from inhabitants of East London West, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from Margaretha van Blerk, teacher, praying that the period when she was on the staff of the Huguenot High School be added to her service.

from ministers and elders of the Presbyterian Church of Africa, praying that the House may grant the said church certain privileges and remove certain disabilities affecting and impeding its progress.

from inhabitants of King William’s Town, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

a similar petition from inhabitants of Butterworth.

from W. Ross, who when in the service of the Railway Department was dismissed in 1912, after having been suspended for one month, praying that in consequence of the financial loss thereby sustained he may be granted two months’ salary.

from residents of Port Elizabeth, praying for the removal of the “colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works, and Machinery Regulations.

a similar petition from residents of Knysna.

from B J. Sheard and 15 others, for construction of a railway from East London through the district of Peddie.

from inhabitants of Aliwal North, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

Return showing special warrants issued 1st to 30th April, 1914.

(for the Minister of the Interior): amended bye-law of the Association of Transvaal Architects.

Statements of the Estimated Revenue and Expenditure of the Financial Year 1913-T4, with memorandum dealing with the financial results of working the Railways during the years 1909 to 1913 (inclusive).

Statement of Accounts and Balances of the Transvaal Land Settlement Board, 1st May, 1911, to 30th April, 1912; Statement of Accounts of the Orange Free State Land Settlement. Board, 1st October, 1901, to 30th September, 1912.

Proposed Customs Tariff as compared with Tariff now in force; Memorandum of Income Tax and Land Tax proposals.

gave notice that he would move on Monday that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the resolution giving the details of the proposed alterations to the Customs and Excise Tariff. It was very long, and he thought the best course would be to lay the document on the Table. Under the Act the new Customs Tariff would come into operation from to-day subject to the proposals being adopted by Parliament. Besides the Tariff proposals, hon. members would also find certain white papers which explained in some detail the effect of these proposals. In regard to Customs, for instance, there was a white paper explaining exactly the alterations made in the Customs Tariff and stating briefly the reasons. In regard to the Income Tax and land proposals, there was a white paper explaining exactly the nature and effect of the proposals.

Do I understand the Minister to say that he is going to move on Monday to go into Committee of Ways and Means? Is that motion to take the place of the motion for the resumption of the Budget debate?

No, sir. On Monday when we come to the motion we might discuss the question and Mr. Speaker might give us some direction. It would be a great convenience to discuss the general Budget and these proposals in one debate. (Cheers.) After that general discussion there should be no separate discussion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. But that is subject to any indication Mr. Speaker may give to the House as to the proper course to be adopted.

said that would be very inconvenient so far as the railways were concerned, for the consequence would be that the Minister of Railways would escape criticism altogether, for the attention of the House would be concentrated on the general Budget.

I raise no objection. (Laughter.)

said the proposal involved a good deal of curtailment of debate. It would be much better to discuss each motion separately.

For the convenience of the House I may mention the Minister of Finance saw me yesterday, and I discussed the matter with him, and I pointed out to him that under our Rules if the motion were given notice of to-day it might have the effect of curtailing debate on the taxation proposals in regard to the Budget. It would put me in an awkward position, however, in regard to the Budget, as to the full and free discussion of the whole of the financial position under the Budget proposals. I suggested that so as to enable hon. members to have the very widest and fullest discussion the Minister should give notice to-day on this motion for Monday, and then the whole debate would arise on the motion on the paper. It would not curtail debate at all, as suggested by the hon. member for Jeppe, because if the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means is accepted, then the whole matter of the new taxation proposals could be threshed out in committee. It would give the House a fuller opportunity of discussing the whole financial position. In the House of Commons there is a Standing Committee of Ways and Means, and these are matters which are formally referred to that committee. I see no objection to the setting up of a Committee of Supply on the Estimates and at the same time the Committee of Ways and Means, so as to enable them not to curtail discussion on the new financial proposals.

who said it was a source of gratification to some of them on the Opposition side of the House that in this instance Cape methods had been neglected, and that the Union had gone to the Transvaal for precedent. The Transvaal Act was not due to the efforts of the Labour Party of that day. It was quite true that the original Bill introduced in the Transvaal Parliament was a very crude one, and it was licked into shape by a Select Committee, but its final shape was due to the efforts of the party to which he belonged. (Opposition cheers.)

As to the proposed reference of the Bill to Select Committee, he thought, when they found a Bill like this, which was so acceptable to all parties in the House, sent to Select Committee, it was time to pause and inquire why this should be so. Was it not time that the Government of this country should bring forward in this House Bills to which they had given mature consideration, that they should be prepared to adhere to the proposals in those Bills and fight them out on the floor of the House, and that they should not shelter themselves behind Select Committees? A few days ago they had another Bill sent to a Select Committee. What was the Government for? What were they paying the Government for? Were they simply trying to emulate the revolutionary methods which it was sought to introduce in another part of the country, and substitute for government by the Executive Committee government by Select Committee? So far as he could make out, there were only three important matters in this Bill on which the Select Committee had to deliberate. He thought one of the most important was that referred to last night by the hon. member for Von Brandis, that, while the Government prohibited any contracting out by employers, they deliberately contracted themselves out. He thought that the case of the police was one that deserved the most serious consideration of the Select Committee. He did not see any reason in the world why the Government, who were the largest employers of labour in this country, should deliberately contract themselves out of this Bill. Another point which he hoped the Select Committee would take into account and try to benefit from their experience and action in the Transvaal was this, that under the clauses of this Bill a certain section of the community was to a certain extent exempted. He meant the farming population. (Hear, hear.) They had that same pernicious exemption in the draft Bill when it was introduced into the Transvaal Parliament, but the Government of the day discovered that there would be most strenuous opposition, and it was thrown out. It was a very wrong thing if any action on the part of members in this House continued to perpetuate the idea that a certain section of the community was going to be favoured at the expense of the other. He did not believe, from what he knew of the working of the present Act in the Transvaal, that the inclusion of the farming population within the provisions of that Act had led to any great hardship. He was informed that there had not been one single case of litigation under that Act, but it would be unfortunate in his opinion if anything they did in this House should tend to perpetuate the idea which was prevalent in some parts of the country that the Government were favouring one section of the population more than another.

