, people who rendered services of that kind never were, and ought not to expect to be, fully remunerated; they must find their consolation to a large extent in other directions. (Laughter.) Notwithstanding that their remuneration was wholly insufficient, it was to their, credit that they went on doing good, and he was sure that whether they had that concession or not it would make no difference to their usefulness or to their anxiety to do their duty. He (Mr. Sauer) knew there would be amendments. (Laughter.) He knew the nurses—for whom they had every sympathy—would come. He expected the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) would have moved the inclusion of registered voters, because no man had been so mindful of their interests, and on each and every occasion the hon. member had tried to do his duty to that large and deserving class. (Laughter.) School teachers were allowed to travel twice a year with concession tickets. The reason was simply that education was a necessity, and was, so to say, a State department. It was recognised as a State duty to educate children, and there should be railway facilities for people engaged in education. The question had been asked: “Why not take away railway concessions from members of Parliament?” “I will tell you why,” proceeded Mr. Sauer. “They won’t let me—(laughter)—if they would, would. (Laughter.) My colleagues won’t let me take away concessions from Ministers, but, of course, in any case, as Minister of Railways, I should have to travel free.” (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Sauer said that when he saw the list of ministers of religion and different denominations he was taken aback, and he was sure that his hon. friend would think some of them a little outside the pale. If the motion were adopted they would have to include very good people like the Seventh Day Adventists, and they certainly ought not to exclude the Salvation Army, winch he did not know was not nearer the primeval principles of our religion than any other denomination. Then they would have to include the Ethiopian Church. South Africa had determined that there should be no State Church, and that was why we had this difference between the treatment meted out to ministers of religion and school teachers. Continuing, he said that though when Union came these concessions were granted throughout the country, he felt convinced that the question of granting concessions on the railways would have to be reconsidered, not only in view of the provisions of the South Africa Act, but because of the condition of things as they existed then. At the Cape, previous to the list being revised, the granting of railway concessions had become a scandal. Every man from Europe, more especially if he had a title, applied for, and was granted, full facilities to travel about the country. He got a compartment, not infrequently a saloon. He got his food, and all the attention possible and the only return the Railway Department received was a lot of unpleasant criticism as to the conduct of the railways and affairs generally in South Africa. (Laughter.) The more useful and the poorer classes got no consideration; those who had money, and could well afford to pay, got every consideration. Well, as he said, the thing had grown to be a scandal, and as soon as possible be put his foot down. Everybody asked for concessions, and when they reached him he always refused. Not only did they then give concessions to the rich, to Ministers, to members of Parliament, to ministers of religion, to teachers and children, but to lots of other people.

Ballet girls? (Laughter.)

Yes. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that before a revision of the list took place, these concessions were costing the Cape something like £183,000 per annum. (Shame.) All he wanted to say to the House was that they should be loth to allow these concessions to grow to such an extent again. He warned the House that if they made a beginning these concessions would grow and grow, and it would be most difficult to stem the tide once it was started. It had been said that he granted some concessions. What had been given? Practically to-day the only concessions, as far as he could recollect, were to members of Parliament, who would take them if they were not given— (laughter)—to teachers and to school children. Now, he would say that he would give these concessions to any class if it were business on the part of the Railway Department to do so. If a sufficient number of people came, and said that they wanted to go to a particular place, well, such concessions would be granted, for the simple reason that, it would pay the Railway Department to grant these concessions. Now, let him deal with circuses. (Laughter.) Unless they gave some concessions to owners of these shows, for the conveyance of their tamed and untamed animals, these shows would not be seen in places where they were seen now. And that he believed would be a calamity. (Laughter.) But these people got it because it was business for the department to pursue such a policy. He thought he was safe in saying that to-day concessions over the railways of South Africa had been practically abolished. He warned the House to be very careful about starting these concessions again. No doubt ministers of religion and the like did much good, but he did not see that they were deserving of concessions any more than any other class. It meant that if they granted concessions to ministers of religion, they would immediately be asked to extend the system to some other class. And if these applications were granted to any appreciable extent, instead of his being able to come to the assistance of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance—he hoped it would not happen again—the railway accounts would assume a very different aspect. He had been approached from all four corners of the world—(laughter)—and he had been called hard-hearted because he had not granted these requests. But it was not hardness of heart that made him refuse; it was the fact that he was only doing his duty as the Minister in charge of railways. He would be quite willing, if the motion were carried—he would do the same if the motion were withdrawn, which would be a more preferable course—to bring the matter to the notice of the Railway Board. It would be better if the motion were withdrawn in view of the provisions of the South Africa Act, because they should not attempt to interfere with the duties of those who were responsible for the working of the railways. If they did interfere with those duties, then they might as well throw the Act overboard and go on the old happy-go-lucky lines of old. In conclusion, he said he thought it would be infinitely better if things were left as they were; but if the motion were carried he would be prepared to bring the matter to the notice of the Board.

said that at first he was inclined to support the motion before the House, but after the very fair, clear, and reasonable explanation of the responsible Minister he could not do so.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Clayton and Dir. Hewat were withdrawn.

