from L. P. White, late chief constable of Somerset East.

for the Direct Popular Veto.

for legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor to aboriginal natives.

for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

for legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor to aboriginal natives.

from J. W. A. Klock, late gaoler of Jansenville.

Memorandum by University Council on the subject of educational requirements for admission to Civil Service.

said that yesterday the whole of the civilised world was deeply shocked by the news of the greatest maritime disaster on record, the loss of the Titanic. That ship, the largest ever built, and one that was considered to be as safe as could be, had gone to the bottom with most of the people who were on board; many hundreds of lives had been lost. In the face of such a calamity they stood awestruck. It made them suddenly realise how faulty and frail was the work of man’s hands, and how when they felt they were in perfect safety their fate really rested in the hands of Providence. England, and other lands, and South Africa as well, had been plunged into the deepest grief by the disaster. He would be expressing the feeling of that House, and of the whole of South Africa, in the motion he proposed: “That this House has heard with profound sorrow and regret of the appalling calamity which had occurred through the loss at sea of the steamship Titanic, and desires to express its deep sympathy with all those who have been so suddenly bereaved.”

said he rose on behalf of hon. members on that side of the House to second the resolution of sympathy with those who had lost their friends in the disaster which had overtaken the Titanic. In any circumstances their sympathy would have been deep in the face of such an overwhelming disaster. It was the more so because the Titanic was a British ship, and those on board were mostly citizens of their own Empire, or of the kindred nation of the United States. Under any circumstances this catastrophe would evoke the deepest sympathy, and he was perfectly certain that the words that had been uttered by his right hon. friend expressed the opinions of everyone throughout the length and breadth of the Union. It was difficult to realise what a loss of this sort must mean, and we had not yet received the fullest information. He felt perfectly certain that when they did receive further information of the sad catastrophe they would find that then, as in the past, British seamen had been found at the moment of danger to have stuck to their duty, and to have done all they could to rescue the lives of those in their charge.

said that he supported the motion on behalf of his hon. friends.

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

moved that the Select Committee on Agreement for Sale and Transport of Scrap Iron consist of the Minister of Mines, Sir Thomas Cullinan, and Messrs. Henderson, Rademeyer, Rockey, My burgh, and Meyler, the mover to be specially exempted from service thereon.

seconded.

was convinced that the appointment of such a committee was unnecessary. He had wished yesterday to have the debate postponed, but owing to the action of the Leader of the Opposition, his motion had not been put to the vote. He thought that the Free State should have a representative on the committee. It should not have been ignored. He proposed that the name of Mr. Keyter be substituted for that of Mr. Meyler.

thought the hon. member was asking them to do something very invidious. He suggested that the usual course should be followed, and another name added.

said that when the motion was first brought up, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth saw him and explained that there would be some difficulty in the way of his serving on the committee. He thought it very unusual that the hon. member who moved for the appointment of a Select Committee should ask to be exempted from service on it. He quite recognised that it was for hon. members opposite to say who should represent them, and therefore he had taken no further notice of the names they had suggested. He put it to the hon. member that under the circumstances he should not insist on his motion.

said that he had to attend the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee every morning, and the Minister of Finance had asked him not to accept work on other committees. In fact he could not.

The motion was agreed to.

the CHAIRMAN put the new clause, as follows: 17. (1) Every application for a holding shall be made in writing as nearly as possible in the form prescribed by regulation, and shall be addressed, in the case of an applicant in South Africa, to the Minister. (2) Every such application shall have attached thereto a declaration by the applicant in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act, and in the case of an applicant from outside the Union he shall renew the declaration within one month after his arrival within the Union. (3) If an applicant make in such a declaration any false statement material to the subject of the application, knowing the same to be false, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to the penalties prescribed by law for perjury: and if a holding has been allotted to any applicant (whether from South Africa or oversea), who has been convicted of making such a false declaration the Minister may, unless five years have expired since the date of the declaration, cancel the lease of the holding, and no compensation shall be payable in respect of improvements effected by that applicant on the holding.

said he wished to know the intention of the Government with regard to the Bill. He pointed out there was the Misers’ Phthisis Bill, and thought it best to report progress.

No, no.

said that there was an agreement that the Miners’ Phthisis Bill would be resumed that afternoon. Why not finish the Miners’ Phthisis Bill?

said the hon. member need have no fear. There were only a few clauses of this Bill left, and it had been before a Select Committee. He was as anxious as the hon. member to get the Miners’ Phthisis Bill past the second reading, and he hoped the way would not be blocked.

said that he wanted something more definite. Something of the same sort happened last year, and they objected to being gagged in this way. If they on that bench said anything regarding the clauses of the measure before the committee they would be told that they were blocking the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. He moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

moved in line 12 to delete the word “five,” and insert “one.” He said that surely they did not want any uncertainty hanging about a man’s title for a period of five years. One year was quite sufficient. They did not want the extent of time to be unendurable. And, in addition, this ground might have been transferred to someone else, and when that had been done with the consent of the Minister, to say that the title might be cancelled would be rather hard.

said he was sorry he could not accept the amendment. He thought the hon. member meant well, but he did not think one year would guard against the man who might carelessly, or wilfully, make a false declaration. He thought five years was not too long, because it would give them ample time to find out if there was anything wrong. He did not think they should make it too easy for a man to make a false declaration.

thought the period should be kept at five years, so as to allow the Government every opportunity of ascertaining that a man had not made a false declaration.

said that a man who made a false declaration would be punished twice, and first for perjury, which was a heavy punishment. He supported the amendment.

opposed the amendment, and said they wanted to get the best men on the land. He thought that people who made false declarations should be severely punished.

said the hon. member for Prieska had evidently not read the amendment, and the clause as it stood would lead to the punishment of innocent persons. If the amendment were agreed to, the Department of Lands would be obliged within twelve months to institute an inquiry into the declarations made.

said the amendment actually protected those who deliberately made false declarations.

The amendment was negatived.

New clause 17 was agreed to.

On clause 15,

regretted that the second section had been put in.

thought that the age of 13 was too young for a person to have landed property.

said the knowledge necessary for farmers differed in different parts of South Africa. So far as age was concerned, those who had left the colleges should have the opportunity to obtain land. Besides that, many boys of eighteen already knew enough of farming.

said that he thought it was going rather far to make boys of 18 landed proprietors. They would be keeping out grown-up people, and he thought that the provision was very dangerous.

said that here they intended giving a farm to a boy of 18, and they would not give him a vote until three years afterwards. He would move that the age should be 21.

said that a man might die without property, and might leave a son of 18, who had his widowed mother to support, and who might also be a competent farmer. Why should he be debarred from settling on the land, and why should three valuable years be wasted in such a case?

said that it was not intended to make a general rule of that. The age of 18 also figured in the Victoria Act.

hoped that the amendment would be withdrawn, because if they raised the age to 21 years, a young man, in the special case which had been mentioned, would run about for three years—the most valuable years of his life—when he might have an opportunity of being settled on the land. Were they to remain like slaves as bijwoners on ground belonging to others? They had quite enough experience to make a start. The Minister should not give way.

said that under the Defence Bill young men must serve when 18 years of age and defend their country, and here they wanted to exclude a young man, 18 years of age, from owning such land. Did they prefer to give the land to people from oversea? Immigrants did not know the country, whilst these young men did, and the amendment was therefore a double injustice.

asked what would be done if such a youth did not fulfil his obligations, and neglected to pay, for instance?

put the question that the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

The amendment was negatived.

The clause as amended in Select Committee was agreed to.

On clause 16,

pointed out in sub-section (3) an inconsistency between the Dutch and English versions, “applikatie” in the Dutch appearing as “applicant” in the English.

said it was obvious that the word in English was wrong, but, he added, he did not want to dispute, because he did not want to take any part in this Bill.

The Dutch version was amended.

moved in sub-section (5) to omit “as far as possible,” after “shall.” They were anxious on those benches, he said, that as far as possible—though that would not, they knew, be very far—this Bill should fee made to serve the interests of the men without land in this country. So far as they could judge, that was not the real intention of the Bill. Every obstacle seemed to be put in the way of the poor man, and every facility given to the man who had got some capital. The object seemed to be to create another landed class, who would back up the reactionary and conservative interests, in this Bill. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”) He was opposed to that policy.

supported the amendment, and wanted to know why the last part of the clause had been deleted by the Select Committee.

said that he wanted to ask the same question as the hon. member for Prieska.

said they had discussed this particular point in committee, and he believed, if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Georgetown were adopted, it might reduce the administration of the Land Settlement Bill almost to a farce, because the man who had no land might be quite unsuitable for land settlement. They did not want to make any hard and fast rule, and so they inserted the words “as far as possible.”

said he did not agree with the hon. member who had just spoken. He had raised the point of the individual applying for land, and a man who had land applying also. He took it that the man applying for land who had no land should be given the first opportunity of making a living. A more burning question than the settlement of the land was the settlement of the people. The right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West stated that the poor whites would soon be knocking at the door; they were knocking at the door now. As the clause stood now, anyone possessing land might have the preference over anyone not possessing land. Under this clause the Minister might do what he liked, and they did not want to give him that opportunity.

said they thought it best under all circumstances to leave this question to the discretion of the Minister, because it might be that some person had property in the town, and it would be an extreme hardship if that man were precluded from this Land Settlement Act. The hon. member made a mistake in thinking that this Bill was a Bill for the settlement of the poor whites. He thought it best to leave the clause as it ‘was.