There was only one other subject which, so far as he could make out, deserved the consideration of the Select Committee, and that was whether occupational diseases ought to be included under the provisions of the Bill. This matter had formed the subject of inquiry in other parts of the world, and there was a consensus of opinion that occupational diseases were just as much an accident as any accident that might occur. He would recommend that occupational diseases should be included under the provisions of this Bill, though he must say, despite what had been said by one of the members on the cross-benches, that he had been looking in vain in this country for the occupation that was going, to cause these diseases.

What about phthisis?

said that, as to phthisis, in England it was found, after most careful inquiry, impossible to schedule the disease known as miners’ phthisis as an occupational disease, and for very good reasons. The hon. member addled that there were some occupational diseases which to his mind ought to be scheduled. They were diseases to which; some of his hon. friends on the cross benches were liable to succumb sooner or later, and he thought sooner than laten. (Laughter.)

said he thought that provision should be made in this Bill for accidents arising in cases where a man was suffering from heart disease or from epilepsy and cases where an accident occurred through some physical defect that the employer knew nothing about. The intention of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was to provide compensation for accidents to people in the employ of others, men who were not able to look after themselves or men necessarily occupied in dangerous work.

Men were included in this Bill who drew pay up to the extent of £500 a year. Surely if a man of that stamp were engaged in a dangerous occupation and drawing salary up to that amount, he ought to be left to insure himself against accidents. He did not see why the ordinary people who employed others should be penalised to the extent of having to provide compensation for people who were perfectly well able to look after themselves. He hoped that the limit would be placed at a lower figure, and that the Select Committee would look very carefully into this point. If they were going to make this Bill applicable to the farming population who were using mechanical appliances—and they knew that in most instances men were temporarily employed— they were going to kill enterprise by making the employer liable to pay compensation for accidents. He wished to meet the remark made by the hon. member for Denver that it was wrong to perpetuate the idea in this House that a certain class were being favoured. He thought that the farming population were as anxious as anybody to have compensation for their workmen properly laid down. The conditions of the country were against applying this principle. In the country districts they were far away not only from medical assistance, but also from insurance offices, and they were not likely to get insurance for their workmen on reasonable terms.

said that he also hoped that the Select Committee would give some consideration to the case of the individual earning £500 per annum, but he hoped that they would give consideration to it from the point of view of knocking out the £500 altogether. Hon. members seemed to have entirely lost sight of this fact, that they on the cross-benches, at all events, looked upon workmen’s compensation or the liability to pay compensation as a means of preventing accidents.

He wanted to point out to the hon. member for Clanwilliam, that it seemed to him that it did not matter whether a man was paid £1 a week or £500 a year why he should not get compensation for an injury which he sustained. No employer paid a man more salary than he could command by reason of his ability, and that salary was paid in respect of what that employer was getting back from that employee. It had nothing to do with compensation for any injury. It had been said with regard to agricultural labourers that there was a difficulty of insuring them owing to distances. Did farmers find any difficulty in insuring their cattle? He pointed out at Springs there were agents who went out to the farm for the purpose of insuring cattle, and he did not think that these agents were only stationed at Springs. Whether farmers insured or not, the fact remained that these agents were ready to come to their doorsteps. The hon. member for Denver, criticising some remarks of the hon. member for Commissioner-street with regard to occupational diseases, said that they had been looking in vain for cases of occupational disease outside miners’ phthisis. Had the hon. member never heard of mercurial poisoning in the batteries?

That is not permanent disablement.

said that men had come to him with their teeth falling out. The remark just showed the attitude mine members of that House brought to bear on these big problems. Then there were men who became stone deaf. Was that an occupational disease? These men were in great danger of being knocked down in the streets. But they were not only legislating for to-day; they were considering legislation for the future, and hon. members had been crying out for the encouragement of industries.

Numerous industries might be started in the near future, and might bring their occupational diseases, and they should be prepared for these diseases. He thought they should have a schedule which could be added to the Bill, as the English schedule. He went on to refer to the two stock diseases mentioned by the hon. member for Commissioner-street, and dealing with the maximum amount of compensation and the reduction from £1,000 to £750 in the Transvaal, he said that experience had proved that the maximum was never paid, and the people of the Cape Province were suffering in this way at the present time. That was why they had always urged that a stipulated sum should be laid down, and that there should not be varying awards by an individual whose liver might be out of order when he was hearing a case. He thought they had the right to claim that those people whom they represented should have plenty of time to study the Bill. It was stated in one of the morning papers that the Bill was gazetted weeks ago— “two weeks” was “weeks.” The Bill was published on April 18, and there were numerous complaints in connection with this matter. He suggested that the Minister, when he sent the Bill to a Select Committee, should take care to gain all the information and evidence that was possible. The Minister might consider the advisability, owing to interested people being unable to bear the expense of travelling, etc., to appoint a small commission to obtain information first hand at the big centres. Whatever might be the motive of the Government, he thought it was an effort on the part of the Government to meet a crying need in this country. He went on to deal with the provision in case of total incapacitation of three years or £750. He thought that was wrong, because if a limit was set, it should be on the basis of whichever would yield the greater sum. He pointed out that the New Zealand Act had that stipulation. He pointed out that the New Zealand Act laid down that the magistrate or the judge could award over and above amounts stipulated for various injuries in consideration of special circumstances. There was a loss of companionship and affection which the wife suffered in addition to the actual financial loss incurred through the death of her husband. A man’s relatives were entitled to something more than mere bare compensation for his loss of earning powers.