The amendments proposed by Dr. Mac-Neillie and Mr. H. W. Sampson were put and negatived.

put the motion, and declared the “Noes” had it.

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

Railways in course of construction at 50th May, 1910; and since that date; estimated cost of each; amounts expended on each at 30th May, 1910; and since that date up to the 31st January last; and from what funds the expenditure has been met.

moved that the papers laid on the table of the House on the 2nd and 3rd February, 1911, referring to the curtailing of the legal rights of railwaymen to be placed on the fixed establishment, be referred to the Government for consideration and report. Mr. Fremantle said he was sorry that this matter had been regarded as a sort of controversy between the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and himself. He wanted to say that it was nothing of the kind. It was a question very seriously affecting the rights of a very large number of men, and he thought that those hon. members who had not studied the papers which were laid on the table of the House would be surprised to find what a large number of men were affected. The papers showed the number of railwaymen who had been placed on the fixed establishment. It would, naturally, be supposed that the numbers would be uniform from year to year, but, as a matter of fact, there was a great divergence. In 1904 thirty-four men were placed on the fixed establishment, and the numbers tin the three following years were respectively 55, 52, and 53. In the year in which the present Minister of Railways came into office, the number suddenly jumped up from 53 to 701, while in the following year the number was 344, and the year after that 177. It was, therefore, obvious in face of those figures that something startling must have happened. What happened was, according to the papers laid on the table, that for a number of years the law affecting this matter was not carried out. That was a serious question affecting hundreds and even thousands of men in the Service in the Cape Province. The result had been that these men, who ought to have been put on, and who were not put on, ought to have had rights barring them against retrenchment, but retrenchment came at this time, and a number of these men who ought to have been on the fixed establishment were actually retrenched, they were reduced in their pay, and some were dismissed. A great injustice had been done, according to the findings of the Law Department, confirmed by two successive Attorneys-General. He must candidly confess that these papers had to a certain extent put a different light upon the matter, because the hon. member opposite went through some of the most extraordinary contortions on the subject of the law regarding this point, but he did eventually decide on an election tour that he would give the men their rights. It was not until the present Minister of Railways came into office that these unhappy men got the rights which they were entitled to all along. Some of the papers were distinctly entertaining. Mr. Fremantle referred to the papers regarding a meeting of the Cabinet held in 1907, at which, he said, it was resolved, contrary to law, to send out a certain circular. Proceeding, he said that all along it appeared from the documents, some of which were very amusing, that the heads of departments did not know what the law was. The Auditor-General bad condemned a good many of the hon. member’s (Sir T. Smartt’s) proceedings as illegal, and the Law Department confirmed this. Then, when the General Election came on, the Commissioner, with his high-minded regard for the registered voter, declared that he considered it a breach of faith to put obstacles in the way of the men, and he issued instructions on his political death-bed to the heads of departments that the men were to be put on the fixed establishment. Well, they were not put on until the hon. member was succeeded by a Commissioner of more vitality, who, after having been, about six months in office, decided that all the men were to be put on the fixed establishment. The result was that, in 1908, hundreds of men were put on—men who should have been on the fixed establishment long before. The law had been broken by the hon. member (Sir T. Smartt) in a matter vitally affecting the interests of thousands of men. Continuing, he said that he hoped the Minister of Railways, now that he had restored to the men their rights in this respect, would go further and endeavour to see that the men who had now been put on the fixed establishment when they should reduced in pay, in consequence of not being on the fixed establishment when they should have been bad their proper pay restored to them as if they had been on the establishment. He also hoped that if men had been dismissed in consequence of these breaches of the law, and desired to be re-employed, they should be taken on again, if possible. It was only a simple act of justice which was asked for.

in seconding the motion, said he failed to see that the diatribe of the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) was pertinent to the motion he had proposed. He deprecated the tone of the hon. member’s remarks, and assured him that there were other hon. members in that House who were just as mindful of the interests of the railwaymen as he was.

