from W. G. Glennie, late of Customs Department.

from W. Townsend, pensioner, Railway Department.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time. He said it was generally recognised that fencing of farms was good. Nothing assisted farming more than a good fence. It prevented the spread of plagues, made it possible to keep cattle separate, and made breeding more effective and especially cheaper. At present when a farmer had five or six flocks of sheep he required as many shepherds, and what was paid to those shepherds in five or six years would buy the fence. Where so much depended on the separation of cattle for breeding purposes, the fence was of the greatest importance. There were at present no less than 31 fencing laws in operation, six in the Cape, ten in Natal, five in the Transvaal, and ten in the Free State. The present Bill would consolidate all those laws and make the administration uniform throughout the whole Union. They had tried to preserve the best of the provisions contained in the present laws. The Bill was divided into four chapters.

Under the first chapter the owner of an adjoining farm could be called on to pay a portion of the cost of the fence provided he enjoyed beneficial use of it. If in any district the farmers resolved to make fencing compulsory in that district, then by a Proclamation from the Governor-General in the “Government Gazette,” it would become compulsory in that district. If a farmer simply fenced his farm, he could not require his neighbour to contribute to the cost. As soon as he found, however, that his neighbour made beneficial use of that fence, then he could call for a contribution towards its cost. A minority of persons had asked that fencing should be made compulsory, but he had come to the conclusion that Parliament would not agree to it. On the high veld in the Transvaal and in some parts of the Free State such a provision might perhaps be carried out, but certainly not in the north-western districts of the Cape, Waterberg, Zoutpansberg, Marico, the north of Rustenburg, or in Bechuanaland. Many of the farms in those places were uninhabited, and the cost of fencing in many cases would be greater than the value of the farm. Fencing was therefore left optional. (Hear, hear.) Clause 3 provided that the adjoining owner who was compelled to pay part of the cost for fencing, could obtain a loan from the Land Bank There was no question there of the owner who put up the fence, because his case was dealt with in one of the clauses of the Land Bank Bill. He (the Minister) would however move in committee that that clause be also included in the present Bill.

Chapter II. dealt with compulsory fencing in connection with cattle diseases. On the outbreak of disease the Government had the power to fence the farms in order to combat the disease, but the owner would be obliged afterwards to pay for the fence. The money for such fences would not be provided by the Land Bank, but from funds specially voted by Parliament. The repayment of that money would be made in ten annual instalments at 4 per cent, interest, and postponement of payment could be obtained for the first few years. The existing legislation in connection with fencing against cattle diseases varied considerably. In the Transvaal the State paid half and the owner the other half. In another Province the State paid all the cost, whilst in still another Province the owner had to pay all the cost himself. It would probably not be necessary to put up many more fences against cattle diseases, but where it was found necessary the owner would in future have to put them up at his own cost, the payments to be spread over a long period Up to now the Government in the Transvaal had sold wire and standards to the farmers, and that had proved to be successful, as excellent materials had been made available for their use. It was proposed, however, to discontinue that method, as the buying and selling of fencing material required too much Government administration, and amounted to competition with ordinary traders. If the farmers co-operated they could buy their wires and poles from the factories. With regard to security for money advanced the provisions of the Bill were more or less on the lines of those laid down for dipping tanks. The desire which had been expressed for a standard fence would only lead to difficulties. Farming in the different Provinces was so diverse that it would be impossible to fix a standard fence. In the Transvaal, Free State and Natal it was generally thought that a good fence should consist of at least two to six barbed wires, but they could not have a fence of that character in Oudtshoorn. In some districts the use of jackal proof fences was demanded, and not in others. Two neighbours could easily decide on the sort of fence to be erected, and if they could not agree, the Department would decide. If there was an insistence on a standard fence, that could be moved for in committee. Some people insisted that fences should consist of 13 barbed wires to keep out jackals, but such a provision would be unfair to those who were not troubled by any vermin. The Department would keep an official who would examine from time to time the kind of wire which was brought into the market.

Chapter III. laid down the punishments for the leaving open of gates, cutting of wires, or destruction of gates. As severe losses might arise in that way the punishments were severe.

Chapter IV. contained general provisions. Clause 31 was the most important, because it contained provisions for fences along boundary lines which were not accessible, and where in consequence a “give and take” line must be placed. The clause also provided for the fencing of rivers.

thought that the Act was a most disappointing Act. He would point out that according to the Bill, if the inhabitants of a district agreed that the Act should be proclaimed in their district, then the Act would become compulsory. The objection that he had to the Bill was its permissive character. This principle was in the Cape Act, the Natal Fencing Act, and the Transvaal Act of 1908, and in the case of the latter Act, he would like to quote from a speech by the Minister of the Interior, where he said that the result of that Act would be a step further towards making fencing compulsory. Subsequently the Prime Minister made a speech where he stated that he hardly thought they could make the Act compulsory at that stage. Both the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister considered that a compulsory clause was necessary. This question of permissive fencing was made in Natal as early as 1887, but there they had given an example to the rest of the Union, because they introduced a Bill repealing their permissive Act and making fencing compulsory. Therefore, this Act of the Prime Minister was a reactionary Act. It did not consolidate Acts that were progressive, but Acts that were retrogressive. He recognised that it was only reasonable that a man should call upon the adjoining farmers to contribute towards the expense of a fence between two properties. He thought, however, that the Prime Minister was responsible for the reference to beneficial use, because he explained this by stating that when a man fastened one end of his fence to another man’s, that was beneficial use. That seemed a very inadequate definition. In Great Britain a man had to fence in his own stock, but in this country he had to fence out his neighbour’s. Supposing a man did not choose to attach his fence to his neighbour’s, he had still the benefit of the other man’s fence. He thought a man should be allowed to fence in his own stock, but not to fence out the stock of another at his own expense. The present Bill, in the powers it gave the Agricultural Department, went a great deal further than the Transvaal Act, and ten times further than the Cape Act. It was only right in questions of dispute that there should be right of appeal from the Department’s decisions. The fencing law that he thought they ought to introduce should be made compulsory instead of permissive. It was impossible to say that this would be a new principle introduced into South Africa, when a compulsory Act had been in force for years in Natal. Hon. members might not be aware, perhaps, that a Fencing Act was passed in New South Wales in 1828, and a compulsory Fencing Act in Victoria in 1890. It was only in regard to Chapter I. of the Act that he had very much to say. He believed the other chapters to be sound, on the whole. Unless they put into Chapter I. of the Act a compulsory fencing clause,, he did not think this Act would be of any value to the Union of South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