He (Mr. Madeley) could not understand the Minister when he said that the police should not come under the Bill. Hon. members should endeavour to realise how much they owed the police, and how little they paid them. It was said that they had pensions, but these pensions were given very largely in consequence of the low rate of pay. The police were always in hot water and squabbles, and their lives and limbs were always in danger. Again, why should domestic servants be excluded from the Bill ? They had to do the work they were told, whether that was safe or dangerous. The Select Committee should consider the inclusion of domestic servants as well as of agricultural labourers. Suppose an agricultural labourer were sent up a fruit tree by means of a rotten ladder and it broke, what remedy had he? He would rather see the rights of agricultural labourers plainly laid down by law, than that they should have to depend on anyone’s act of grace. As to the method of payment, it should be sufficient for a man to prove that he was injured, and compensation should then be paid to him, the onus of proving that compensation was not due resting with the employer. Mr. Madeley mentioned a case of a man who fell down a shaft of a gold mine and was killed. His aged parents lived in Scotland, and when the claim for compensation was made, the company immediately refused to pay, on the grounds that deceased’s parents were not dependent on him. The company insisted that these poor old parents should come out and prove that they were dependent on the earnings of their son. Mr. Madeley took exception to clause 32, which provided that an employer and his workman might agree as to the amount to be paid as compensation in respect of the permanent partial incapacity or permanent total incapacity of the workman. That contained a very dangerous principle, for an injured man’s condition would make him easy game for a designing employer. There should be no contracting out either before or after an accident.

agreed with the hon. member for Denver, that there were no occupational diseases worth mentioning in this country. It was also his opinion that miners’ phthisis was no purely occupational disease, and provision had been made for miners suffering from this disease elsewhere.

If there was an occupational disease in the country it was found in this House among certain members of the cross benches, who suffered from an ignorance of what they were talking about. The idea of insurance agents travelling about the country to insure farm labourers against accidents was preposterous.

He was sorry that the member for Denver went so far as to say that the Government was guilty of class legislation where it excluded in this Bill the class of farm labourers from coming under the scope of its working. Could the hon. member not see that the case of a worker in a large concern, and in a large centre, was entirely different from that of a farm labourer far removed from medical aid or other means of immediate attention. In the latter case it would be impossible to demand compensation more than the farmer already gave by attending to such cases and supporting the families. He would vote for the second reading.

said that, leaving the colour line out of the wording of the Bill would help very little, if the mining regulations in the Transvaal were not altered. The power which had been given to Government to frame regulations enabled them to establish a colour line in the Transvaal, and the same might be done here. Not only was power given to the Government to make regulations, but at the end of clause 40 it was stated that “Differing regulations may be made for different Provinces, districts, or other areas in the Union.” This was the same thing over again. He hoped that the Minister would, in his reply, deal with this point, and that means would be taken to disabuse the minds of the people, who were justified in having suspicion in the direction he (Mr. Schreiner) had indicated. He could not see the fairness of not including police and members of the Defence Forces in the Bill.

He agreed with those who thought that workmen employed in agriculture should not have been exempted from the operation of this Bill. It was true that men employed “at or about any engine driven or machine worked by mechanical power ” were included in the Bill, even though they were engaged in agriculture, but surely that was not wide enough. Farm labourers might be injured or killed in many other ways. He did allow that in the circumstances of the country many farmers paid attention to their employees who became disabled in one way or another, and that the position was not exactly the same, perhaps, as employment in a factory, but there was a good deal of force in the argument that had been put forward that they must help people to do right, and that farmers, with all their good qualities, were only human beings, and that they must be given an inducement to be careful of the lives of those in their employ. As to domestics, it was very hard indeed that a domestic servant who had suffered some injury in the performance of work at the command of her master or mistress should not be allowed to get compensation. There was one point that must be made quite clear, and that was that the right of any employee to avail himself of the common law and get compensation should not be touched. He saw in the Bill that the workman or his representative would have to elect whether he would institute proceedings at common law or under this Bill. He thought that was a change. It must be made perfectly clear that the people who were not to be compensated under this Bill had none of their other rights infringed. Under the Native Labour Act, No. 15 of 1911, provision was made for natives who were injured. When that Bill was before the House he did his Lest without success to have the compensation raised to a higher level and to get the minimum rate raised. However, when they once went wrong at one time in an Act that wrong was likely to be carried into other legislation. The injustice still existed that natives might receive altogether too small an amount of compensation under Act No. 15 of 1911, and certainly less than they would be entitled to if they were included in this Bill.

said he thought it was only fair to congratulate the Government on the Bill placed before the House. He thought, from the reception which it had had, that when the Government took the trouble to bring in consolidating measures they would have very little trouble in getting them through the House. He only wished that some of these consolidating measures were not entirely in connection with labour and industrial matters. He wished that the Government would lay their hands now to some of those commercial matters which were so urgently required by the country. With regard to this Bill, some of the employers in Durban had sent him their views and they had expressed themselves as generally satisfied with this measure. One of the points on which they had some doubts was as to whether employers were sufficiently safeguarded in case of total incapacity of employees. A man totally incapacitated under this Bill was entitled to an amount of £750. The employers he had mentioned suggested that it would be an improvement to the Bill if they defined what were the cases of total incapacity, as was done, for instance, in regard to insurance policies for accident. He was surprised that the Minister was willing to have this Bill sent to a Select Committee, in view of the fact that it had been received with so much approval from all parts of the House, except one part, from which they did not expect to get approval to any Bill introduced by the Government. He thought the Government might well go on with this Bill and thresh it out on the floor of the House.