said the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) was, as usual, rather out in his history. The hon. member had referred to certain grievances which, he said, he (Sir T. W. Smartt) went into on the eve of an election, and which afterwards were redressed by the present Minister of Railways. The latter had apparently furnished the hon. member with material for his speech, and seemed greatly to enjoy the attack made by the hon. member on him (Sir T. W. Smartt). Well, as he had said, the hon. member was a little out in his history. If the hon. member would again consult the papers, he would find that during the last general election in the Cape Colony, he (Sir T. W. Smartt) was not in office. The gentleman then in office was the present Minister of Railways, who, like the hon. member, no doubt took every opportunity at that time of showing the railwaymen of the country what an extremely good and strong friend they had in him. When charges of this sort were made against him, he thought it was only fair that he should say that the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) was a little out in his dates. When the Government, of which he happened to be a member, came into office in 1904, they found that the country was on the eve of a very serious financial crisis. They had, he believed, the inheritance of a Budget with something like an expenditure of eleven and three-quarter millions, but in the space of a few years it was cut down by about three millions. That was in the space of three years, and during that period the railway expenditure had to be reduced by something in the vicinity of two million pounds. Consequently, in April, 1904—that was shortly after the Government of which he was a member came into office—they were faced with the position of retrenchment, and a circular was issued from the Prime Minister’s Office with regard to placing no more men on the fixed establishment. It was then pointed out, that owing to a resolution of the House, there were a large number of men who, at the expiration of a period of ten years’ service, and upon a certificate of efficiency, would be affected. A second notice was issued, stating that all persons engaged on probation prior to the date of the issue of the first circular should, on the completion of their probation course, be recommended for appointment to the fixed establishment. That was a long time prior to the general election, and every man who was entitled to be placed on the fixed establishment, and had his case brought up, was put on the fixed establishment. There were large numbers of men who had been in the railway service for over ten years, but they never made application, and the heads of departments never brought their names forward, and neither he nor any other Minister knew of their existence.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that all papers and correspondence in connection with the proposed irrigation works at Embokotwa, in the district of Elliot, be laid on the table of the House, He pointed out that a labour colony had been organised, the people were there, and land had been allotted. Only the water was lacking. The Cape Parliament had had an inquiry held; but there the matter rested. A few thousands of pounds would put the matter straight.

seconded.

said that there were a great number of papers; and he did not think it would be a useful thing to lay all the old papers on the table of the House. The hon. member could look into them, and if he did so, he (Mr. Fischer) did not think he would want them on the table. He suggested that the motion should be withdrawn. He was willing to make an investigation, and if the hon. member moved at a later stage, he would find Ministers sympathetic.

The motion was withdrawn.

moved that the petition from Charlies Mills, Mayor of Kroonstad, and 148 others, praying for the refund of £5,373 14s. 2d., being half of the amount that was required for building the Alexandra Bridge across the Valschrivier, at Kroonstad, or for other relief, presented to the House on December 15, 1910, be referred to the Government for consideration. The hon. member pointed out that, as the result of a compromise between the then Orange River Colony Government and the Town Council of Kroonstad, the bridge was built in 1904. The Council was to bear half the cost. Though the depression prevented it from doing so out of revenue, it borrowed money and actually paid the whole cost. The late Orange River Colony Parliament had allocated £103,000 to bridge-building, and the Council considered itself entitled to a refund out of that sum. The bridge spanned a public stream, formed part of a public road, and was controlled by the Government. The Town Council could not carry on any structural alteration except with the assent of the Government. The claim was a just one, and should be met.

who seconded the motion, also gave a history of the affair, and said that it was the duty of the Government to have constructed that bridge. If Kroonstad had waited that bridge would have been one of the first, if not the first, bridge built by the Government in the Free State. He thought that the Municipality had a very good case If or the clemency and the consideration of the Government.

said that if the motion were carried Government would bq quite prepared to consider the question. The Free State Parliament had, however, after inquiry, refused the request when it was made to it.