said the Free State for a long time had desired to have a good Fencing Act. Good fences were necessary if farming was to succeed, but the Bill now before the House was no improvement on the existing laws, but in many respects was a step backward. What was required was a measure making fencing compulsory throughout the Union. (Hear, hear.) If there were persons who did not wish to have fences they could apply for exemption for their part of the country. The present Bill was framed in the spirit of those people who objected to compulsion, and it would also act against compulsory dipping. The standards of the fences could be defined for cattle, small stock, and ostriches. He noticed that neighbours could consult each other in the matter of fences, and in cases of dispute the Department of Agriculture could intervene. That would give general satisfaction, and he was pleased to see the Minister take that step. Repairs to fences should be made in accordance with the proposed standards. There were no provisions in the Bill for the cheap recovery of costs from an unwilling neighbour, nor was their provision for action against minors. The Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The Free State clamoured for the measure, but they wished to see improvements brought about. At present the law there was compulsory, and the new Bill would cause considerable dissatisfaction.

held that, as was the case with scab, the measure should be compulsory, and pointed out that fencing increased the value of farms. He wished to remind the House that some time ago he had presented a petition from agriculturists in the Free State, asking that the law of that Province in regard to fencing should be made stronger. The present Bill was of a milk and-watery nature, and would have little effect. A minimum standard for fences should be laid down. In cases where a spruit or river formed the boundary, a magistrate and a surveyor had to decide the dispute. Such a procedure involved considerable expense, and he favoured the old procedure of settling disputes by arbitration, which cost nothing. Another provision he wished to protest against was that no farmer could plough within 15 feet of a fence. What would they say of that in Oudtshoorn, where ground was so dear? It imposed considerable hardship, especially in thickly populated areas, and, furthermore, it was an interference with private rights and with many existing laws. In conclusion, the hon. member expressed the hope that the Bill would not be referred to a Select Committee. He supported the Bill.

could not understand why the Bill was not compulsory. As things stood, the one neighbour would always have trouble with the other, and he hoped the Bill would be so modified that a farmer who desired to set up a fence could call on his neighbour to-pay half the cost, or at least to help to bear the cost. He also thought the Bill should lay down the minimum number of wires and the maximum distance between the poles. At distances of from five to three yards there should be supports for the strengthening of the wires, and fencing material should be provided by the Government on easy conditions. A properly carried out fencing law would go a long way towards eradicating scab. Where rivers constituted the boundary lines between farms, he thought they should in the first case try to obtain an agreement, and a simpler method of forming an arbitration court should be devised. He hoped no one would be compelled to close a gate which was difficult to close It would be too bad if anyone were sentenced by a court in such a case. Another point in the Bill with which he agreed was the provision that a strip of ground 15 feet wide along the boundary fence should be left uncultivated. That would prevent cattle from injuring the fence.

said that when he first saw the measure he did not think that any hostile criticism would have been directed against it. He could not understand the position which had been taken up by the hon. member for Turffontein with regard to the beneficial use of land. He also found it difficult to follow the hon. member for Edenburg, who did not agree with arbitration, but, on the other hand, wanted to compel perhaps a poorer neighbour to go in for an expensive system of fencing. He did not think that amendments should be introduced at this stage. He thought it would be better were hon. members to keep those amendments until the committee stage was reached. Again, he did not think it necessary that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. They talked about local option in connection with liquor laws, and he thought that the same principle might be introduced here with advantage.

said the Bill seemed to be one in which very few principles were involved; but he thought the time was ripe for a uniform law of the kind. He thought the measure should be made compulsory, pointing out that under the Bill a farmer who did not make beneficial use of his land could not be compelled to share the cost of fencing. Then he was opposed to the principle that the department should be the final judge. He did not think that either the Government the department possessed such wisdom as would lead to his acceptance of this principle. Again, the department had the right to step in and fence in case of an outbreak of animal disease. This, he thought, was a wrong policy, for the reason that if the department erected a fence the cost would be over double the amount which the man himself would spend. He hoped that the Minister would deal with these matters in the course of his reply.

said that a Fencing Bill was necessary, ’but under the present conditions he was opposed to its being made compulsory. The law should compel a farmer to pay a portion of the costs where the adjoining owner had thought it necessary to fence. The Bill should state clearly what amounted to beneficial use. As soon as a farm was fenced, that fence was to the advantage of both neighbours, and they should therefore both pay. It should be stated in the Bill where gates were to be placed on steep ground. The Roads Commission should have the road so made that a gate could be placed without danger for travellers. With regard to the distance between the poles and the kind of wire to be used, these should be left to the owner’s decision. They need not be afraid that the Government would condemn a fence which answered its purpose.

said it was the duty of all of them to raise their voices against retrogressive legislation. He was glad, therefore, to listen to the speeches of members from the Free State. The Prime Minister had spoken of ten Laws in the Free State, but the speaker knew of only one, and the Bill before the House would change it. The Free State law was based on compulsion, and many members in that Province had voted for it, thinking it was not compulsory. The Minister had not shown why the compulsory law in the Free State should be abolished, and he hoped therefore that the Bill as printed would not be adopted.