said he wished to say a few words in support of the general principles laid down in this Bill. He thought it was an honest attempt on the part of the Minister of Public Works to deal with this question of workmen’s compensation. It would be agreed, he thought, that the Minister would have every assistance from members on the cross-benches in making this a good, sound measure and a credit to the laws of the country. In spite of everything the hon. member for Berea, might say, they did not intend to put up any opposition to a Bill which was sound in principle, although in certain respects it was capable of amendment. The hon. member for Berea spoke on behalf of the employers of Natal, who seemed to be alarmed at the idea of having to pay £750 when a person was declared to be totally incapacitated. It did not necessarily follow that, if a man were totally incapacitated, he would get £750, because there was a proviso which stated that he might get £750 or three years’ wages, “whichever sum may be the less.” The Minister of Public Works knew that, as far as Natal was concerned, this Bill was long overdue. They had had no Workmen’s Compensation Act in Natal, nor had there been one in the Free State. Certainly in Natal they had had an Employers’ Liability Act, but from the workmen’s point of view it had been more or less a farce. He felt sure that in this respect the Minister would not be forgotten by the workers in Natal. Both this session and last many of the workers in Natal had written to him (Mr. Boydell) asking when the Government were going to do something in the way of bringing in a Workmen’s Compensation Act. A most important omission, and one that had been emphasised in this House—and he was glad that the hon. member for Denver had emphasised it—was that no provision was made for those who fell by the way owing to occupational diseases. Miners’ phthisis had been declared by a Medical Commission to be an occupational disease. It was one of the planks of the Labour platform to do what they could to bring miners’ phthisis under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and he hoped that the Minister would give this point his serious consideration. The hon. member commented on the attitude of the hon. member for Denver, who he said, although he asked the Minister to include industrial diseases, went out of his way to say that he must include the others but not miners’ phthisis. He thought the Bill should be made as comprehensive as possible. He thought the Minister wanted to make it not only suitable for to-day but suitable for to-morrow, and he appealed to him to take this matter into serious consideration, and move an amendment in Select Committee if the Bill went there He could not understand the Minister excluding the agricultural labourer, unless working on certain machines. In the Transvaal Act the white agricultural labourer was included whether he worked on machines or anything else. As the colour bar had been taken out of that Bill before the House and the Government was extending it in other respects to the coloured people he appealed to the Minister to seriously consider this matter. Then there was the question of a man losing his right to appeal under the common law if he was a beneficiary under this Act. This was not the case in other countries, and he thought the Minister was taking a retrograde step. He suggested the Minister should go on the lines laid down in other countries that without prejudice to his appeal under the common law a man could benefit under this Act and get anything special which the Court might award. He thought that good as the Bill was it could be further improved, and he thought that if the Minister would take the advice of well-meaning critics in the Select Committee it would be a tar better measure when it returned.

said that he shared the view of the hon. member for Berea as to the Bill going to a Select Committee. He thought the Government might have taken the responsibility of pushing this Bill through the House as there was a disposition on all sides to give the Bill every encouragement. If the Minister did send the Bill to a Select Committee he (Mr. Chaplin) hoped he would see that it was not unduly delayed by taking unnecessary evidence. It seemed to him that the hon. member for Springs, while blessing the Bill, put forward a suggestion that would have the result of killing it. He not only advocated taking evidence but also advocated sending a Commission round the country. If that was done and the Bill delayed it would be a million chances to one against it getting through the House that session. Continuing, he said that in the Transvaal House they had a debate on lines similar to the one that had taken place in that House. There were those who wanted to get as much for the workmen as possible, and there were employers who had to pay and who hoped that other employers would have to pay. He did not see any logical reason for excluding a large number of men. It seemed to him that it did not matter whether a man was killed by a machine or gored by a bull. He was quite well aware that the conditions of employment so far as agriculture was concerned were not exactly the same as in industrial concerns, but he thought they could get over the difficulty by following the procedure which the Minister proposed in clause 6. The principle was that if the employer was put to the expense of maintaining a man during temporary incapacity, that should be taken into consideration. By the recognition of that principle he thought they might get over the difficulty of the inclusion of agricultural labourers. It had been assumed that the payment of compensation made little difference to the employer or an industry and that the community paid the difference. That was not the case in that country. They were dependent on gold mining and the farming industry. In gold mining everybody knew that the price of the product could not be altered, and any expense to which the employer was put entailed a direct loss on profits and was not compensated for by increased efficiency owing to there being less accidents. It was much the same with the farming industry. He thought that this point should be taken into consideration, and that if an industry was crippled that state of affairs must re-act on the workers.