said that it was true that the Orange River Colony Parliament had refused to vote the amount, but the circumstances of that time must be taken into account. It had been the last day of the session, and no provision had been made for that matter; and if provision had been made on the Estimates, he thought that the bridge at Kroonstad would have been the first to be built in the Orange River Colony. As it was, the Town Council were very quick in building the bridge, but backward in asking for a refund. The Government would have had to spend a good deal of money in keeping the drift in order if the bridge had not been built.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the Government be requested to consider the desirability of amending the Workman’s Compensation Act so as to extend its benefits throughout the Union to farm servants employed on machinery. The mover said that when the Cape Workman’s Compensation Act was passed there was a good deal of discussion on this point, and it was argued that agricultural labourers should be included in the scope of the measure. Farm servants employed on machinery did come under the operations of the Workman’s Compensation Act in Tasmania, England, Natal, and the Transvaal, but in the case of the latter it would be very difficult for such workers to make a claim in the event of accident. Temporary employees were excluded from the Transvaal Act He hoped the time was coming when all agricultural employees—(Ministerial cries of “No”)—and domestic servants would be entitled to receive compensation in the event of accident. Farmers need not be afraid of having a heavy financial responsibility placed on them, for most farmers hired machinery from contractors, and it was the latter who would be responsible. Then farmers could take out accident policies to cover their risk at a small amount. Further, the Workman’s Compensation Act limited the payment of compensation to £300 or £400. He had every confidence that farming members of the House would agree that he was only asking for fair, just, and honourable treatment for those working on farms with machinery.

seconded.

moved as an amendment to the motion proposed by Dr. Hewat to omit all the words after the word “of” in line 2, and to substitute: “introducing a Bill granting compensation to workmen throughout the Union on the lines of the Transvaal Workmen’s Compensation Acts of 1907 and 1910, with such alterations as the Government may consider necessary.” The hon. member said he had not placed his amendment on the paper in a spirit of antagonism. The object of his amendment was to extend a better and more comprehensive Act—the Transvaal Act—over the whole of South Africa. He proceeded to deal with the position in Natal, and said he desired to submit his proposal to the House. The Transvaal Act was far better than that of the Cape. The former extended to all employees with the exception of domestic servants. He also pointed out that agricultural employees were protected under the Transvaal Act, which was not the case in the Cape Act. It had been said that the Transvaal Act was defective. Well, if that were so, then they could remedy these defects, and pass an Act that would be satisfactory to everybody. He proceeded to deal in detail with the Acts of the Transvaal and the Cape, and said that he thought that a suitable measure could be framed if they took the Transvaal law as a basis. The only defect he could see in the Transvaal Act was that it only applied to Europeans, whereas the Cape Act applied to all. In conclusion, he thought it necessary that an Act of this kind should be applied throughout South Africa, and he hoped his amendment would commend itself to all sections of the House.

seconded the amendment.

said he thought it would be admitted the hon. member for Woodstock had done good service in bringing this matter to the notice of the House. It was important, because they had been told that it required settlement before matters in the Union could work smoothly. There were different Acts in the different Provinces. Then, so far as the natives were concerned, there was a danger of complications, in view of what had happened recently in the House. The hon. member for Bechuanaland would now have an opportunity of assisting to put into practice the precept he laid down the other day in regard to Government not contributing to compensation. Hon. members who were engaged in agricultural operations should accept the same measure of liability as they so cheerfully laid down for members who were engaged in other pursuits. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee, he (Mr. Chaplin) had not the same blind faith in Government as the hon. member had, and, therefore, he was not prepared to leave this matter to the discretion of the Government. He thought it possible that the Government may be inclined to listen to those sounds of dissent which came to them from the benches behind them just now, and, therefore, he was not prepared to leave this matter to the Government, but very much preferred to support the original motion of the hon. member for Woodstock. The only criticism he had to make upon the motion was that it did not go far enough. It was only applicable to workmen employed on machinery. He did not see why it should not be applicable to workmen who were employed in all agricultural pursuits. What difference did it make to the next-of-kin of a native, for instance, whether he were gored to death by a bull or killed by the flywheel of an engine? It was said that this would be a burden on the farmers. He did not see why, if it were a burden, they should not bear their burden exactly in the same way as other employers had to bear their burden. It was said that farming was a very healthy occupation—(Ministerial cheers)— and that there would be very few accidents. His answer to that was that, if there were few accidents, provision against those accidents would cost the farmer very little. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped that in the Consolidated Bill, which they must have sooner or later, the Government would see fit to introduce a clause making compensation for accidents applicable to workmen engaged in every sort of employment, no matter what that employment was.

said that he did not think that the farmers would object to the payment of compensation when a farm employee was injured by a machine, because the employer could supervise the machinery; but where an employee was injured by a bull, for example, it was quite a different matter, because the employer could not keep it under supervision the whole day and night. The hon. member pointed out that when an employee on a farm became ill or was injured, the farmer always sent for a medical man, and saw that the injured man was well tended. He could say that from his own experience. An ordinary employer did not take the same care of his employees. He would support the original motion, but could not go beyond that.