hoped that the amendment would not be agreed to. Cases might arise where a property had been divided among many children so that each got such a small share that they could not farm successfully. Such children should not be deprived of the advantages of the Bill. A town erf might be worth £50, and be valued by the municipality at £200. Such a valuation would deprive the owner of the advantages provided in the Bill, and that was not intended.

said that supposing two men appeared before the Board and both satisfied the requirements under section 15, one of the men having land and the other not having any, he took it that the man who had no land would have the preference. As he said at the second reading, he thought that many of the provisions were going to defeat what the Minister had in view. The poor white man, to a large extent, had made the colony of Victoria. Continuing, the hon. member said there were men in this country who, if they were allowed to go on the land, would show results equal to those of the early settlers. He thought the words “the Minister shall” could only be understood to mean “the Minister as far as possible.”

said that he could not possibly understand why the hon. members on the cross-benches had made that proposal, because if that amendment were agreed to those who had a little property in the towns or villages would be debarred from getting an opportunity of settling on the land. That would apply especially to Vrededorp and would prove a hardship. It was the intention to get those very people on the land.

also spoke against the amendment, and said that a man must have some capital before he could, under that measure, be settled on the land. A man who had a little property might form a most desirable settler.

said he quite agreed with the hon. member for Roodepoort in the case of the two men he cited that the one who had no land should be given the preference providing he complied with the requirements of the Act.

said he did not think it was necessary to further explain the clause. It appeared as if it might be necessary to appoint another Board to consult with the hon. member for Roodepoort when making grants of land. (Laughter.) It might happen that a man with no land and without qualifications to cultivate applied, was he to be given a preference over a decent fellow who happened to own a small plot and showed a liking for work? Were they to tell this man that no land could be given to him? He could only say that such an amendment came from those who only sat and wrote and had no practical experience.

said the Bill seemed to be a way through a back-door of giving the land to those who were already owners. What they wanted to see was the poorer class of white people settling on the land. He thought a preference should be shown to the poor whites in this country, no matter to what nationality they belonged, and that their interests should be considered before those of present land-owners.

hoped the Minister would not accede to the amendment. It was being argued that it would be possible for the Minister under this clause, to allow landowners to become further possessed of land under this Act. But clause 18 clearly showed that it would be impossible for such an owner to take land.

He would not be able to occupy it for the sake of his family, and would be liable to a penalty for making a false declaration. So it was clear that there was no intention to give a man who had land already more land. But exceptional cases might arise where a man might own an erf, and unless some such provision was made he would be compelled to sell it before applying for an allotment. What would be the position of such a man if, after he had sold his erf, his application was refused? Dealing with the remark made by the hon. member for Roodepoort, he quoted from the report of the Select Committee to show that the Minister had far greater power in Natal and Zululand than it was now proposed to give him. He hoped that the Labour members would not further obstruct the passage of the Bill; their object seemed to be to prevent the Miners’ Phthisis Bill being reached in time.

said, in reference to a remark made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, that the Labour party had admitted that there were many good points in the Bill, they thought that, other things being equal, preference should be given to the men with no land.

declared the amendment lost.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew.

New clause 19,

moved as a new clause 19, a statement showing the number of applications received for allotment, and giving the names and addresses of the applicants who have been accepted and rejected respectively, shall, within one month after the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, be laid on the tables of both Houses.

This was agreed to.

On clause 19,

said that even at the risk of drawing the charge that they wished to delay coming to the Phthisis Bill he would move in line 17, to omit “The period of every lease shall be five years,” and to substitute “every lease shall be in perpetuity subject, after the first five years, to revision of rent at stated intervals as hereinafter provided.” They believed that the land should be owned by the whole of the people and not by a few. Their object was that the land should be taken by the State and then given to others. There was a difference between holding land and owning land.

put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

I should like to thank the party opposite. (Cries of “Order, order.”) I—(Cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member—

I thought I might speak—(Cries of “Order.”)

On the clause.

I am speaking to the clause. (Laughter.) I am not casting any reflection—(Cries of “Order.”)

I will merely remark—(Cries of “Order!”)

You must stop until members get back to their places.

said that as members were now back in their places, he would merely remark on this clause that he wished to congratulate the Minister and the Government on the courtesy they showed to hon. members, and also upon the profound liberality and immense erudition they had shown on this subject. He wanted to point out that if this clause went through as it was, they would create a number of small freeholders. Was there no tendency in the world for the large capitalists to eat up the small freeholders? And the Parliament of ten or fifteen years hence would be faced with the same problem of the redistribution of the land they were now trying to distribute. The House scorned the suggestions they made for the good of the future, because they were too hide-bound to recognise the need. He would prophesy that the big capitalists would eat up the small freeholders in the future.

asked if the hon. member would explain how the capitalists were going to eat them up?

When under the provisions of this Bill those in possession of the land become ultimate and entire freeholders.

The clause, as amended in Select Committee, was agreed to.

On clause 22,

moved, in line 30, after “unpaid,” to insert “or any sum not being less an amount than one hundred pounds sterling on account of such balance, in which case a pro rata deduction shall be made either in the number of future payments or in the amount of such payments.” He said that the Bill provided that when a man had the property, he could pay off the sum by forty half-yearly payments; but there was no provision to allow him to pay a larger sum than the necessary instalment, and then either pay a less number of instalments or instalments of a less value than was laid down.

said he had nothing against that, but he hoped the hon. member would not take it amiss if he altered the wording, as it might be deemed necessary at a later stage.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 23,

moved as an amendment to insert at the end of sub-section (1): “provided, however, that where a holding has been granted to a partnership or to two or more lessees in undivided shares, it shall be sufficient if at least one partner or Jessee resides thereon.” The hon. member said he hoped the Minister would not refuse the amendment. It was a serious matter, for in the Transvaal occupation was insisted on, even if the occupiers perished from hunger. He knew of partners in remote districts who had exhausted all their capital, and could not remain longer owing to their distance from the markets. The contract was thereupon cancelled, and that was unfair. Other clauses of the Bill would prevent capitalists from gaining an undue advantage, and so long as there was one occupant on a piece of ground surely the object had been obtained.

said that they had got in the Bill a definition of “lessee,” which did not include a partnership, as suggested by the hon. member. The amendment would open the door to a number of persons holding a partnership. He would like to ask whether, having regard to the definition of “person” and “individual,” it was in order to introduce a number of persons holding a partnership?

said he thought it was in order.

said that the amendment was going to destroy the whole object of the Bill. It was going to open the door to the holding of land by a large number of capitalists. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the hon. member would consider for a moment the vital effect of this amendment, and that he would withdraw it, as otherwise there was very little use in going on with the Bill.

said that they wanted to make that a workable Bill. What would happen if a number of persons had started farming but found themselves without sufficient capital to work the farm? Their last state would be worse than their first. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), could easily speak as he did, because conditions were entirely different in Cape Town. What he (Mr. Kuhn) was referring to was a part of the country which was very sparsely populated, and where they had actually to pay people to go there. He was sure that it was not the Minister’s intention to have a Bill which would be as the Laws of the Medes and Persians, but to do something to assist the people of the country, and take the peculiar circumstances of different parts of the country into consideration.

hoped that the Minister would not accept this amendment. This was a land settlement Bill, not a land speculation Bill. The only thing that would attract settlers from Europe was the fact that a man would receive a free farm. Unless they took the necessary precautions they might see offices established in towns simply for the purpose of speculating in land. If a man had a share in a farm, they had the Minister’s word for it that he must work it.

said he was not in favour of land being granted on lease to more than two people. It might happen, however, that in developing the property they may have exhausted their funds, and if one of the partners were given the opportunity of earning money, that would mean extra capital for the further development of the farm. He would move as an amendment to the amendment after “partnership” to omit “or to” and to substitute “of,” and after “two” to omit “or more.”

supported the amendment, and said that instances had occurred where two or more brothers had to co-operate to work a farm—where the one had to go elsewhere to work and provide the necessary capital. That kept matters going. Because the one went away, must they Jose all their goods and their farm? Yet that would happen if the amendment were not accepted.

thought the Minister might safely accept the amendment in a ease where one man worked on the land and the other found the money.

opposed the idea of granting land where one lessee was the occupier and the other only provided the funds. They had instances in this country where miners were large owners of land in America. These men had left others in occupation, and had come over to this country. The land had since become valuable. He deprecated any legislation that would tend to speculation of this character.

thought the amendment a dangerous one, which admitted of an occupier and also a non-resident as the lessees, and unless the word lessee was so altered as to prevent a man who was a non-resident on a farm being its owner, he could not vote for the clause. He knew there was much to be said in favour of allowing a piece of land to be taken up in this manner—one supplying the labour and the other the capital; but such an arrangement opened the door to a great deal of abuse, and he hoped the word lessee would be altered so as to avoid this.

hoped that the amendment would not be agreed to If land were granted to three brothers, for example, whom could they look to? The amendment was dangerous, and would only lead to speculation. The whole idea of the Bill was to get settlers who would themselves cultivate the land, and for that reason the amendment was not acceptable. The Minister might give permission to leave the farm, but that should only be given for a limited period. The object was to have personal occupation, and to prevent just those cases quoted by the hon. member for Zululand.