quoted some people as saying of the fence that it kept out the devil. Fencing had prevented numbers of quarrels; it prevented the spread of disease and the trampling down of the veld by the cattle. It also prevented the cattle going too far away. If there were a difference of opinion between two owners as to the kind of fence to be erected, and the Department had fixed the standard then the one owner should not be compelled to contribute to the increased cost of a better wire than that which was needed. The Bill should contain some provision to that effect. If fences were placed along the roads, owners could not be held responsible for injury caused by them to cattle on trek. He desired to go so far as to make the Bill compulsory throughout the whole Union, and in any case to make it compulsory where it was so now. Exemption from such a provision should be obtained on application. He was sorry to hear that the Department would cease to provide wire and poles, and thought that if the charge were increased by five per cent, that would cover the cost of administration. It would take the House several days before they agreed to a standard fence, and even then there would be some dissentients. There was no standard fence in the Free State, nor a standard gate. They had the so-called concertina gates there. (Laughter.)

said that, speaking on behalf of the Free State members, he hoped the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winburg would be accepted. It was desirable to fix a minimum standard of fencing. If a mean were to be struck between nothing and 12 or 13 wires he felt that there would always be a handicap placed upon the man who was desirous of farming upon progressive principles, and a premium would be placed upon the indifferent and backward farmer. He hoped that the law would be made applicable right through the Union, and where it was absolutely impracticable to carry it out then by Governor’s proclamation they could free that part from the operation of the law, on the same lines as the north-west was dealt with in relation to the scab laws. He wanted to bring this to the notice of the Minister, that where bad fences were allowed in the neighbourhood of good fences, it was extremely bad for the good fences, because cattle that were used to roving over farms where the fences were bad or indifferent were a perpetual nuisance to people who had good fences. Then he thought that 15 feet from the line was much too great a distance. He trusted that the standard would be fixed at six wires and poles 15 yards apart, thus giving the man who desired to put up a 12 or more wires fence the opportunity of getting the difference between 6 and 12, and not the difference between one and 12. There were certain difficulties in the Bill which, he thought, the Minister would be able to overcome. As to clause 4, dealing with beneficial occupation, there were a great many people, as they knew to their cost in the Free State, who bought land merely for speculative purposes. Those people might be satisfied with no fence at all. He would like to know whether clause 4 helped a man who wished to fence in relation to clause 5 (3). In clause 4 it was laid down that an owner need only contribute to a fence if he were enjoying beneficial occupation. In clause 5 (3) it was made obligatory, but he would like to know whether it was obligatory upon such a man to fence if, under clause 4, he had not beneficial occupation of the fence. In clause 6 (2) it was laid down that if the last-mentioned owner failed within a period of one month to do certain things, the other owner should proceed with the work. Provision was made for the security of the Government, but what provision was made for the security of the man who undertook the fencing of his own portion and that of the other owner.

Referring to the proviso to clause 10 (1) he would point out that a stock diseases fence might be put on a man’s farm for which he had no absolute use. The fence was erected for the purpose of keeping disease out, but when the Government had finished with the disease the owner was made to take over a fence which he did not want, which was much more expensive than he required and the purpose for which had ceased to be a danger to the country. He would like to put it whether it was not a bit hard on a man who wanted a 6 or 7 wire fence to be compelled to take over a 15 wire fence? He would also like to ask what would be the effect of section 2 of the same clause where a man had sold his farm prior to getting notice. The seller would have fixed the price, a deed of sale had been drawn up, transfer had not been passed, and the Government then notified him that stock disease had occurred and a fence was to be put up, probably an expensive fence, by the Government, and he was charged for a fence that was going to the other man. He hoped the Minister would take into consideration the very strong feelings of Free Staters in regard to this matter. They felt that fencing had very largely tended towards the improvement of farming right through the country. The lands were much better worked and a much better class of stock was imported because of the greater safety of the animals owing to erection of fences. They would be extremely sorry to see compulsion removed. The best type of fence to be used was one with six wires, and he was afraid that if this matter were left to arbitration the man who wanted to put up a good fence would be handicapped. It would be advantageous if Government would say that there should not be less than six wires. Experience in the Free State had shown that in those cases in which a fence had been well put up and the number of wires had been large, that this type of fence lasted very much longer than a lighter one. It was much more economical to erect a good fence in the first instance than to put up a light one which had to be renewed every few years.

pointed out that there was always the danger when they tried to make the laws uniform, that a particular Province might lose the benefit of its old legislation. An instance of that was found last session in the case of the Agricultural Pests Act. Unfortunately progressive farmers in Natal were going to lose through the present Bill. There was a general desire throughout Natal that fencing should be compulsory. He hoped the Minister would see his way to have compulsion throughout the Union, but if he could not do that to leave compulsion whenever it existed in Natal. For nearly six years compulsory fencing had been in vogue in Natal, but if the Bill were passed in its present form there would be confusion and dissatisfaction. There should not be a tendency to slacken off the forces of legislation for the sake of those who were not progressive, but to tighten those forces up for the benefit of those who were progressive.