The scale of compensation followed the lines laid down in the Transvaal Act. That he thought was a sort of satisfaction to members who took part in the Select Committee on that Act, and he pointed out that then the hon. member for Commissioner-street did some most valuable work, and he hoped that if a Select Committee was appointed in this instance that the hon. member for Commissioner-street would be a member. With regard to occupational diseases, he should say that if there were any known industrial diseases in this country which did materially interfere with a man’s occupation it would be necessary to include them under this Act, but apart from the question of miners’ phthisis, which stood by itself, he did not think there was at present any particular necessity for making a provision of this kind. It had been said that they should make provision for the future, but when they had got large industries established he thought that the time would then be more opportune. Dealing with the question of the police, he said he thought that a case had been made out for men being compensated for injury sustained while on duty. Hon. members on the cross-benches were very solicitous about the police, and if their friends had been equally solicitous they would not have heard of so many of these hard cases. Then there was the question of the £500 limit. In that he agreed with the hon. member on the cross benches, but if the £500 limit was withdrawn, it would be necessary to limit the weekly amount paid to men concerned. The hon. member for Durban, Greyville, on the question of appeal, said that workmen should have the right to benefit under this Act and go to law at the same time. That would be unfair to the employer, and what was unfair to the employer must re-act against the men. Time was allowed under the Act for a man to find out the extent of his injuries and what chance he would have if he went to court, and he thought it was unreasonable to encourage people to bring speculative actions. In conclusion, he hoped the Bill would have a speedy passage and that it would not be found necessary to send it to a Select Committee.

said he was not going to disturb the chorus of approval which had greeted the Bill. The point he wished to raise was, whether this matter of workmen’s compensation could not be simplified? It was not merely a question of the compensation of the workmen, but the tremendous costs that were incurred. He would like the Minister to consider whether it was not advisable to devise a scheme somewhat on the lines of the New Zealand scheme, to do away with the great expense. There was a schedule in the New Zealand Act which laid down that the percentages on which compensation was paid in respect of certain specified accidents. He was informed that the working of the New Zealand Act had had an admirable effect, had led to great simplification, and had done away with a tremendous amount of litigation, both employer and employee knowing their exact legal positions. Unfortunately, some lawyers battened on the business of making claims for injured people. Although he was of opinion that, as a general rule, too much legislation was referred to Select Committees, he would welcome a Select Committee on this Bill, for such a committee would be enabled to take the evidence of experts. He regretted that the Bill followed the Cape Act in exempting certain classes of people from its operations. If the principle of paying compensation were a sound one, it should apply all round. (Cheers.) He failed to see why a domestic servant, a policeman, or an agricultural labourer who was injured should be treated in a less reasonable way than people following other occupations.

agreed that the principle of compensation should apply all round, and it should also apply, not only in the case of injuries, but in all sicknesses due to occupation. He did not like the wage-earning system under which we were working, but it was certainly the employer’s duty to compensate his workpeople if they were injured or incapacitated. The exemptions were a blot on the Bill, and he disagreed with the principle that persons earning more than £500 a year should be excluded from the benefits of the measure; there was no logic in saying that a man who earned £499 per annum should have the benefit of the Bill, whilst one who earned £501 should not. Native labourers on the mines should not be excluded; it was futile to say that they contracted the disease of silicosis, except when engaged in mining on the Rand. The procedure should be simplified, and the men should be protected from getting into the hands of unscrupulous lawyers and the more unscrupulous agents of insurance companies. The latter were most objectionable people, and frequently the moment the man was injured they rushed round to the hospital and tried to get him to accept possibly half the sum to which he was legally entitled. The injured man, frightened at the possibility of expensive law costs, frequently accepted far less than the sum he ought to get The Labour Bureau might be utilised, and it should be the duty of their officials to assist injured workmen to frame their claims, and it should be laid down that no agreement for the settlement of a claim should be legal unless it was arrived at in the presence of a Government official. Again, if a man failed under the Bill, he should be entitled to bring a claim under the common law if he wished to do so. He believed that a mere pittance had, so far, been paid out under the Miners’ Phthisis Act to natives who contracted the disease. He thought that natives who were affected by any occupational disease should be included under this law. On the whole, he proposed to support the second reading of the Bill, though it required a good deal of attention before it was allowed to become law.

said the House was engaged in introducing class legislation. Yesterday the House had passed a Bill to protect the wages of the labourer, while nothing was done to protect the employer. Now, as regards the present Bill, he could understand that something should be done to protect people in dangerous occupations, even on farms, but he thought in this Bill they went too far. Why should they not introduce a clause protecting the employer, who often suffered the greatest damage as the result of the carelessness of the employee? He wished to know from the Minister whether it was possible to alter the preamble, so that the employer as well as the employee could be protected? One never heard anything about the workmen being grateful.

said the previous speaker wanted everything in one Bill. As to the arguments used by the hon. member, he wished to point out that more laws had been passed for the protection of the farmer than for the protection of anyone else. There was a law, he wished to say, for the protection of the employer who suffered damages through the carelessness of his employees. As to the statements that the farming population should be included in the Bill, he wished to say that if the farm labourers applied for inclusion in the Bill, he for one would not object. But a request to that effect had never yet been made. He could say that farmers always attended to and looked after their employees when they became sick or suffered other injury. Hence he could not see any cause for the inclusion of the farmer in this measure. He trusted the Minister would stand by the Bill as it was, and would not introduce a principle which was not required. If ever it were necessary to protect farm-hands, he would be one of the first to favour any attempt to do so.