said that he did not think that the Minister had quite understood the hon. member for Zululand, who had put forward a case from his personal experience. The principle of allowing one man to earn money elsewhere while his partner remained on the farm might operate very beneficially in the case of two miners suffering from phthisis.

said that there was nothing to prevent leave of absence being given to one or the other partner. Applications on this ground had been refused, but that was through the matter of speculation cropping up.

said that in districts where farming required a lot of capital, it might be desirable for one of the partners to work elsewhere in order to provide money to develop the holding. He supported the amendment.

said that the Minister should understand that under the Bill considerable capital would be required to prepare and stock the holding. They should allow partnerships to be established where one might remain on the farm and the other provide working capital at another occupation. After all what evil was to be feared from speculation when it was a case of taking undeveloped land and putting capital into it.

said that the clause had been discussed in Select Committee. It had been drafted to meet the point that had been raised. But if the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg were accepted the Minister would have no option in the matter. It would lead to the introduction of the dummy element.

said that the provision was practically the same as in the Transvaal Act which had operated quite satisfactorily.

said that the clause gave no guarantee that if two men entered into partnership the one would be excused from living on the farm. The clause would not lead to anything at all.

said that he could agree with the proposal of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels) which amended the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Mentz). It could not be mischievous to allow one partner to go away to earn money whilst the other stayed and cultivated the farm. The numbers of those co-operating, however, should be limited.

said that the hon. member did not limit the partnership to two. He thought that the clause made provision for the case quoted by the hon. member for Zululand. This was a dangerous amendment that would defeat the object of the Bill.

said the hon. member for Vryburg wanted “or” changed to “of.”

said he wanted the partnership limited to “two.”

said the object seemed to be to allow a man to take up twice the amount of land he could work. The amendment would lead to a great deal of difficulty.

said there was a grave danger to which no attention had been drawn. He was in sympathy with the hon. member’s idea, if he confined the amendment to the case quoted. The hon. member had not viewed the ultimate result of the amendment. He would oppose the amendment unless it were changed.

said he could not understand why hon. members on the cross benches should oppose the amendment. The hon. member who had moved an amendment to his amendment had also lost sight of the facts. After all, the Minister in this case was really the Inspector of Lands, and if a man were not a persona grata with the inspector fee might foe dealt with hardly. Regarding the hon. member for Turffontein, he could assure him they would not stop speculation. He was not referring to sparsely populated districts. He believed the Minister said a free hand would be given to these people, and he did not believe that he (Mr. Mentz) was altering that. Excepting the bogey about speculation, not a single argument had been adduced to meet the case. So long as they had one man on these farms they would be attaining a vast and most desirable object. He asked the House not to be afraid of the bogey of speculation; but if speculation did take place he was afraid it was a thing against which they could not provide.

said that he had seen large landed proprietors take land adjoining them through just such a thing as this, and put a dummy on the land until they could get the freehold added to their own. The hon. member had said that the Bill would permit certain abuses; therefore, there was no harm in adding this abuse to those already in the Bill.

said that he could not but support the amendment—(hear, hear)—as cases had arisen in his own district similar to those described. In the absence of a railway it would be difficult to work remote farms without capital.

said he had not for one moment questioned the bona tides of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg, and he had pointed out that he was in sympathy with this particular object, but he did not think the hon. member was going to attain it. He should support the Government and vote against the amendment.

had referred to were being dealt with fairly and liberally. Where there was the least reason for believing that the application was bona fide it was granted in every case. If they meant to make this a case of land settlement by the occupier, plus the capitalist, then let them make a law for that, but in the present case they were dealing with those who were personally going to occupy and to work the land, and for no others. (Hear, hear.) If such a man wanted assistance from another man let him obtain it, but that other man would not have a direct personal interest in the ground, because he did not occupy and work it.

said that the Minister might give a farmer leave of absence if he wished, but whoever heard of a farmer asking for leave of absence? He could not understand a more beneficial state of affairs than that a man should be permitted to leave the farm and earn money for its development. Surely the Minister would see that no land would be given out to people who were making a speculation of it. The men they wished to see on the land were those men who were full up of miners’ phthisis, and who wanted to go on the land to benefit by the sunshine, and so to recuperate. Under clause 16, it showed that a man who was ill might leave the farm, but they wanted that privilege extended to the man who was not ill at all.

said that what they wanted to see was that men who obtained leave of absence did not leave the country for the purpose of working in Other parts of the world, and selling their rights to other people. (An HON. MEMBER: “That would be an extreme case.”) Continuing, the hon. member said that all these cases were extreme cases. Once they departed from the position of beneficial occupation, they would never know where they were going, because they would let in the speculator and the capitalist.

explained that the clause they were now discussing was in the original Bill, and was fully discussed by the Select Committee. A great deal of the discussion that afternoon upon the ability of the poor man to get capital to work his holding was entirely unnecessary, because in a measure the Bill provided for the poor man getting capital. He would just like to repeat what the House had evidently forgotten. The Bill was not for the purpose of getting the land cultivated, but for the purpose of getting settlers on the land. What he objected to was that people should come and go upon the land, because it was very difficult for the Minister to shut the door.

said they wanted the opportunity for two men to go upon the land, and that one of them could go and earn money elsewhere for the further development of the farm, if so desired. These two men could not in any way be classified as speculators. It was all very well for the Minister to say that a man could come to him and ask permission to leave the farm; what he (Mr. Clayton) wanted to see was: that permission was obtained before they took up the land.

The amendment moved by Mr. Wessels was agreed to.

declared Mr. Mentz’s amended amendment negatived.

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

moved to insert after the word “holding the words, “other than a holding acquired and allotted under provisions of section 11.” He thought that his amendment was reasonable, and required no argument to support it. It was a matter of simple justice.

said that the clause should not be allowed to pass unchallenged by the committee. The Government had the right to deprive a man of his land, though he had been on it for years. That would be a hardship, even though compensation were given. He thought it not fair that a man should be excluded from the ownership of the mineral rights after he had paid the full value of the land.

said that the point was that they were trying to get farmers on the land. If they settled men who hoped to find a mine on the land the element of speculation would be introduced. The settler simply paid for the land as a farm, and if minerals were discovered he could not be under the impression that he was being hardly dealt with through not having the ownership. If his farming operations were interfered with he would be compensated.

The amendment was negatived.

On the motion of Mr. MENTZ, THE CHAIRMAN put the first part of the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, in lines 21 and 22, after “building,” to insert “or otherwise utilising the same.”

moved, as an amendment to this amendment in lines 21 and 22, to omit the words “but solely for the purposes of building or otherwise utilising the same thereon.”

said that the amendment would possibly be fair if applied to those who had become owners, but for those who merely hired the ground it went too far.

replied denying that there was any real substance in the Minister’s arguments.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to add at the end of sub-section (2): “Provided that in the event of the resumption by the Governor-General of a portion only of such holding the lessee shall have the option of cancelling the remaining period of the lease of the remainder of the holding without prejudice to his claim for compensation.”

This amendment and the amendment proposed by the Select Committee were agreed to.

On Clause 26,

moved, in sub-section (2), lines 42 and 43, to omit the words “satisfy the issuing officer that he has given security to the lessee for the payment,” and to substitute “give the issuing officer security for the payment to the lessee.” The mover said that his object was to facilitate prospecting on these lands. The conditions as stated in the Bill were absolutely impossible. The old system was more sensible and practical than the one outlined in the Bill.

regretted he could not meet the hon. gentleman more. He said the existing law worked well; but it did not.

said that in the localities to which the hon. member referred it would, as he said, take a month to get at the owner. If the area was one that was farily closely occupied, where damage could be done, perhaps it would be quite easy to get at the owner. But the amount of damage a prospector was going to do on an outlying farm, beat him entirely. They were not fenced farms.

in town, and he wanted to dig on his farm. That might entail a loss to the settler. What he was afraid of was that the prospector could not go behind the settler’s back.

said that the official who issued the licence would use reasonable discretion. He pointed out that the prospector generally went to the poorer part of the land. If the owner did not get his share they might as well shut up the thing. If the Government wanted a share, it should contribute to cost of the damage.

said he hoped the hon. member for Zoutpansberg would withdraw his amendment. It would only act detrimentally to settlement, seeing that the people would be alarmed at the rights which were to be granted to prospectors. The amendment would kill the policy of settlements. He could mention hundreds of cases where serious damage had been done by prospectors and it was impossible to give people the right to run about on private property and do injury to it. It would be a cancellation of the rights of private owners. If the question as to security were left to officials only, then differences would arise between prospector and settler, as a result of which the settler would have to go to law.

said the prospector obtained the right under that clause to prospect free of charge, but that he was compelled to satisfy the request of the owner if security were asked for. But how was that security to be given? In the form of a contract, or in cash? The amendment was better than the clause.

supported the clause as printed. Prospectors dug holes, he said, but usually omitted to fill them up again.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 30,

moved: In line 46 to omit “provided such member or other person be approved by the Minister.”