was surprised that hon. members wanted to have fencing made compulsory, and to fix a universal standard into the bargain. That sounded strange after their previous protests against interference with private rights. There were large districts of the country where farmers struggled to get a bare living, and if those people were compelled to construct standard fences they would be ruined. They wanted to make the three neighbours of an owner responsible for the cost of the fence, even when those neighbours did not make proper use of the fence. He thought that was quite unfair, and that the neighbour should only contribute when he enjoyed beneficial use. To remove disputes by means of arbitration was cheap, but the method created much dissatisfaction. He supported the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

said that in order to assist fencing, the law should be made clear and simple, and the Government should help the people. He approved of the Bill because at was not compulsory. Compulsion was perhaps all right in the Free State, but it would not do in Namaqualand, Gordonia, etc. If they wished to make fencing compulsory that could be done for each district separately, but the compulsion ought not to be universal. In many respects the Bill was an improvement on the Cape law, and he approved of advances being made for fences. Proper definition should be given in clause 4 of the expression “beneficial use.” The Bill made no provision for fences which had been erected before the Bill was brought into force, and that omission should be supplied. He further thought that small locations, such as those in Bechuanaland and Griqualand West, should be fenced. A dangerous principle was contained in Chapter II., which empowered the Government to fence against cattle diseases. Those fences were erected as a protection for the whole Union, and it was unfair to make the owner liable for the entire cost. The Government ought to pay a portion. Clause 27 gave the Government the right to condemn a fence, but that power should only be given after a standard fence had been fixed on. That should be done in order to prevent disputes. He was glad to see that the Government were bound by the Bill to fence the Crown lands, which had always been a difficulty with the old Cape Government. He trusted the Government would be ready to supply farmers with wire at cost price, and hoped the Bill would become law during the present year.

said the reason that so many farms in the Transvaal were fenced was because the law was not compulsory. The Prime Minister had said that the Government could not compete with private firms by supplying wire, but he thought there was nothing in the objection, seeing that the Government had established Land Banks and owned railways, and might perhaps in future own steamships for the carriage of the mails. It would be much better if the Government would supply the wire, and then the farmers would get good materials at reasonable prices, and they would be encouraged thereby to fence their farms. He thought it quite impracticable to fix on a standard fence. Referring to clause 21, he said he wanted to see it made a punishable offence for anyone to creep under or between the wires so as to cause damage. As the clause now read, a man could only be punished if he refused his name and address.

regretted the decision of the Government not to continue to supply wire and poles. He himself had made use of the opportunity so afforded. The well-to-do farmers had been helped, but now that it came to the turn of the poor men, the assistance was no longer to be given. There should be a depot established in each of the Provinces. He could not approve of compulsory fencing nor of the fixing of a standard fence.

said the Bill was an improvement on the old Cape law, but it was impossible to make fencing compulsory in the north-western areas. The fencing of farms there would cost more than they were worth. The Bill was an encroachment on private rights, seeing that it laid down that ground within 15 feet of the fence was not to be cultivated. That was a far-reaching provision, especially in districts where the arable land was confined to the river bnaks. The Bill would not be satisfactory unless the minimum number of wires was laid down, and he thought that minimum should be at least six. It was wrong to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as that would mean the hanging up of the Bill for the present session.

regretted the fact that so far as the Free State was concerned the Bill constituted in some respects a step backwards. It would be better to refer it to a Select Committee. Fencing in the Free State was compulsory. It would not be made compulsory everywhere throughout the Union, but on the other hand they could not govern the whole Union in accordance with the conditions that prevailed in Zoutpansberg or Bushmanland, which were a hundred years behind. A fence should consist of at least six wires, but the method of fencing should not be determined by the requirements of the ostrich farmers. The high costs attached to the settlement of disputes would prevent quarrels occurring over small questions. So far as the Free State was concerned, the Bill was altogether inadequate, and Free State members could not vote for it. Where compulsory fencing now existed it should be continued. Why should they bother the people in the Free State by requring them to make applications and attend meetings, in order to make the law compulsory? The Government should continue to supply poles and wire as was done in the Transvaal.

said he thought that if the hon. member who had just spoken (Mr. Steytler) wished to get a fencing law through this session he would withdraw the suggestion that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. This was not a very complicated matter. It seemed to him that the question really resolved itself into one between the people who wanted to have a compulsory fencing law and the people who wanted to have a voluntary fencing law. He thought they could vote quite clearly on the question of whether they would have a compulsory law or a voluntary law. He was rather sorry that the Prime Minister had gone back on a good deal of the law that they already had in this country. It seemed to him that a good many people did not know what the compulsory fencing law was. It was only that where people fenced their neighbours should contribute, and it did not mean that in every district everybody should be compelled to fence. If they were going to deal with questions like that of “beneficial user,” it seemed to him that the Prime Minister was going to perpetuate a thing which was most absurd. Under the Cape law the Governor could proclaim any district where the compulsory provisions should be brought into force, but the Divisional Council were put into the invidious position of taking a vote as to whether they were against that. That was a very different position indeed from laying upon the Divisional Council the duty to pass a resolution asking the Governor to proclaim a district. In this Bill, although the Prime Minister told them that he was not going to supply the wire, etc., and make the Agricultural Department practically a retailer to farmers, he made the Agricultural Department universal arbitrators between the farmers of this country. The Department was to decide what style of fence was to be put up, where it was to be put up, and when it was to be put up, and so on. In the Cape law, where there was disagreement between the farmers, the matter was settled by arbitration in the ordinary course, where people could appoint their own arbitrator.

At what cost?