said that it was certainly gratifying to those of them who supported the Cape Government that originally introduced the Workmen’s Compensation Act, to hear the nice things that were said about it, not only by the Minister, but also by the members of the House. At that time they had one section of the House who stated that a Workmen’s Compensation Act in this country was premature, and that a very large responsibility would be thrown on the employers. They had another section supporting the Bill who stated that it was only fair and just to the workmen of this country that compensation should be given in respect to accidents sustained in the course of employment, and who pointed out that there would be no responsibility to the extent that it had been placed before the House, as the insurance companies would undertake the risk. He was glad to say that the Minister had extended, to some extent, the powers of the Compensation Act. It would have been well if they had brought forward a Workmen’s Compensation Bill for all workers—for the farming community or the workers in the domestic service, and civil servants, and certainly the police. He could not understand why the Minister had left the police out of that Bill. In regard to the costs, he always felt it was an iniquitous thing that a workman claiming compensation under the Compensation Acts should be put to the expenditure which he was put to at the present time. The idea underlying that Bill was to make the costs as low as possible, and he thought there should be somebody or some person appointed by the Government who would take up a man’s case for him and put it through free of all expense. It had been suggested that they should take into consideration the provisions of the New Zealand Act in the matter of assessing a man’s injuries, but it would be a wrong principle to place the same value on a certain limb in all cases. In respect of the time for making claims regarding disablement under that Bill it was necessary for one to make a claim for total disablement within a certain number of months, and if he did not claim within those months he would lose his opportunity, but it was often a very delicate thing for a medical man to say that a man was going to be all right within a certain period. It was very difficult for a medical man to say that a man was totally disabled for life and entitled to full compensation. There were many cases where it might take two years before a medical man could definitely say, and in consequence the employer by this Bill would suffer. There were cases of men who had received full compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Acts, and within two years were back at their ordinary work. There should certainly be some provision put in to protect employers against malingerers, and also to enable employees to get their compensation as cheap as possible. Supposing a man returned to work under that Bill before he was quite better. He would lose all opportunity of further compensation, if he were off again as the result of the accident. He trusted the points he had raised would be given the consideration which he considered they deserved.

said he wondered where the Opposition was to-day. They had had very little. The measure before the House appeared to be a most popular one. From all sides it was greeted with enthusiastic applause almost. Even his hon. friends the hon. members on the cross-benches, who claimed to be the Opposition, had had very little to say. He was afraid it would be left to himself to take the opposition view on that occasion. (Laughter.) He did not like the title, “Workmen’s Compensation.” The addition of the word “Workmen” to him did not ring true. It seemed to him there was a wish to curry favour in that, it was not a necessity in the Bill at all. If the title of the Bill had been “A Compensation for Injuries Bill ” it would be quite sufficient without “workmen’s” being added, hut the word “ workmen ” gave the keynote to the Bill so far as he could see. He objected to the lack of sincerity and the lack of honesty in the Bill. He objected, if they were to deal with a matter of that kind, to the exclusion of farm labourers, natives, and domestic servants. It was beneath the honesty of the House to consider Bills which were so transparently unfair as that was. The chorus of applause with which the Bill had been greeted from lawyers, from doctors, and from people who were not really interested in the matter was a proof to him how generous they were when they were giving away the other man’s money. The lawyers would lose nothing under that Bill, the doctors would lose nothing by it, they would be surer of their fees than they were before, and the farmers in the House would see they were not going to lose anything by it.

It was not a question of compensation for injuries, but it was to his mind the fact that Socialism was in the ascendancy in the House at the present time. Nationalists and Unionists were falling over each other to acclaim legislation of that kind. They were pandering to that idea of Socialistic legislation. Why did they not have an Old Age Pensions Bill at once, a State insurance against unemployment, and all the rest of the Socialistic rigmarole? (Hear, hear.) He thought they had established a world’s record in the Parliament of South Africa during the present session. They were on the point of passing a Workmen’s Wages Lien Bill, Plural Voting Bill, a Compensation for Injuries Bill, a Riotous Assemblies Bill, a Factories Bill, a Strikes Prevention Bill, and a Trade Unions Recognition Bill. He should think that was a record in the whole world in the matter of industrial legislation. That Government would go down to posterity from the point of view of political poltroonery of that kind. Why should they throw up the sponge before the fight was over? The whole thing to his mind was a surrender to Socialism in South Africa. He could afford to tell the truth about it, and he congratulated the hon. members on the cross-benches on the success which they were gaining, for in his belief it was their doings which had brought these things to the point to which they had been brought to-day. If they had more of his kind in the House his hon. friends would gain precious little success of that sort. He quite agreed that the man who received an injury should be paid, but he did not like the way in which this legislation was being introduced. He was opposed to Socialistic legislation on principle, and that was why he was opposed to the introduction of the thin end of the wedge in that Bill. He warned the House that it was going along a dangerous road, and that they would not be able to stop when they wanted to do so. Although the Bill in itself appeared to be very good, it was a danger to South Africa.

said he thought everybody felt that this Bill was a step in the right direction except the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member for Umlazi reminded him of the old Scotchwoman who, when a regiment was passing by with her son in the ranks, exclaimed, ‘The whole regiment is out of step except our Jock.” (Laughter.) The hon. member for Umlazi seemed to be always agin the Government, and if he was not a man agin the Government, he was against somebody else, or something else. (Laughter.) In this case it was a measure of the most sympathetic character the Government had ever introduced. Continuing, he said he was in favour of agricultural labourers being placed on the same footing although he had never heard of a case where a farmer had cast an injured man adrift and left him to starve. Continuing, he said that the sympathy of the magistrates was generally on the side of the workman, subject to the law being on his side. He agreed that there should be a limit to legal expenses. He did not agree with some members who had said that large bills of costs were run up, because in most cases men got compensation without the aid of a lawyer, and it was generally when a case was disputed that a lawyer was called in. Compensation should not be on the principle of a leg being worth so much. He instanced the case of a man who had his jaw smashed and lost the power of speech. Now if that man was an attendant at a deaf and dumb institution his loss would not be as great as if he were, for instance, a member of the cross-benches. (Laughter.) In the latter case, of course, he would expect to get the highest compensation the magistrate could allow. He asked why the police, naval, and military forces should not come under this Bill, though on the old Cape principle he would rather trust to the tender mercies of Parliament than any Act of Parliament. In conclusion, he said that appeals should be limited, and that if the master appealed there should be no costs against the workman; that the amount of law costs should be limited as against the unfortunate workman, and that farm labourers might just as well be put in as it would not affect the average farmer.