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

stated that Mr. Speaker was absent, and progress would, therefore, be reported at 8 p.m.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said the charge made that they had been obstructing the Bill was as unfounded as it was ridiculous. The truth was that everyone in that House was anxious to get to a settlement of this very serious question. No doubt there were differences of opinion as to the best means of settling the difficulty, but as to a genuine desire to come to a settlement, he believed there was no doubt whatever. (Hear, hear.) The speech of his hon. friend the member for Yeoville had relieved, he believed, the minds even of those who sat on the cross-benches on that point. For some time past they had been accumulating experience. Since the war a great deal of knowledge had been gathered, but that knowledge was not yet complete, and would take some time to make complete. For confirmation of what he had said, let them turn to the report; they would find the following: “It was clear that after eight years of attention devoted to the question in this country, the community was still faced by a very grave problem in endeavouring to combat the ravages of the disease.” Continuing, the hon. member said that, while their knowledge had been accumulating, the disease had been accumulating. They on that side of the House fully recognised that the Government were quite right in bringing forward a Bill to deal with the question, and they had no desire to obstruct a measure which would help to relieve the situation. Of course, the subject was in some respects difficult. The right hon. gentleman, the member for Victoria West, claimed that although the report of the Commission shed a good deal of light upon the situation, yet he found it difficult to understand some parts of the report. He would give the right hon. gentleman an explanation as to why he found some of the statistics difficult to understand, for he (Mr. Chaplin) was informed that some of the members of the Commission had never had an opportunity of correcting some of the proofs, as they came from the printers. He was informed also that members of the Commission communicated with the Minister, stating that they declined responsibility for the figures. They informed him that the report was full of inaccuracies. That would explain why the right hon. gentleman had found it difficult to understand the statistics. He did not suggest that this fact—if it were a fact—militated against or vitiated the main conclusion of that report. At the same time, it seemed a pity that report had not been presented in the most accurate form possible.

Of course the Bill was based in the main upon the report of the Commission. That was the only course the Government could have adopted. Last year they brought in four Bills and, as the Minister of Mines had admitted, the Government at that time knew nothing of the subject. Now they did know something of the subject and had brought forward that Bill. The financial part of it was based upon the report of the Government Actuary, a gentleman of whose existence he was not previously aware. He had no reason to question the accuracy of his figures and he thought his letters were valuable contributions to their knowledge of the subject. The financial part of the Bill was based upon the calculations given by the Actuary some weeks ago. On the day the Minister introduced the Bill he laid on the table another report by the Government Actuary. It showed very plainly that the calculations would probably be more accurate if they were revised in certain respects. The Bill in fact had made a considerable difference in the scheme as it was presented to the Actuary at first. It was now proposed to grant annuities to wives and children whether they had been with their husbands or fathers in South Africa or not. That apparently was not included in the original proposal on which the calculations were based. The Bill also provided for the relief of people who had already been dealt with under the temporary relief measure passed at the end of last session. He supposed that it was originally intended to leave these people out. Their inclusion increased the amount of money required, and the Actuary now stated that in all probability the total sum of £657,440 per annum would be needed, an increase of about £175,000. The Minister had not given effect to this increase in his Bill. He supposed that he hoped either that the Actuary’s calculations might not be borne out or that sufficient money would be provided under the Bill to meet all claims which might come in during the first year and then if necessary a further levy would be made from contributors. The position was the same as last year, when they complained that no one knew with any accuracy what liability he would be called upon to bear. He did not see how that difficulty was to be got over.

He admitted that the Government could not delay bringing in a Bill of this kind and they would have to make the best they could of the uncertainty. There were one or two outstanding features in connection with the scheme. First of all it was proposed to pay compensation on a scale which he thought unprecedented in industrial history. The Minister had told them that although the subject had been fully investigated by Commissions in Australia and England, so far the Governments concerned had been unable to devise any proper scheme of compensation. Though the same conditions prevailed to some extent in the United States, there also it had been found impossible to introduce any adequate scheme of compensation. There was another feature in this scheme which he thought without parallel, namely, that in many cases compensation would be leviable from employers who had not employed the beneficiaries. (Opposition cheers.) This arose from the fact that the Bill was made retrospective and the industry was, so to speak, “pooled.” The hon. member for Jeppe had attacked the provisions of the Bill. He said the compensation proposed was a mere pittance. He (the speaker) thought there was probably no one in the House who would not like to be in a position to advocate giving all possible relief in the shape of money. (Cheers.) But there were other phases of the question to be considered. He realised that anyone who approached such a subject with caution laid himself open to attack. (Cheers.) But he took it they were there as members of Parliament charged with the duty of looking after the interests of all sections and, even at the risk of attack such as had been foreshadowed, to say frankly what they thought was the best and fairest treatment of this difficult question. (Cheers.) When he said that compensation was on an unprecedented scale he was not oblivious of the fact that in the Transvaal, at any rate, they had become accustomed to some big figures. The hon. member for Victoria West had referred to the question of accidents. He did not know whether he would be surprised to hear that during 1911 the mines of the Witwatersrand paid out in compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for white men alone, in respect of accidents, the sum of £125,818. That figure had undoubtedly to be considered when they took into consideration the further liability east on the same employers. Of course, he quite appreciated that the compensation could not be fixed at a scale lower than that now proposed.

He started with the assumption that they would have to find a sum of not less than £480,000 per annum, as much, perhaps, as £650,000 per annum, and, perhaps, a higher sum. How was that money to be found? The Minister proposed that 75 per cent should be found by the employers, and 25 per cent. by the men. The hon. member for Jeppe proposed that the whole amount should be found by the employer. The right hon. member for Victoria West proposed that it should be paid partly by the employer, partly by the men, and partly by some other sections of the community. He threw out the suggestion that a levy should be made on all the workers of the Witwatersrand. He (the speaker) did not think that that was a feasible suggestion. He did not think that a carpenter or a fitter or a compound manager or a consulting engineer was any more liable to contribute than the storekeeper who lived outside the mine property, or any other such sections of the community. Then the right hon. gentleman had suggested that the portion of the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen which was in dispute should be allocated to the fund. That suggestion he (the speaker) could not accept. He did not think it was right that what was private property should go to a fund for public purposes. The question of who should pay had been discussed very largely on the assumption that the report of the Commission laid it down that this disease was purely an occupational disease, and, therefore, it was assumed that the employer was only liable. He would deal with how far the disease was occupational, and he would point out that the Commission had in no way committed itself to the doctrine that the disease was to such an extent occupational that compensation should be payable by the employers alone. On the contrary, they had carefully safeguarded themselves against expressing any such opinion. He went on to quote page 27 of the report on the subject of contribution. The Commission did not go into the question for the reason that it did not come within the instructions given them. It was urged by the hon. member for Jeppe and his friends, and it was to some extent urged by the Minister, that the disease was occupational. The Minister founded upon that the argument that the Government could not be expected to pay anything. The hon. member for Jeppe founded upon it the argument that no one should pay anything with the exception of the employers. There at once were two different constructions as to the meaning of the report. He had his own interpretation of that, and he would place it before the House at a later stage. He would first of all deal with its extent as an occupational disease. They had heard it for the first time from the Commission that the superimposition—he believed that that was the right word—of tuberculosis upon the silocosis in the form in which it occurred on the Rand was an occupational disease. He did not wish to quarrel with that statement, but he did say this, that it seemed to him that if there had been no tuberculosis in the country there would have been no tuberculosis germ, and, therefore, the super-imposition of the tuberculosis upon the silicosis could not have occurred. Tuberculosis, they knew, was rampant in the country, and he did say that the Government of the country, as representing the people of the country, were certainly to blame, and not the employers in this case or the men. He thought, therefore, that so far as it was stated to be an occupational disease, the Minister should not attempt to justify the defence that the Government were not bound to do anything in this matter. There were other reasons why the Government should do something. First of all, they made a huge revenue out of the mines—direct and indirect. They were told by the Minister that the Government would contribute from the profits tax, and would consequently get less revenue from that tax. That was true. It was also true that a number of mines did not pay profits tax. It was also true that there were a number of mines that had not reached the producing stage, and, therefore, could not pay the tax. Nevertheless, these mines would have to pay under the terms of the Bill. But there had been reports made by Commissions which had carefully investigated the whole subject, and in some of them—the most recent—the doctrine was clearly laid down that in the opinion of the Commissions, contributions by the Government or the State may be asked for. He took the report of the Royal Commission appointed in Queensland last year, which said that the most equitable and practical form in which this (the problem) presented itself to them was that the means of support should be provided by the miners, the mine owners, and the Government. The report of the Western Australian Commission even more recently also recommended some tripartite scheme such as was laid down the Queensland Commission. In England they had done nothing—

They have. They have a miners’ disease.

If the hon. member will forgive me, we are now talking about a specific disease, and not of lead-poisoning.