At the cost which people have to bear who are going in for commercial operations. Why should we be asked to pay for officers in the Agricultural Department for the benefit of a certain section? Proceeding, he asked whether this was not interfering with private rights? It was a very bad principle indeed to put the Agricultural Department into the position of judges between different people in the country. Continuing the hon. member reminded the House that for the benefit of agriculture some very stringent laws of a compulsory character had been passed. The Bill under discussion, however, would simply be a handicap on the progressive farmer in favour of the less progressive farmer, for whatever the Prime Minister might say, there was no doubt that every farmer who put up a boundary fence was doing good, not only to himself, but to his neighbour, and unless there was some machinery by which he could compel his neighbour to contribute a fair proportion of the cost, commensurate with the benefit he received, the progressive farmer would suffer. The Prime Minister had a better chance of pushing progressive measures through this House than any Prime Minister of any of the separate Colonies had before union. (Opposition cheers.)

said he had already handed in petitions for a Fencing Bill, and had urged the Prime Minister to introduce it during the present session. He therefore welcomed the present Bill, although he could not agree with it in all particulars. He thought the Bill should be made general, subject to the qualification that persons living in districts where it was difficult to erect fences could be exempted. They wanted in the Free State fences of at least six wires, with poles ten feet apart, and with from three to five supports. He could not see, however, how they would be able to fix standard unless they had different standards for different sorts of farming. If the parties interested could not agree, the Department acted at present as arbitrator; according to the old Free State law, disputes were settled by a fencing committee. He therefore thought that the Bill was in that respect an improvement, though he hoped the Department would not send in a bill for their services in that respect. He could not agree to clauses 9 and 10, as he thought it was unfair that an expensive fence erected by the Government to deal with cattle diseases had to be taken over by the farmers affected. He thought the clause should be amended to read that the Government should only have the right to recover the cost of an ordinary fence. So far as gates were concerned, he thought it sufficient if the ordinary swinging gates were provided instead of the so-called concertina gates. The matter was not sufficiently dealt, with. He entirely disapproved of the prohibiton to cultivate the 15-foot strip along the fence. The farmer should have the right to plough up to the fence so long as that fence was in good order. In answer to what had been said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein he would say that the old Volksraad of the Free State could give that House a lesson in the doing of good work in a short time.

said he had been very much interested in the speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman in moving the second reading of this Bill, and also the exhaustive way in which he dwelt upon the benefits that would accrue from fencing throughout the whole of South Africa. Anybody hearing those statements—anybody who had not read the Bill—would have come to the conclusion that the right hon. gentleman’s peroration would be devoted to an appeal that this Act should come into operation throughout the length and breadth of the Union. He must say that when he read the Bill he was very much disappointed, because he thought, from the character of the speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman, that he was introducing a measure for the benefit of the country. Never in the Union Parliament had he listened to such words of encouragement as he had that afternoon. They had hon. member after hon. member representing farming districts, and sitting on both sides of the House getting up and drawing the attention of the House to the great benefits that accrued in the Free State from compulsory fencing. He did hope that his right hon. friend, having heard the character of the speeches that were made that afternoon, would recognise that, in operations of this sort, if he brought in measures of a comprehensive character he would receive the support of hon. members of that House, who would support such measures apart from party considerations, and for the reason that it would be in the best interests of the whole country. He thought they had arrived at a time when having heard the great benefits to be derived from comprehensive fencing operations it was the duty of the Government to risk any amount of discontent by a certain section of their supporters and bring in a measure that would receive not only the support of the majority of hon. members of that House, but the support of a vast majority of the people of this country. What did this Bill do? It practically repealed all the fencing measures that were in operation in the different Provinces of the Union. He took it that after this Bill became law there would be no compulsory fencing operations in any part of the Union unless certain provisions of the measure were brought into operation. An hon. member of that House who spoke to him that afternoon, had said that instead of the Bill being a step forward, they were going back thirty years. He pointed out that in 1883 in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope they had a fencing Ordinance whereby the Government could proclaim compulsory fencing operations in different districts as required. If the local people, through the Divisional Council, passed resolutions against such measures, the compulsory operations would cease to exist. Similarly in any district where the compulsory provision was not in operation, the people could, again by resolution of the Divisional Council, have the Act carried into effect Continuing, he pointed to the fact that representatives from the Free State had expressed the opinion that instead of the character of the Act being permissive, it should be compulsory. It had been pointed out by several members that for a long period the term compulsory had been used in a wrong sense. It was thought that if a compulsory Bill were passed every farmer would be forced to erect fences, and he was of opinion that the Prime Minister also had got this idea at the back of his mind. He pointed out that if one man fenced his neighbour would receive benefit from that fence without making any contribution, unless certain provisions of the measure were put into operation. He added that ‘this Bill repealed one of the most valuable Acts ever passed in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope and that was the Act passed in 1905 in connection with vermin-proof fences. He hoped his right hon. friend would see his way clear to make provision for these fences. There was one law that had not been repealed, and he thought its absence in the schedule was due to oversight. It was a short Act of one clause, and he hoped his right hon. friend would embody it in the Bill when the House reached the committee stage. It was passed in 1909 and provided for non-liability for damage done by fencers. Continuing, the hon. member said he would like again to express to the House what enormous benefit fencing had been to the Cape Colony. There was another point, and that was the prevention of slooting, and he desired to refer to the enormous services which Mr. Bradfield had done in advocating and explaining this. He hoped the House would alter the Bill, and instead of making it a permissive Bill they would make it compulsory. They remembered the years that the Scab Act was permissive, which, as far as certain sections of the country were concerned, was thereby inoperative. He did not think that they should go back upon progressive principles. What would be the position in the Eastern Provinces, also, the moment this Bill became law and their Acts were repealed. He thought that the rights of these people should be preserved. The clause dealing with gates and the penalties for omitting to shut them were admirable, because much valuable stock had been lost in this way. Another point that he wished to draw attention to was that wherever roads were fenced he thought the local authorities ought to give some contribution. He had a letter in his pocket which went to show how certain of the provisions of the Diseases of Stock Act were actually becoming a menace to the country. As he believed it was the desire of the majority of those in that House to alter the character of the Bill and make it compulsory—(HON. MEMBERS: “No, no”)—he thought they ought to do it now, as they might not have another opportunity for years.