said he had thought originally that it would not take long to pass the second reading of this Bill, especially in view of the fact that the measure was to go to a Select Committee. He had listened with interest to hon. members on the cross-benches and he wondered when it would be possible to satisfy these hon. members. As to the provisions of the measure, he wished to say that there was already provision in the Transvaal for the protection of the working man, and he was pleased to see the proposal to have the same provisions all over the Union. He would, however, object to extend the scope of the Bill to farm labourers, whose occupation, after all, was not by any means of a dangerous nature. Furthermore, as had been said by other members, farmers always looked after their employees. It had been said that farmers who had to deal with machinery could insure in cases of this kind, but he objected to the principle, as it was tantamount to an extra tax on the farmer, and that was impossible. He could not support such a proposal. Dealing with cases of the police, he held that if there was not sufficient provision for the police in the police regulations, they should be brought under this Bill, because they were the very first people deserving of consideration, especially in view of the fact that the lot of a policeman had of late become more dangerous. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, Mr. Geldenhuys said he wished to warn the Minister that he was not going to agree to everything the Select Committee might like to introduce. He represented farmers as well as workingmen, and he was not going to allow the farmers to be oppressed by the Labour people. (Hear, hear.) It was quite a good thing to protect the workingmen, but at the same time the employer was also entitled to protection. He certainly was not going to vote in favour of the farm employees being brought under the scope of the Bill, for the reason that in the first place there was no necessity for such a provision, and in the second place because he did not want an unnecessary burden to be placed on the farmer.

said he had been waiting for some long time to get some sound reason from hon. members opposite as to why farm servants should not be included in the Bill. (Hear, hear.) He could not call the reasons given by the last speaker either sound or convincing; he would not say anything more about them; he could, but he would not. He understood the hon. member to say that if farm servants were included he would oppose the Bill because that would be a tax on the poor farmer. It would not be maintained, surely, that a farmer was less thoughtful of his servants than any other employer, but the point was to give the agricultural labourer a legal right to compensation. In the Transvaal Parliament the objections to putting farm workers in the Bill came, not from the poor, but from the rich farmers. The Bill would apply to thousands of employers apart from the mines—every man with a small business would be subject to the Bill and he would insure against the possible risk. Hon. members opposite should do everything possible to free themselves from the reproach that they were excluding themselves from the Bill, because they did not wish to undertake the same burdens that devolved upon other employers. In many cases that would be a wrong reproach, but if they opposed the inclusion of agricultural labourers, they would justly be charged with placing burdens on ordinary employers which they themselves would shirk. It had been said that there was little risk of accidents on farms, and if that were so, it was all the more reason why farming occupations should be included in the Bill. Then every servant, no matter what his colour, should come under the operations of the measure. There were scores and scores of people, poor people on the Rand especially, who would find a difficulty in paying the insurance even on one domestic servant. As far as shop assistants were concerned, and all other employees, actually outside household work, he would put everyone of them under the Bill. The whole thing could be covered by insurance.

He hoped that on the opposite side of the House they would not be guided by the ungenerous, short-sighted, views expressed by his hon. friend opposite, that they would not be one whit behind any other member of the House, and that they would support this Bill, even if it came back from the Select Committee with agricultural servants included within its provisions. Hon. members opposite could not afford to have this reproach levelled against them, but they could not complain when the reproach was levelled against them if they refused to come within this Bill. He would say one word about the police. He really did not see why the police should be excluded from this Bill. If he were a policeman, he would rather have £100 certain than trust to the generosity of Parliament. The point had been entirely missed by the hon. member opposite, that the police, if placed under this Act, would have this compensation as of right. It had been said that gratuities were given in the old Cape House where petition was made. He often wondered what the old Cape Parliament was like. He was told that it was a very respectable body. (Laughter.) He would say, in regard to the farm worker and every man who worked for the State, not only those whose work was like a policeman’s work, they should see that when any of these men were injured or killed those who were left behind, or those who were dependent upon them, should not go without compensation. He would urge upon the House these two points: that agricultural labourers and the police should be brought under this Bill.

said that, in regard to the police, he wanted to add his protest to those already raised against the exclusion of the police from this Bill. The point that had really occurred to his mind was whether, in the case of the police in Natal, where they had a large police force at Durban and also at Pietermaritzburg, these men would not be able to come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act at all. If that were so, he thought they would have to have the Bill amended. He merely asked the question so that the Minister could give him some information on the point in his reply. He, with others, felt that the police, even the Government police force, should have an opportunity of coming under the Act. If they were provided for in any other way, as in many cases he knew they were, whichever was the greater, the men should have the benefit.

said the hon. member for Troyeville had stated that only the rich farmers had objected to the inclusion of the farming community in the old Transvaal Act. The fact of the matter was that special legislation had been Introduced to deal with ac2idents, especially on the mines. Naturally on the mines the employers could always insure the employees, which the farmers could not do. The farmers in reality objected to being brought in under a law which was introduced specially for the mines. Under the general law compensation was only payable when negligence on the part of the employer had been proved. The Transvaal law only included white farm labourers. The difference as to the colour of the skin was now abolished. He thought the Transvaal would have been better off under the Bill, because only farm labourers who had to handle machinery fell under its provisions. He thought the Bill as it stood was an improvement on the existing law, and he would vote for it as it stood.

said there were one or two points that he thought had not yet been presented to the notice of the Minister. They had heard that there were a number of exemptions in this Bill, agricultural workers, domestic workers, etc., and he would like to ask the Minister whether barmen and hotel waiters were also exempted from its provisions. The Minister was to be congratulated on the fact that no colour bar remained in this Bill. That was true, but he found in practice that native workers were barred from the provisions of the Bill. If they read section 2 (1, f) they found that “persons whose right to compensation in respect of personal injuries caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment are governed by Act No. 15 of 1911.” They were exempt. Act No. 15 of 1911 was the Native Labour Regulation Act, and they found in that Act that whenever an accident occurred to a native compensation was to be assessed on the following scale: Partial incapacitation, £1 to £20; permanent total incapacitation, £30 to £50; death £10. These amounts were very much less than the native would be entitled to were he really included in this Bill the same as other workers. Therefore, although in name the colour bar was removed, still the disability existed on the native workers in the country.