We are concerned with an occupational disease.

said that there was another and stronger reason why the Government should contribute something, and that was because they had to deal with a large legacy of disease. The Bill was retrospective. It went back four years. It laid down that if a man had worked for two years on one of the scheduled mines, during the four years immediately preceding his claim, then he could qualify to obtain compensation. The effect of that was that the compensation which would be payable during the first few years would be extraordinarily heavy. He thought it followed, from what the Minister said when introducing the Bill, and he (the hon. member) had already said, that up to the present it had been impossible to say definitely what must be done in order to stamp out this disease. He would give a case in point which would show that everybody had been working in the dark. This Bill now placed the heaviest burden on the employer and employee interested in rock drill work; but it was only three or four years ago since they were told on several platforms in the country, and mostly by members on the other side, when the mine owners said there was not enough labour to do the work by hand, that they should employ machines. When the Chamber of Mines offered a prize for a satisfactory rock drill, the Government added to the amount; but now they were told that if people employed rock drills, they were to be heavily penalised. He absolved hon. members opposite from any breach of faith, he only used the argument that it was nobody’s fault that the present state of affairs was allowed to have come about. It was not conceivable that if the Government three years ago had thought it would have been injurious to use rock drills that they would have offered a prize for the best one. It was an untenable position to take up that the mine owners should bear the whole of the burden. Many of the old mines were ceasing to exist, and the new mines, which had not been responsible to the same extent, would have to bear the burden. That also was an anomaly. He believed the best solution of the difficulty was that, as the Bill was retrospective, for four years, or for a time, until these arrears were worked off, the Government should also contribute. (Hear, hear.) He hoped he had made out a fair case for the justice of his contention. He would like to ask the House to consider whether there was any reason why the Government should not also come to the rescue on financial grounds or on the ground of public policy. They were told that the mines were rich, and the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. F. H. P. Creswell) tried to show that the industry, as a whole, was rich. What he knew and did not say was that the industry was made up of a Urge number of units, some of which are rich and some of which are poor; that the wages paid are the same, practically; that the rate of compensation payable under this Bill would be about the same, and would prove a very serious blow, and would damage very considerably a number of the smaller mines. The Minister said he was advised that it would only have a bad effect on four mines, which were now on their last legs. He did not know which they were, but he would point out that if it was the case that only the existence of four mines was in danger, there were a great many mines which were at present working on a very narrow margin of profit; that the compensation that it was now proposed to levy would still further diminish that margin, and that if any unforeseen accident should occur, it would be reduced so far that they would not be able to go on working—(hear, hear)—because if hon. members would think, they would realise that that was not a case, as it was sometimes said, of inflated capital, and if they could not get that gold out at a less value than that gold itself, which had a fixed value, they would not get it out at all.

He did not want to go into lengthy statistics to prove that proposition, but he wanted hon. members to realise one or two things. In January there were 59 mines crushing on the Witwatersrand, 22 of which were working ore, the recovery value of the gold of which was under 25s. per ton; and 20 of the mines were working at less than 5s. per ton profit, and in some cases no profit at all—

Which?

You can get the returns; they are at everybody’s disposal. He went on to say that the hon. member for Jeppe had said explicitly that he would not mind, if necessary, that all the profits of the mines should be absorbed. He asked if the Union could deliberately afford to bring about such a state of affairs? He said deliberately that it could not. He believed that the discussions they had in the House that session had brought to the notice of hon. members who had probably not been familiar with the subject, the extent—the undesirable extent—to which the whole of the finances of the Union were dependent on the revenue of the mines. There were many places on the Rand—he thought of his constituency as a notable example—where the closing down of one or two of these mines would bring about untold hardship, and ruin to other classes of the community, which one could not contemplate without great alarm. They were bound to look at that question from every point of view. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had stated that he would extend the levy to all employees of the mine. It followed from that, as he had just now indicated, that, logically, if they made everybody, who benefited as a result of the mines, contribute, they would have to make every taxpayer of the Union pay. The right hon. member knew that the financial fabric of the Union depended on the prosperity of the mines, and that it was undesirable to overload the burdens on the mines, and if that were done it would react on the prosperity of the whole country. The hon. member did not like the Government contributing, and had thrown out a vague suggestion to the House that some other fund should be drawn upon, but he could not get away from the fact that the logical result of his suggestion was that the Government must contribute part of the money. The Minister had said that he quite realised that that would entail a very considerable burden, and he had indicated that there was, at any rate, one method by which the Union could recoup themselves. He had referred to the speech made by the chairman of a gold mine in Johannesburg as to the vast amount of money spent on recruiting for labour on the mines, and the competition which existed for such labour. It was not going back very far when that competition had not existed, and when there had been an attempt—and a fairly successful one—to do away with that competition and do the recruiting through a central association; but there had been none more eloquent in condemning that system than some of the friends of the Hon. the Minister, who were sitting on the Government side. It was not quite fair for the Hon. the Minister to have thrown that statement in their teeth—although he absolved him from responsibility for all that happened before. The hon. member for Jeppe and other people had argued that because the disease was to the extent indicated by the Commission to be considered an occupational disease, they wanted the whole liability thrown on the employers. He was quite satisfied, and the House knew from what had taken place last session, what the argument would have been that the hon. member and his friends would have used, supposing the report had been different; and they would equally have said that the mines should pay. “Hit the mines, and you will have done some good,” they would have said. He thought that it would have been better if there had been some co-operative scheme amongst the workmen. Of course, it was a commonplace in all industrial compensation legislation that if you dealt too hardly with the employer the tendency was for the terms of employment to become less favourable to the men. One of the questions which they had to consider was what would be the practical effect of the proposals such as had been nut forward by the Minister, and he would like the hon. member for Jeppe and his friends to see exactly Slow these proposals would affect the men actually working on the mines to-day. He had some figures showing exactly the rate of wages of the different classes of men affected by that Bill on two of the deep level mines on the Rand during February, and he thought it was probable that these figures were an average sample of the average rate of wages on the Rand. In one mine a machine man earned £34 17s. 8d. per month of 26 shifts, or 26s. l0d. per shift. In the Bill it was proposed that they should contribute 30s. If they deducted the amount of 30s. a month that that class of men would have to pay, they had £33 7s. 8d. per month, after they had paid their contributions. The company’s contribution per month net would come to £789, which was 23 per cent. of the company’s average profit. He would take another mine. On that mine the rockdriller’s average pay was £34 4s. 8d. per month. Deducting 30s., the net pay was £32 14s. 8d. The company’s contribution was £751 10s., which was between 11 and 12 per cent. of the average profits of the mine.

If all wages were on that level, he did not think it could be contended that those wages did not leave a certain margin for insurance. He did not commit himself to the doctrine that the rock-driller should pay 30s. a month. But he did say—and he believed, in spite of what the hon. members on the cross-benches might say, that there were a large number of working men on the Rand who agreed with him—that it was not unreasonable that these men who earned such wages should put aside something in the way of insurance. He was afraid it was true, in fact the hon. member admitted it—his phrase, he thought, was that the men were not as a rule enthusiastic about economy—that in many cases the men did not save; but other Governments, other States, had recognised the principle that the men should practically be compelled to set aside something, and he saw nothing unfair, and he believed it was not unfair, to call upon the men, when they did earn reasonable wages, to set aside something for the benefit of their families, if anything happened to them. There was the other point—he did not lay much stress upon it—that if a man had to pay something in that respect it would act as a stimulus to him, just as a levy on the mines would act, no doubt, as a stimulus on the mines, to see that the regulations were observed not only by his fellow-men, but by the companies themselves. Therefore, he had come to the conclusion that, all things considered, it was reasonable that some contribution towards this insurance fund should be made by the men. What the amount should be was, of course, quite another thing. If, as he had tried to make out, the State should contribute to the fund, then the proportionate contribution of the men should be relatively decreased.

The hon. member for Jeppe had objected to the system of annuities or pensions. He (Mr. Chaplin) thought there was a great deal to be said for the proposal in the Bill that the compensation money should be paid out in the form of pensions or annuities. (Hear, hear.) That was exactly the course recommended by the Commission, but he noticed that the hon. member, while accepting other parts of the Commission’s recommendation, was not prepared to follow them in this. He (Mr. Chaplin) had made it quite clear, he thought, that the Government, the men, and the employers should be made joint parties to this scheme. He thought also the men should pay the smallest share. He certainly thought they should pay something, but, for the reasons he had given, he was absolutely convinced that it was only fair that the taxpayers of this country should take the burden of bearing a portion of the initial expense. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the machinery which the Bill proposed, there was the question of the rock-driller. He thought there was now no reason to doubt, as the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) said—and here again he threw over the report of the Commission—that in a reasonable time rockdrilling would not be by any means the most dangerous occupation in the mines. He was of opinion that some change should be made in the machinery as to the collection of these contributions and also in the amount which it was proposed to levy on the learners.

The main criticism he had to make against the machinery of the Bill was that it did not provide any adequate incentive to the mines to do anything for the diminution of the disease. The mines that went to a great deal of trouble, in their endeavours to combat the state of affairs, received no consideration, in fact, they simply received the same consideration as those which did nothing at all. The poorer companies could not afford to make experiments, but if they knew that there was some incentive to spend their money, he believed they would do so and take some risk. He thought it was a pity that the Bill did not provide for such mines which took some pains to put their mines in proper condition. He had received a scheme which had been sent him by the doctor of his own group of mines, which was signed also by the head of the laboratory belonging to the mining group. The letter went on to say: “We believe that any of our mines can, by competent and responsible supervision, be made practically dust-free with little maintenance cost after installation and organisation of preventive measures. The determining test must be the quantitative estimate of mineral dust. This test, as carried out by us, is simple and reliable. The samples of air for this test should be taken from a travelling way in the mine or twenty feet from any working place. According to the present state of our knowledge in dust testing in these mines, we think they might be graded into three classes: (a) 1st class, those mines tested as above, showing less than .015 grams of mineral dust per cubic metre. (b) 2nd class ditto, less than .050 grams. (c) 3rd class ditto, more than .050 grams.’ He admitted at once that if these tests had not been made, it would be difficult to apply any definite scheme to any group of mines; but he did say that some such scheme should be applied, and he would suggest to the Minister that he incorporate in the Bill a clause giving his department power to give some inducement to those mines which satisfied the test, and which endeavoured to remedy the danger. He did not wish to go into details as regarded the method of levying upon the mines, but he thought the method proposed would have to be altered. He did think that the contribution as fixed in the Bill, based upon the assumption that rock-drilling was the most dangerous class of employment, was not a good system. Another point was the question of medical examination. Now, the Bill provided for the compulsory examination of men who applied for employment on a mine for the first time. If they came from another mine on the Rand, they were not liable for examination unless the employers chose. Here he believed that the Government were shirking their responsibility in not examining these men. He thought that a clause should be put into the Bill to that effect. He did not think that a man suffering from miners’ phthisis should be debarred from working upon the mines; but he thought that he ought to be examined, and if it were found that he was suffering from tuberculosis, he should be debarred from working on the mines. The Government had done very little, or nothing, for the prevention of tuberculosis, and he thought that in this respect the Bill did not go far enough. It should be laid down by law that the men should be examined, and if any were found suffering from tuberculosis, they should be excluded from the mines.