moved an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee, deleting all the words after “introducing” and the insertion of the words, a “Workman’s Compensation Bill, whose provisions shall apply to all workers throughout the Union.” He said the Transvaal Act was far too narrow in its application. In bringing about an Act for the Union, they had got to consider that four-fifths of the workers were black or coloured. He went on to deal with the coloured workers of Natal and the Cape, and said that these men were human beings, and had a right to be compensated if they were injured. In this matter he did not trust the Minister nor the Ministry in this respect, and that the House should give an opinion on the subject of white and coloured labourers and compensation. Another phase of the question was that dealing with female workers, for whom he thought the Union Act should cater. They were entitled to compensation, and they should see that they got it. He wanted a comprehensive Act that could he applied to the whole of South Africa. On the point of compensation, he thought that authority should be given to the Count to adjust the scale of compensation over and above the basic principle at present. They should not only look at the matter from a monetary point of view, hut chiefly because it acted as a preventive of carelessness.

seconded the amendment to the amendment.

asked why hon. members were now so desirous of extending the provisions of the Workman’s Compensation Act to agricultural employees? Why this sudden desire for the alteration of the Act? Who had asked for it? Continuing, the hon. member said that those who had spoken seemed to have very little practical knowledge of the way in which the work on a farm was carried on, and the kind way in which the farmers treated their employees, and the expenses they incurred in case a man was injured. If the motion were carried, farm servants would suffer, because all that would disappear. He hoped that the motion would not be agreed to.

said that there was a great difference between the conditions on the mines and on farms; and on the latter very few accidents occured. The mine employees could be kept under strict supervision, while it was a practical impossibility to keen the different gangs of workmen on a farm under supervision. Farm employees, again, could obtain liquor in the villages, and as a result accidents might happen, for which the employer could not be held responsible. In case of accident, not only did the farmer lose the services of his men, but he had also to pay the doctor’s bill.

in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Springs, said be found some difficulty in supporting the original motion, because it meant extending the law existing in one Province in one direction only to agricultural servants. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) had said that he thought natives should be included, and all he (the speaker) could, say was, it would be a happy day when they were included in measures of this kind. He considered that all workers should be brought within the scope of the Act. If there was exclusion in one instance, obviously others would want to be excluded. Provision should be made for farm labourers. Simply because the farming members on the Ministerial benches had a majority, that was no reason why they should exempt themselves. He considered that the broadest lines should be followed in regard to legislation of this kind.

said that, in regard to what had been said about the inclusion of farm labourers, it was forgotten what different conditions existed on farms as compared with those in the large towns and the mines. What was “machinery”? Did it include a spade, sheep-shears, a wagon? What would be the effect if farm labourers were to receive such compensation in cases of injury? Simply that the employer would grant less privileges to his employees. He thought that if the motion were agreed to, it would be regretted even by the farm employees themselves, who now enjoyed so many privileges. As a matter of fact, “bywoners” would be sent packing without delay. At present even natives had many privileges on farms, and he had never heard of a native being driven off because he had grown too old to work.

said that he could not see why such a motion had been brought forward. There was no Workman’s Compensation Act in the Orange Free State. The Jagersfontein Mine, however, stated to its employees that in case of accident it would pay compensation on the same scale as under the Cape Workman’s Compensation Act. The hon. member went on to say that he thought that in any Act dealing with workmen’s compensatoin there should also be provisions dealing with insurance and the payment of premiums, as was done in the German Act. Most farmers were worth from £500 to £1,000, and employed, say, four or five servants. If an accident occurred the farmer might have to pay £500 compensation, which would be ruin to him. For that matter, people had been unable to, devise a compensation Act giving universal satisfaction, in any part of the world. With regard to big companies it was a different matter, and they had so much capital that they could make due provision for compensation in case of acciden To demand that a farmer with limited capital should have to pay compensation was unreasonable and impossible. Before they had a comprehensive Workman’s Compensation Act for the (Union there would have to be a good deal of preliminary investigation.

said that if the motion had provided that the compensation to farm servants should be paid by the State and obtained from the mining industry, it would probably have met with no objection from hon. members opposite. He had heard no really sound argument against the motion. Accidents on farms were rare, and the farmers could obtain good terms from insurance companies, so that he could not see the force of the argument that farmers could not afford to take the risks of having to pay compensation. He could not understand why farmers, if they mow voluntarily made provision for their injured servants, should object to it being made compulsory to do so.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until March 29.