Only one set of workers.

(proceeding) said he hoped that the Minister would see his way clear to alter that, because not only from the point of view of the injustice done to the natives, but also from the point of view of the white workers in this country, this was another instance of the special legislation which had been brought into existence throughout South Africa to make it more easy and more profitable for the employer to hire a black man than to hire a white man. The point made by the hon. member for Three Rivers regarding appeals to superior courts, he agreed with. It was not a good thing nor was it in the interest of the workers. He believed that the workers were satisfied to leave the final decision in the hands of the magistrates courts. There had been no criticism of the provisions of the Transvaal Act in that respect. That Act did not allow of appeals to a superior court. The hon. member added a word of regret that industrial or occupational diseases were not provided for under the Bill before the House. The hon. member for Denver gave the House to understand that in his opinion industrial diseases did not exist to any large extent in South Africa. Excepting miners’ phthisis, he (Mr. Andrews) could not confirm that view. He had a shrewd suspicion that there were many workers who suffered from occupational diseases in this country, and mentioned that printers and pottery workers were probably subject to lead poisoning. He would be surprised if amongst the natives engaged in pottery work in the Transvaal many were not suffering from lead poisoning. Although the hon. member for Denver might be correct in stating that industrial diseases had not reached a great extent in this country as yet, the time for bringing in legislation was before the disease had become in the nature of a national scandal. If there was no disease then the employers need not fear industrial or occupational disease being included in the provisions of that Act. The native mine workers on the Witwatersrand were treated, as all workers should be treated who were liable to miners’ phthisis. It was distinctly laid down in the Transvaal Act of 1912 that miners’ phthisis so far as natives were concerned was an occupational disease. Surely that was evidence enough to lay before the House that there was justification for saying that miners’ phthisis was an industrial disease. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in the first schedule of the Bill there was a definition of permanent incapacity which was not found in the Transvaal Act. It seemed that before a man could become entitled to compensation for permanent incapacity he had got to prove he could not work any more at any time at anything and receive wages for so doing. For any man to be called upon to prove that was absolutely unjust on the part of the Government. He should not be expected to prove such a state of health before he was entitled to that compensation. And as the maximum of compensation was three years’ wages it should be sufficient to ask reasonable grounds to be shown that for three years he could not earn his wages, but under that Bill it would go on for the whole of his life. The definition should be left out entirely.

There was another point which did not affect the Bill, but it did affect the hon. member for Commissioner-street. The hon. member for Germiston had given the House to understand that the hon. member for Commissioner-street (who was not able to make the explanation), when a member of the Transvaal Parliament, stated that he was not in favour of miners’ phthisis being scheduled as an industrial or occupational disease. That was to some extent true, but the hon. member for Germiston did not tell the House that in the earlier stages of the debate on that particular question, his hon. friend was quite in favour of it. The hon. member for Germiston informed the House or Committee which discussed the matter that there would be a great possibility, if not a probability, that if the law were passed the whole of the men on the mines of the Witwatersrand who were found to be suffering from that disease would be discharged before the Bill came into operation. If the hon. member did not make that statement he would no doubt say so. The hon. member for Commissioner-street put that interpretation upon it, and it caused him to withdraw the position he had taken up. On the whole, he (Mr. Andrews) congratulated the Minister for introducing the Bill, but hoped he would recognise the criticism which had been brought forward.

argued that the responsibility of notification of injury should rest with the employer. Certainly the employer should be the one to notify. With regard to the exemptions one tendency would be for people to carry on industries outside factones. A large number of people would be induced to carry on operations at their own homes, which would leave the employers outside the Act. Dealing with occupational diseases he quoted another case where a prominent Trade Union official died and his death was found to have been due to lead poisoning. He hoped that the Minister would not lose sight of this question. Dealing with the agricultural labourer, he said it seemed strange that when anything touched their pockets they rose up in arms.

in replying on the debate, said it had been stated that the Bill had not been sufficiently circulated. It was quite true the Bill had not been published very long, but it was circulated to 22 workmen’s associations and 13 employers’ associations, and only in two of the former and two of the latter cases were suggestions made. With regard to the agricultural labourers, he thought the general consensus of opinion was that the proposals of the Government were reasonable under the circumstances. The hon. member for Troyeville brought up the case of the poor householder with one native servant, who would be hard put to it to pay the insurance. That same argument might apply to the poor farmer. (Cries of “No.”) With regard to the exclusion of the police he would point out that the Transvaal Workmen’s Compensation Act provided for policemen who were injured on duty, and they could either claim under that Act or take their pension or gratuity. The police were considered when the Public Service Act was dealt with, and section 46 made provision, for them on a far more liberal seale than they could get under this Bill. He did not think that a good case had been made out for the inclusion of occupational diseases, and as far as he was concerned he felt bound to resist any attempt to introduce such a schedule. But if good reasons were advanced to the Select Committee, the latter might be converted and afterwards convince the House. With regard to the police under municipalities, they would claim on the Corporation just as a workman would claim on his employer.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee for inquiry and report. The names to be brought up on Monday.

This was agreed to.