He would now deal with the natives. They were examined at present. Many hon. members had visited the Rand some months ago, and they would agree that, taken all round, the natives on the mines were not ill-treated. (Cheers.) On the question of miners’ phthisis, it was proposed to compensate them in quite a different way, namely, to use the machinery of the Native Labour Regulations Act, passed last session. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the position, that was not unfair, and he believed they would thus be adequately compensated. He had two or three figures showing actual results, which were brought to his knowledge and related to the group of mines with which he was himself connected. In 1911, out of an average number of 13,000 natives, 1,410 were attacked by pneumonia; of these, 156 died, a case mortality of 11.7 per cent. In the same number—13,000—there were 263 cases of tuberculosis of the lungs, and other forms of tuberculosis during the same period; 114 died, a case mortality of 43.4. These figures showed that there was a greater loss from tuberculosis than from pneumonia.

More died from pneumonia.

said that 43.4 per cent. of the tuberculosis cases ended fatally, and only 11.7 per cent. of the pneumonia cases. The percentage for pneumonia would further decrease, as the result of Sir Almroth Wright’s work. It was, to his mind, proof that the Government should take the matter of tuberculosis in hand. Cases of miners’ phthisis were very seldom reported amongst the natives on the mines, the reason being that their average stay was very short, not a year. They went back to their homes for a holiday. Further, it was difficult to recognise the disease in its earlier stages. There would, no doubt, be more cases if the natives stayed longer. But very few cases could be diagnosed as phthisis amongst the natives on the mines. Therefore he thought that, on the whole, as the Minister had said, this system of compensation would not be unfair. He would sum up his remarks on the subject. They welcomed the settlement of this question during the next few weeks. (Cheers.) As he had said last year, the mines ought to pay, and were prepared to pay, their fair share He said also that the men should pay some share. But he did say that it was fair that Government, as representing the taxpayers of the country, should come to the relief of the mines, and especially of the men, and bear some of the burden of the legacy of disease which had accumulated during these last few years, during which no one knew what to do. He suggested that as the Bill was retrospective for four years, the Government contribution should last four years. They all hoped that during these four years the incidence of the disease would be greatly diminished. If it was, there would be no necessity for the Government to continue their contribution. All that would then be necessary was for th? Government to do something on the lines indicated by his hon. friend (Sir Lionel Phillips), that some of the people less severely stricken by the disease should be placed on the land. That was, he thought, a fair subject for Government assistance, because it was useless to expect men of that kind in any numbers to get odd jobs on surface work. In any case, it would be better for them to be taken away from the dusty surrounding of the mines. He hoped that he had not dealt with the subject in any controversial spirit, because he felt that it was absolutely necessary to get a settlement of this matter. He was sneaking for everyone on his side of the House when he said that they were anxious to make that settlement a fair one. (Cheers.)

said that he had seen much of the mines of the Transvaal, and as a medical man he might be allowed to say a few words on the subject, which should be approached dispassionately, on the lines followed by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Germiston. The hon. member for Springs had screamed in a hysterical way about jackals’ tails when speaking on the matter. On this subject they must be calm, cool, and collected. He hoped that the Labour members would not take offence if his views differed from theirs. They alienated the sympathy of the House by their screaming and convulsive habits. (Laughter.) He had read the report with the greatest interest. As it was the latest so it was the best report on the subject in this country. They should thank these men for what they had done for the lives of the miners on the Rand. It was a pity the scope of the work of the Commission did not enable them to make a fuller report on tuberculosis in the mines, and how to cope with this dread disease.

These gentlemen who sat on the crossbenches on his right seemed to think it had been definitely proved that this was an occupational disease. He (the speaker) said that the sickness from which people died on the Rand was miners’ phthisis, plus tuberculosis, and it was very difficult to say in every case at what stage tuberculosis supervened. Their science had failed to establish that point Then it was very difficult to accurately determine when first a man was suffering from this disease. It took a long time, and it was extremely difficult to say at what time tuberculosis commenced. The hon. member for Jeppe attempted to prove by the report of the Commission that the disease of miners’ phthisis was an occupational disease. He went on to quote the report on the subject (clauses 51 and 52 of the Bill) to show that the disease on the Rand was miners’ phthisis plus tuberculosis, and the remarks made by the Commissioners: “There can be little doubt that tuberculosis is not common in the early stages of cases of miners’ phthisis as they occur on the Rand.” “… but this is a matter which requires further investigation.” He wished his hon. friends on the cross-benches would not persist in saying that this was an occupational disease. They could not prove that it was an occupational disease. Why had the hon. member for Denver—he was surprised at the attitude he had taken—changed front? Was it because he was frightened of the report that had been laid before the House? Now, the question was as to who should pay the piper? If it could be proved that it was an occupational disease, then he would say that the owners of the mines should be made to pay. Seeing that tuberculosis played an important part in the matter, he thought that this fact made all the difference. Such being the case, he thought it would be unfair to throw the whole of the burden upon the mines. Taxation, as suggested by the right hon. member for Victoria West, appealed to him, and he thought that a Select Committee of the House should consider and devise some scheme whereby the Government, the mine-owners, and the employees should pay fair contributions to the fund that was required. With regard to the question of medical certificates, he thought that every man who went into the mines should be examined, and any found to be suffering from tuberculosis should be excluded. They knew that tuberculosis aggravated the disease that they were trying to master. Every six months all the Europeans should be examined. He thought that by these medical examinations of the men on the mines they would be able to determine the exact state of affairs in regard to the disease.

He hoped he had dealt with the subject in a fair way, and he was open to be convinced by the Minister or anybody else, but let them devise the best way to cope with this disease. Let them treat it in a cool, calm, and deliberate manner. (Cheers.)

said he realised fully that the problem was one of the greatest ever put before the House. He would like to congratulate the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. F. D. P. Chaplin) on his very able speech. There were two outstanding points, it seemed to him, in connection with this matter. That provision had to be made he thought nobody would deny, for there were thousands of men, women and children thrown upon the world without means of livelihood. The two questions were, first, how that provision was to be made; whether the State could justly be called upon to make a contribution to the support of these people; and the second was whether the workers themselves could be justly called upon. (Hear, hear.) They had those widows and orphans thrown upon the world as the result of the working of this industry, and provision had to be made for them. Now, as regarded the responsibilities of the State, they in South Africa had thrown their mineral wealth open to the world. They gave the mines every possible facility; they gave them all the profits they could make from the minerals—gold and diamonds—and for many years, at any rate they placed few conditions upon them. It was many years before they took any contribution from them.

How about railway rates?

What rates has my hon. friend paid? (Hear, hear.) I don’t object to that question, but I don’t think it is a right question to put, at all events from my hon. friend’s point of view, because I remember the days when the people paid 25s. per 100 lb. to go from the coast to Kimberley. Proceeding, he said the State had benefited by it by the railway rates; but the State gave every possible facility to work the mines, and did not take a Contribution from them, as far as the Cape was concerned, until recently, and as far as the Transvaal was concerned, until the last few years. It had been said that the country derived great advantage from the industry, but surely the country should derive some advantage from it. The wealth belonged to the country, and it was one of the assets of the country. The State should take from its minerals a sufficient sum to make up for the works it had constructed for it, and to develop its agricultural resources.

The argument he wished to follow out was that so far as the State was concerned it had thrown open these mines, encouraged their working, given them every facility. The mine-owners had made huge fortunes. And from that point of view he would say if it was owing to the working of those mines, if anything, or owing to the carelessness or neglection the part of the mineowners, that there had resulted a preventable disease, then the State should throw the onus upon the mineowners. (Hear, hear.) But was that the case? Were they justly entitled to take up that position? From what he had read and heard he did not think the State would be entitled to take up that position. If the State had not known of that condition of affairs; if it had not seen year after year the result of the working of the mines and the effect on the health of the people, then they might say there was no responsibility; but the fact was that they knew and that they were acquainted with it for ten years, and they allowed that state of things to continue until some of the mines became almost infected with the disease. So it seemed to him they could not, as a State, refuse to accept this responsibility. She could not throw the whole responsibility for past neglect upon present or future owners. If there had been neglect in regard to these mines it had been State neglect as well as neglect on the part of the mining companies, and it had resulted, to a certain extent, in this disease, so that, in justice, he thought the State was bound to recognise the claims upon it to contribute. He put that point forward for the consideration of the House: that they should not refuse to recognise their responsibility. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) proposed that they should do that by setting aside a certain sum. He supposed he meant that they should accept the principle of that.