said he was opposed to making the Bill obligatory to any extent greater than was proposed by the Minister. If there were such progressive and rich farmers in certain districts who were willing to fence everything, then they could do so. There were, however, districts such as Bushman land and Zoutpansberg where there’ were poor people who could not possibly pay the cost. He was therefore opposed to making compulsion universal in connection with fences, and thought the Bill went quite far enough for progressive farmers. So far as the erection of gates on roads was concerned, he thought that the provisions of the Bill should be made to accord with the provisions of the Transvaal Roads Act, which required the gate to be of certain dimensions. Although he would support the Bill, he would oppose any attempt to make compulsion universal.

could not agree with hon. members who asked for compulsion, and even thought that a permissive Scab Act was better than a compulsory law. The electors ought to see in the newspapers how some hon. members wanted to apply compulsion to them. The public entirely disapproved of compulsory laws, and that was why he applauded the present Bill. It would not do to fix a standard fence in the Bill, and he thought that Divisional Councils could settle the number of wires. Some ground was not worth a fence with three wires, and the owners of it certainly ought not to be required to fence it with six. The Bill was a big improvement on the Cape laws. Where compulsory fencing was desired it could easily be adopted, whilst if the Bill itself were made compulsory it would never be adopted. Compulsory fencing meant bad fencing, as he had seen in the Free State. Hon. members should be required to travel about more, and members of the public compelled to read the debates in Parliament. The prohibition against cultivating within 15 feet of the fence was wrong.

in supporting the Bill, said the interests of the four Provinces were very diverse. If fencing were made compulsory many poor farmers would be made bankrupt. They had heavy mortgages on their farms, and were unable to pay the cost of fencing. Some of them had big farms in the winter veld which they could not use, as there were too few cattle. If those farms had to be fenced, and they had no money to do it with, the risk was that the land would fall into the hands of speculators.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continued his speech, saying that compulsory fencing would ruin many people in Mapochsland and Secocoeniland. Those people had many difficulties in recent years, and were deeply in debt to the shopkeepers. They had no cattle and only a few donkeys, and it was impossible to ask them to fence their farms for the sake of a few donkeys. If a district wanted to have compulsory fencing, it could have it when a majority had declared in favour of it. As to fences along rivers and krantzes, they must leave that to the neighbours, and it was not necessary to employ a surveyor. The prohibition against sowing in the 15 foot strip along the fence was wrong.

said the Bill should not be referred to the Provincial Councils. Agriculture and all allied subjects should be dealt with by the Union Parliament as far as possible. He had heard the progressive speeches which had been made with satisfaction, and, if he thought only of his own district, he could vote in favour of compulsory fencing. But when he thought of the districts where compulsory fencing was impossible, he would have to vote otherwise. It was not always possible in the bush veld. Some farmers had small farms on the high veld and big farms in the bush veld, and if they were compelled to fence the latter they would have to sell the former to pay for it. It was not possible to fix a standard fence, as the farmers’ occupations were of too diverse a character. He preferred the magistrate to an arbitrator in case of disputes about fences. The magistrate did not ask for payment of costs. The prohibition against sowing within 15 feet of the fence was good in his own district, though he would agree to reduce that distance to meet the views, of other districts. He hoped the Prime Minister would refuse to accept far-reaching amendments in the Bill.

said that he found some difficulty in discussing the Bill for the reason that very short notice had been given the country of the measure. The Bill had only just been published in the “Gazette,” and he must again impress upon the Government the necessity of giving the country ample warning of the legislation it intended to submit to the House.

It was published on the 16th.

continuing, said he did not know that it was published so long ago; but he pointed out that his constituency was large, and even that did not allow sufficient time for the Bill to reach all his constituents. He did not think that a Bill that dealt with fencing in the country should be brought forward and pushed through in a hurry. Of course, the Prime Minister might say that at the start of the session he was not aware that there would be time to discuss the measure, but seeing the rapid progress that had been made, the Government had since made up its mind on the subject. (Laughter.) The Government might pride itself on being a democratic Government, but it was, not government by the people when sufficient time was not allowed the people to study the legislation proposed to be brought before Parliament. He did not know the views of his constituents with regard to the question of compulsion, but he thought they would object to it because they lived in an out-of-the-way part of the country. But he did not see why more thickly populated parts of the country should be pushed backwards in the onward march. They had a compulsory Act in the Free State, and he did not see why those people should be deprived of it. The Prime Minister would say that that could easily be managed by an appeal by the people, but if the Bill was studied, hon. members would find that to attain that object most cumbersome machinery had to be moved. The Minister might easily have included a schedule detailing those places where the compulsory Act might remain in force. He did not think there was any force in the argument of the rich man and the poor man. He thought that this was essentially a Bill for the poor man, and he pointed out that the poor man could obtain most reasonable terms. The rich man could have his fence if he wanted one, but the poor man could not do these things without add. With regard to gates, he thought that a man should be allowed to do as he liked with gates so long as they were upon his own land. But when a gate went across a public road such a gate should be erected as could be opened and shut by other people. He did not believe that they should lay down the hard and fast rule that gates should be fifteen feet across, observing that he had come across many twelve feet gates where the public suffered no inconvenience. It might be a bit of a hardship if they said, in a rigid way, that every gate across a public road shall be 15 feet across. He thought there were cases where 12 feet gates were ample. In fact, many people had them now, and it would be a hardship to make them take them down and put up 15 feet gates. Then he must agree with other hon. members who did not understand the object of prohibiting a man from ploughing up or cultivating his ground within 15 feet of a fence. If it were two or three feet he could understand it, but he could not see why it should be limited to 15 feet. The principal thing he wished to impress upon the Prime Minister was that, especially in regard to Bills affecting farmers, fair notice should be given in the “Government Gazette” so that those affected might know what was being brought forward. (Hear, hear.)