No, I don’t.

Well, then, the right hon. gentleman suggested that the Treasurer should set aside a certain sum of-money, which he holds is the property of the State. I don’t like that because of the taxpayer, but if this claim is established that the State has derived great advantages from this industry then they should contribute. Proceeding, he said that now these people were incapacitated and were thrown upon the world to be provided for, as a State they could not justly repudiate their responsibilities to bear a share of the burden of providing for them. He held that to whatever extent the State might be found to be responsible the State ought to recognise its responsibility. There was the question as to whether the men should contribute towards their own insurance.

If it was a fact that the miners of Johannesburg were paid so much more than they were worth, and more than the average for other workers there, to cover the risks which they ran, there was something in that argument, but unless that could be shown they had no right to call upon the miners to pay that. (Hear, hear.) He had been told that the wages paid in the Transvaal, outside the mines, were very high; and as to the wages quoted by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. chaplin) he did not know that they were so much higher than the wages paid in other trades on the Rand.

30 per cent. higher.

said that miners got from £35 to £150 per month.

said that no man got wages of £150 per mouth, and no company paid him that.

Piecework.

said that they must legislate on the average wage the men received, and not on an exceptional or special wage. If they found that they were receiving the same, or about the same, as other workers, one could not say that these men should have to pay £18 per annum as a special insurance against that disease. It was a question of justice, which they could arrive at by the facts of the case. The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had made the suggestion that they should make a call upon all the men, whether they were engaged in the mine or outside; but why should they stop there?—(hear, hear)—because all the people of Johannesburg were deriving profit from the mines, whether they were merchants or what not, and even the farmers were deriving benefit because of the market there, and because they were selling their goods in Johannesburg. He saw the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mr. Geldenhuys) smiling, and if he had to pay on all the profit he had made out of the mines he would have to bear a very heavy burden indeed. (An HON. MEMBER: “Sixpence.” And laughter.) At any rate, it was very hard to say, when one threw that stone in the water, how far the ripples would go. If they did not call upon the people actually working underground to contribute, they must go to the whole population of South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

agreed with much that had been said by the hon. member for Germiston. But the hon. member had also alleged that the State was bound to contribute to the funds, and the speaker could not agree with that. Because former Governments had been negligent in combating the disease, it was now contended that the State was obliged to contribute. The matter had been discussed last year, and the right hon. member for Victoria West had very properly pointed out that that was a dangerous principle. If the State once decided on that, there was no knowing where it would lead to. They would at once open the door to similar demands made by other industries. The State already contributed in the form of paying the costs of administration, and should also contribute to the expense of investing and taking precautionary measures against the disease. Hon. members opposite had made a great deal of the fact that the Government spent so much money oh East Coast fever. That money was spent, however, in an effort to discover a cure and a preventive. But what would they say if the Government were to pay compensation to those who lost their cattle from that disease? The State did not spare any expense in supervising the mines, and in doing all it possibly could to stop the spread of disease. They had already made a substantial contribution to the funds, and would have to incur a further loss in the diminished results from the profits tax. He attached great value to the report of the Medical Commission, from whose reports it appeared that the mortality only occurred when tuberculosis supervened on miners’ phthisis. All miners would, therefore, have to be medically examined. As the Minister of Mines had correctly pointed out, the disease was not solely due to the use of machine drills, but was chiefly due to the raising of rock dust caused by blasting. In the ease of the drills the dust could be prevented by using water, but that was not possible in the case of blasting, and it appeared to him that sufficient time was not allowed after the explosion to allow the dust to settle. He trusted the Government would cause the various mines to be carefully inspected, more particularly in connection with the proportion of dust contained in the atmosphere. When that had been done the mines could be classified, and those which introduced such improvements as totally to prevent the creation of dust should be exempted from making further contributions. The right hon. member for Victoria West had made some remarks about natives which were misleading. Those of them who had recently visited the mines had found that the Kafir was not so badly treated as the right hon. gentleman made it appear. There was at one time in Koffyfontein a great mortality amongst the Kafirs, but the improvements made there had resulted in the number of patients in the hospital being reduced within two years practically to nil. Coloured people arrived there sometimes in a state of starvation, all skin and bone, and the company laid it down that during the first fourteen days those Kafirs were not to work, but to be fed up. That produced excellent results. At the present time the Kafirs were much better off on the mines than in their kraals. They were so well treated in the hospitals on the Rand that many white people in South Africa might well envy them. The hon. members for Yeoville and Germiston had shown that they were in earnest in wishing to fight the disease. The Koffyfontein Company in time thanked the Free State Government for the pressure brought to bear, as it had proved to be in the interests of the company to have only healthy Kafirs at work. To ask for a contribution from all the mine officials was wrong, because no one should be asked to pay without receiving something in return. He certainly desired that the Bill might apply to the whole of the mining officials, but in that case it would have to cover all diseases and accidents. As the Minister had explained, there were good reasons why the Workmen’s Compensation Act should not be applied. He thought, however, that a general plan of insurance could be drafted, such as that adopted in Germany, and then everyone employed on the mine could contribute to it, if necessary, in different proportions. Persons working on the surface, however, derived no benefit from the Bill, and should not be asked to contribute. He was generally in favour of Select Committees, but feared it was now too late to deal with the Bill in that way during the present session. After the second reading had been agreed to, every hon. member would be able to see roughly what kind of Bill it would be, as they were in agreement on the principle of the Bill. Details, such as the scale of payment, etc., might be left till afterwards. The matter was so important a one that every hon. member should do his utmost to make the Bill a good one, to help the unfortunate miners, and at the same time to do their best to stop the spread of the disease. (Hear, hear.)

explained that he had not referred to the treatment of the natives in compounds and so on, but to their treatment in regard to illnesses—that no account was being taken of that. He thought that the figures read out by the hon. member for Germiston amply confirmed that view. He had also referred particularly to the temptations to which they were exposed, and to the way in which their morals were corrupted in Johannesburg, not absolutely their treatment in regard to housing, which had been very much improved recently.

said that judging from the attention the House was bestowing on the matter, if the Bill was going to be referred to a Select Committee the sooner the better, because if the House had lost interest in its general principles of the Bill it was high time they set to work to elaborate the details. The only reason he had got up was that he had some views to express which had not found expression, as to one of the matters that would have to be considered by a Select Committee, if such were appointed, namely, the fund by which effect would be given to the provisions regarding compensation. Certain conclusions had been based on the point whether this was an occupational disease or not. As far as he was concerned, he did not feel competent to express an opinion different to that arrived at by the Commission. It had gone into the question thoroughly and with very illuminating results, and had come to the conclusion that fibroid phthisis is a specific occupational disease among metalliferous miners of hard rock. It was quite true that in the last stage another disease, not an occupational disease, showed itself. On account of phthisis these miners were far more liable to, and far less able to resist, the second disease. Tuberculosis was a disease that was prevalent in this country, and it seemed to him that if, as the Commission held, owing to the effects of this specific occupational disease men were rendered practically incapable of resisting the tuberculosis bacillus, he did not think they could make a point of the fact that tuberculosis was not an occupational disease. It seemed to him that the disease ought not to be dealt with under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It had not been found desirable in other parts of the world where the disease had been inquired into. It seemed to him that the very nature of the disease was such as to make it almost impossible to deal with it fairly and adequately under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There were two reasons. The extent to which the ordinary miner changed his employment during the period this disease was in progress made it difficult to allocate the responsibility for the burden of compensation, and the difficulty of classifying a disease such as this, insidious in its progress and difficult to diagnose under an Act framed to deal with definite accidents.

He thought those who realised how difficult it was to apply the Workmen’s Compensation Act in this country, even to accidents in this country, would shudder to think of what would happen were a court called upon to deal with a case of this nature. He thought that the best way of dealing with the matter was by means of a fund. But was the fund which appeared in the Bill being established on a sound basis? He could not think that the fund which was found in the Bill was on a sound basis; he could not think that it would prove workable. Taking the basis of the fund as it was laid down in the Bill as correct then he said that the basis upon which the contribution of the employers was calculated was a wrong basis, and a basis which he thought would do a great deal of harm to the mining industry. It was really putting a tax on the employment of white men. What was going to happen? What did they expect would happen if a fund were established off such a basis? What could happen, but that the companies would reduce the number of white men which they employed. To put this fund on the basis of a crude tax per head of the European workers was to put the fund on a basis that was going to do infinite harm. He might be asked what substitute he had to offer. He was not an expert in this matter, but he thought that a better basis would be to go upon the amount of rock that was hoisted from the mines. That had been suggested by the hon. member for Jeppe. He would also put part of the contribution on the basis of the profits tax, so that the larger and richer mines would pay a bigger contribution under this rule than the mines that were not paying to so great an extent. It might be a difficult basis in its way, but he thought that it was a fair basis upon which they could set to work. It had been said that the uniform tax on the men was far too heavy, and that some other method should be adopted. He wanted to go into this question of whether the three-quarter basis on the part of the employers and a quarter basis on the part of the men was a good basis. It had been attacked very bitterly by the hon. member for Jeppe, so far as the men were concerned. The hon. member for Jeppe attacked the system in a way which he (the speaker) thought was not fair to the Bill. The hon. gentleman argued that the men would contribute all they got from the fund.