regretted that he had not had the opportunity to discuss the Bill with his constituents. He protested, however, against the attack which had been made on the Government by the last speaker for the delay in bringing in the Bill. The House must be given full opportunity to discuss the question of a standard fence. He thought the Bill did not sufficiently protect the owner of a fenced farm. The principle of compulsion had good results in the Free State. After criticising the hon. member for Piquetberg, the speaker said that at any rate they in the Free State wanted fences. If conditions as regards fencing were so different in different places, it would be better to refer the Bill to the Provincial Councils. The Government should continue to supply fencing materials, and within five years he thought most of the farms would be fenced. There would be no competition with traders. The Government in the Cape had for a long time provided farmers with dipping materials at cost price.

agreed that consolidation of the various laws was necessary. It appeared to him that the present Bill was based on the Transvaal law, and he thought it would have been better to have taken that of Natal. The Natal Act No. 30 of 1887 had given great satisfaction, and with the exception of a few small districts the whole of that Province was now fenced. He himself represented a poor district, and hoped therefore that the Bill would not press too-heavily on the poor man. Under the Natal Act there had to be at least six good wires and the poles could be of wood or iron not more than ten feet apart. In the case of a man who wanted a fence of 18 wires, he could only charge his neighbour with 6s. per 21 yards. He thought the Bill should be radically changed or else postponed, so that a stringent Bill based on the Natal law could be brought forward. Failing that, fencing legislation would in many districts be set back 25 years.

could not agree to the compulsory principle except under local option. There were in the Transvaal, he said, progressive farmers who saw the advantage of fencing, but they must not forget those farms where compulsory fencing was quite impossible. It was not necessary to lay down in the Bill what was a standard fence, as an applicant to the Land Bank for a loan would be required to provide a good fence, and where a man set up a fence and personally provided the funds he ought to be free. The Government should no longer act as a shopkeeper dealing in wire and poles, and he thought the prohibition against sowing within 15 feet of the fence was an encroachment upon private rights. That provision would have to be changed in committee. It was unnecessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

admitted that the object of the Bill was a good one, but as a representative of the Free State he was bound to say it was insufficient. They had a miserable Fencing Act in the Free State, though the inhabitants had made a success of it. The farmers there were progressive, and they demanded a better Bill than the one now under discussion. The Free State members were reproached with asking for compulsory fencing, as it was thought it would rum the poor whites. A landowner, however, was not a poor white. They still had in the Free State primitive farmers who were satisfied with bad fences, and who thereby prevented their neighbours from making good ones. He preferred the Free State law to the present Bill. Although the Free Stater had to pay for every roll of wire which he used, without a penny help from the State, nearly all farms there were fenced. In the Transvaal they had the goose with the golden eggs, and yet not all of the farms even there were fenced, despite the writing off of their repatriation debts and help from the State in supplying fencing material. Transvaal members complained that compulsory fencing meant the ruin of the farmers. If the hon. member for Zoutpansberg desired to teach the Free State members the limitation of the rights of Government as against the rights of the individual, he would be speedily hanging by his political hairs like a modern Absalom. In view of the different conditions of the several Provinces, he thought each Province should have its own fencing law. The Government would be wise not to listen to the antique policy of the hon. member for Piquetberg.

said the Bill would give a tremendous fillip to fencing, which, he thought, would be the salvation of farming He was entirely in accord with the principles of the Bill with one or two exceptions, the points in regard to which could be altered in order to meet all the arguments which had been advanced from both sides of the House. With regard to the permissive principle in the measure, he was quite in accord with it, for if they were going to make fencing a success they should not introduce a compulsory Bill, for if they did, they would do more harm than good. The Bill would enable those people to fence who, although willing to fence, had so far not been able to do so. Some hon. members said the Bill did not provide for those cases in which they already had compulsory fencing, but that could easily be rectified. He wished to impress upon the Prime Minister that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. He (Mr. Watermeyer) had a sheaf of amendments which he thought were necessary, but none of them affected the principles, but only the machinery, which required a great deal of revision. As to the Agricultural Department being the judge in cases of dispute, arbitration was so simple that half the difficulties would be removed if matters of this kind could be settled by arbitration. If the Bill were made compulsory they would have to have a standard fence, and that could not be laid down to suit the whole of the varying circumstances throughout South Africa, for different districts had a style of fencing best suited to themselves. The decision in this matter should be left to local authorities. All the difficulties in the Bill could very easily be met in a Select Committee, which could report within 14 days, but if they went into these matters in committee of the whole House it would take an enormous amount of time.

regretted that the Bill had been brought in so late, but thought it was not so bad a Bill as some hon. members had made out. It would be necessary in committee to amend the definition of gates. The Free State was dissatisfied with their present Act and wanted a better one. The fences there were not always satisfactory. In view of the variety of conditions which existed in the various parts of the country, the Bill would have to be optional.

said he did not like compulsion unless it was absolutely necessary, but sometimes they found that a little compulsion did a lot of good. He thought that if the Prime Minister looked into the Natal Act he would find several points that were worthy of consideration. He also mentioned that the Prime Minister might study the gates that were used in Natal. He would not favour compulsion unless such action was proved to him to be absolutely necessary, and observed in conclusion, that the Natal Act had worked in a most efficient manner.

thought it wrong for the Government to act as a dealer in wire and poles. Perhaps that sort of thing was necessary in the Transvaal after the war, but it was not so now Although he welcomed the Bill as a uniform measure for the whole Union, he could not admit that it was an improvement on the Cape Act, which laid down that fencing could be made compulsory in the different divisions. It would be necessary to alter the clause prohibiting the cultivation of land within 15 feet of the fence.