Single men.

Oh, no.

Regarded as an insurance fund.

said the criticism of the hon. member was exaggerated. Continuing, he said he thought they would be justified in asking the men to contribute in so far as a scheme of insurance was concerned. Was this fund an insurance fund? Considering the liabilities that would have to be borne, it would not be an insurance fund at all. The heaviest liabilities would have to be borne in the first year, and the money would be received by men who would have to be compensated for a certainty. The point was that the fund was going to try and do two things at once, and that was the fallacy he thought which underlay the principle upon which it was based. He seemed to think there was a great deal of reason in the statement that it would not be fair to ask the men to contribute to the fund at the present stage—to pay for the accumulated cases of the past. He thought the better way would be to provide separately for those men who had miners’ phthisis at the present time, and those who were just entering the mines or who, up to the present, showed that they had not been attacked by the disease. They must necessarily separate the principle of compensation from the principle of insurance. So far as the men were concerned, he thought it only fair that they should contribute to’ the insurance portion of the scheme. Then the question arose: Ought the State to contribute, and, if so, in what way? He did think that there was good reason for asking the State to contribute in so far as the accumulated cases of the past were concerned, though not for the insurance of the future. He did not think it fair that those who owned the mines should have to bear the whole cost of compensating those men whose cases had been accumulating during the past years. They had recognised that principle in past legislation, and he thought the same course should be followed on this occasion.

The fund, as it stood in the Bill, would have to be to a great extent retrospective. For that reason, more strongly than any other, the State should take part with the mine owners in contributing towards the compensation to be paid. He did not think that it could be said that the benefits which were provided for in the fund, as laid down in the Bill, were adequate. It was no use looking away from existing facts. It was no use considering what was done elsewhere in matters of compensation—

Why not?

Why not? Because we are dealing with the Transvaal, and not America or Australia. We have got to deal with men who will have to live in the Transvaal. Proceeding, he said he did not want to drag sentiment into this matter. They must look at it from the business point of view, and if the House would consider that these men were mostly in the prime of life, and their families were young, £8 a month in Johannesburg under those circumstances, with a sick man on their hands, was starvation pay. He must say he was not in favour of treating these people more generously than the facts of the case required, but he did think, if one looked at the facts, he would see that £8 a month was not a liberal allowance. One could only say it was inadequate. Of course, they could not provide larger compensation without greater contributions, but they had got to that stage when they must try and settle this matter on a permanent basis. If what was said by the Actuary was correct, then the provision provided for in the Bill was inadequate to begin with. Were they going to take chances on this, and say that perhaps there would not be so many, or that some of the men would die, or that the incidence of phthisis would diminish in years to come? They had to deal with it on a permanent basis, and for that reason he did not like the Bill being introduced on a financial basis, which, according to the Actuary’s report, was, even now, inadequate, and would be still more inadequate if larger compensation was given.

But they must recognise that this phthisis, and the suffering it involved upon those who had got it and their friends was one of the liabilities attaching to the enormous wealth which the gold industry had brought to South Africa. It was a liability that had been in suspense for many years. It had not been recognised, or rather, they had shut their eyes to it; but now they had to face it, and rather than this should come up again and again, and that the Government should allow the fund to become bankrupt, they should consider it now to make it as permanent as they could, and so face the facts, even at their worst. For that reason he thought it should go to a Select Committee because he thought that the fund, which would, after all, remain part of the Bill, involved relations so complicated that they could not be adequately discussed here. It would be almost impossible to discuss this Bill, with advantage, in a Committee of the whole House, and, therefore, he would like to see it sent to the strongest Select Committee possible; and he thought they should endeavour to approach this matter from two points of view, from the point of view of paying compensation to the men already infected, and from the point of view of insurance for men who might be infected in future; from the point of view that, as regards compensation, the State should contribute and the men not, and as regards insurance, the men should contribute and the State not. He thought that the consideration of those points was necessary to put the matter on a permanent basis; to see that the men got compensation that was not a mere pittance, and that was reasonably adequate. If they looked at the benefits given under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, they would find that they were very much bigger than the men would get under this Bill. They should attempt to get a fund in the Bill on a fair and permanent basis, and should also recognise the fair claim for just treatment of the employers who were interested in this matter. (Cheers.)

said that if he understood the hon. member for Beaufort West aright, he said that if phthisis was an occupational disease, then he would say that the cost of compensating the men as proposed should be borne by the mine-owners. He was convinced by the reports made by the medical members of the Commission, and by what he had seen himself, that it was an occupational disease. The mere fact that a larger percentage of men employed in mining over a given period were dying of this disease than those employed in other occupations should prove that. The Commission was quite clear on it. As to the speech of the hon. member for Germiston, he had heard from the hon. member the same scare-speech hashed up time after time. The hon. member had tried to prove that there was only this question of compensation between the mines remaining open and closing. He had said that some of the mines were making no profits, but he had not told them how many mines were in that category.

On looking up the report of the Chamber of Mines, they found that there were only three mines that were making no profit, and that these mines had only 170 stamps at work out of a total of over 9,400. He did not intend to speak at great length on this Bill, because it was to be sent to a Select Committee. He thought, however, that if the Bill were allowed to pass in its present form it would be one of the greatest injustices that they could place upon a body of hard-working men in this country. (Hear, hear.) He described the way in which the men were to be dealt with under this Bill as niggardly. It was futile, he urged, for the Minister of Mines to talk as if they had only now got to know for the first time how serious the state of things was among the underground miners on the Rand. For years past the Labour members in the Transvaal Parliament had kept this matter under the attention of the Government of the day. He welcomed the report of the Medical Commission, because it exploded a good many fallacies put forward from time to time by the representatives of the mine-owners. There was the fallacy of the carelessness of the miners. The Commission stated that this was not a great factor in the promulgation or development of the disease. The late Minister of Mines said he did not want to deal with miners’ phthisis, he wanted to do away with it. Another reason why he did not wish the men to contribute was because they must increase the amount of £375. He said that to a man who was injured permanently that was a paltry sum. The late Minister also stated that there was no doubt that miners’ phthisis should be treated upon the ordinary basis of workmen’s compensation. He supported the statement of the hon. member for Fordsburg that he did not think £8 per month was adequate compensation for a man who was dying. The argument that the high wages justified the men paying for compensation was unsound. The average wages on the Rand, apart from mining, were as high as those miners received. No matter what might be said as to contributing for insurance in respect of ordinary risks, which he did not approve of, it was very different when they came to extraordinary risks of this nature. Surely a wealthy industry yielding £11,000,000 a year in dividends could afford to pay. Another reason put forward for the men contributing was that it would be an incentive for them to take more precautions. Had a sillier argument ever been used? When a man’s life was at stake he had the greatest incentive of all, and a few shillings would make very little difference. Something had been said of the West Australian proposal that the miners should contribute. The amount which the Commission there had recommended—it bad not yet been legislated upon—was l½ per cent. This would amount to 7s. 6d. per month on the Witwatersrand, instead of the present proposal of 30s. He, however, opposed any contribution whatever. The circumstances here were altogether different to Western Australia. Continuing, he said that he was convinced that rock drills had resulted in extra profits, and if they had increased the disease why should the men be asked to pay? The employers who used the drills and had taken the increased profits should bear the cost. The men’s side of the question had been given very little consideration. They should not do these men a great injustice. He did not represent a mining constituency, but he was convinced that the men had justified their position. Hon. members might be delighted to hear the polished speech of the hon. member for Georgetown, but there might not be so much truth in it as in the straightforward statement of an ordinary miner. He supported the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Fordsburg. If they put a lower scale of compensation in regard to natives they would foster the desire to employ blacks. He was quite certain that when this Bill was passed the owners would try to effect economies, and harm would come to the white workers. The employers would prefer the black man to the white man because of the burden that would be placed upon the white man. Now they had to get rid of this incentive to employ coloured men in preference to white men. Dealing with the question of medical certificates, he asked if the men would have to pay for these certificates? If the men had to pay, then he submitted that this was imposing another tax on the worker. The Act did not show who was going to pay for these medical certificates, which were compulsory. He read the section of the Bill to those hon. members who doubted him. Regarding the two years period of qualification he thought that periods of illness should be included; it would be unfair were it otherwise. Now he wanted to know the intention of the Government in regard to this compulsory medical examination; he thought that there would be no difficulty about the matter if the Minister or the Government was quite frank on the subject. If adequate compensation were given he thought that the men would readily come forward and submit themselves for medical examination. They wanted a little more information on this point. Dealing with the work of investigation, the speaker urged that the Government should commence at once with this part of the scheme. Then there was the question of consolidating the various sick funds, to which the men paid 10s. and more per month, but they were not satisfied with the state of affairs that existed. They had not the opportunity of choosing their own doctors, and there were other points that required investigation. If they were going to create a fund, why stop at phthisis; why not bring in some legislation to consolidate the sick funds? He hoped a Select Committee would be appointed to consider the points raised by the hon. member for Jeppe. He had given a great deal of thought to the matter, and was a practical man. He was not out to attempt to induce the Minister to do something he should not. Above all, he hoped the Minister would see that this impost proposed to be put on the men was unjust.

moved the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.

Agreed to.