thought that nothing like a progressive measure was to be found in this Bill, and as other hon. members had remarked, they could not look upon it as one that regarded the interests of the farmers. There was a great need for more fencing. A good deal of the drying up of the soil was attributed to there not being more fences. Also it was needed because of the growing scarcity of labour. Without fencing they had to employ more herds to prevent stock from straggling and getting lost. The difficulty he saw in this measure was that it took away what they had for many years, and what they were still fighting for. This was that a man’s neighbour should be made to contribute towards the cost of a fence between two properties. Surely, even in the wilds of Bechuanaland, if a man put up a fence his neighbour benefited, and, therefore, should bear a share of the cost. Therefore they wanted a general Act for the whole Union. In the Cape they had a special Act dealing with vermin-proof fences. The Government provided money on a co-operative basis for the erection of fences and a good deal of advantage had been taken of the provision in the Midlands, with excellent results. He was sorry to say he was of opinion that the Government should go further than merely laying down a Fencing Act. Of course, men could receive help from the Land Bank; but he would have liked the Government in this measure to try and organise farmers, to enable them to fence in even a whole district. In his constituency the vermin was so bad that it would be a good thing if the Government would provide for the farmers obtaining material through the Divisional Council. It might be said that by doing so they would interfere with private enterprise; but, in his opinion, if there was one thing they had too much of in the country it was the merchant. There were too many—too many middlemen.

He saw what they had done in Australia. In the Act they passed in 1909 the Government of Australia supplied wire to municipalities and Rural Councils. If the Australian Government undertook to supply farmers with wire, the Union Government would not be going far wrong if they adopted the same principle. They did not only want wires, but poles, and wood was becoming so very scarce that farmers were making their poles of concrete. Government could supply the material for these poles at a very much lower price than the farmer could buy. If it was the intention to send the Bill to a Select Committee, then the clauses could be altered for the better, much better than in a Committee of the whole House.

said he agreed with nearly all the last speaker had said, except that they should send the Bill to a Select Committee. It seemed to him that what the House intended to do with it was to re-shape it so that its own mother would not know the Bill. (Laughter) Some of the few members who had defended the Bill had argued upon grounds that could easily be explained away. Some hon. members who represented very scattered districts said that if the measure was made compulsory it would be a great hardship, but if a district was not worth enclosing, then it would not be enclosed. (Mr. DE BEER: What about the rich man?) “Well,” continued the hon. member, “the Bill seemed to protect the rich man and speculator rather than the farmer who actually farmed.” Loafers would perhaps raise an objection to the clause, but they ought to have nothing to protect. The Bill, to his thinking, seemed framed to keep land unoccupied. It was an example of sympathetic administration, and that generally meant “go as you please.” It was one of the purest examples of retrogressive policy that he had ever seen in his life. The principle was one of levelling down instead of levelling up. Pass the Bill if they liked, but let the Free State and Natal enjoy the privileges under their present fencing laws. The great progress was made by inches and was made backwards, just like a tug-of-war. He could not understand how such a Bill could be put forward, only to invite or to earn the almost unanimous condemnation of the party sitting behind the Government who introduced it. They had something of sympathetic administration in the matter of scab during the interval since last session. The listening for the rumblings, the waiting to hear what the people thought, instead of a resolute lead to the country, all this, what did it cost? Scab all over the country, a million of money gone and lost in East. Coast fever.

That is not so; it is nonsense.

We had 140,000 head of cattle in the Transkei alone. Well, that is a pretty big bill.

How many died in the Transvaal?

That will make the bill a bit bigger still. The whole thing is the want of a resolute lead, the want of a policy that will appeal to the country. I do not believe that there is any considerable proportion of opinion in this country which will be able to defeat a progressive policy. There is a tremendous majority here which will back a resolute progressive policy. I do not know whether this Bill even expresses a policy at all. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the difficulties which were expressed in Chapter I. A way, he said, was found out in the Cape by referring matters to the Divisional Councils. He did not think that was a good way. But leaving that alone, they were completely beaten when they came to take the Transvaal and the Free State without Divisional Councils. There a member of the Agricultural Department had got to be the arbitrator, to give a judgment upon what was a standard fence. They would want an army of men to do this kind of work, each man a law, each man a court.

This was a really backward step. In clause 3 the steps that were to be taken in order to find out whether the law was to be put in force or not, he would sa frankly that that made it impossible. Why was all this done? He would commend hon. members to read again the clause which had puzzled so many, clause 37. This clause was the most valuable clause in the whole Bill, and it had been condemned by everybody. It said: “No person shall plough land alongside any dividing fence whatever at a distance of less than 15 feet from such fence.”

In what way?

In this way, that the Government and those who have prepared it have put in this law so many options and exceptions that they cannot allow a cow within five yards of it. (Laughter.) The fence is to be so rotten that a cow cannot lean against it. (Laughter.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that the principle of the Bill was absolutely wrong and fundamentally wrong. It was a retrogressive measure, it was unworthy of Parliament in its present form, and he sincerely hoped it would not be sent to Select Committee, but that, as a warning to those in charge of the department responsible for it, it would be thrashed out and thoroughly amended in this House. (Opposition cheers.)

said the speeches which the hon. member for Pretoria East made were always of a destructive character. It was quite true that the Bill had been criticised on the Government side of the House, but that criticism had been of a constructive character. He (the speaker) had also some remarks to make, but would save them until they got into committee.

replying to the debate, said the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria East had made him smile. The hon. member criticised all Bills in the same manner, both at public meetings and in Parliament. The criticism at first looked very serious, but in the end it came down to a reference to an imaginary provision about a £2 fine. It was clear the hon. member did not understand the provision. If a farm were so divided that the share in the cost of the fence for one of the owners came to no more than £2, then he had to pay that £2 in cash. The hon. member in question preferred the Free State law, but not all of them approved of that law. The Bill permitted the construction of jackal-proof fences, but if it was thought that the clause was not sufficiently plain, he would be willing to make it plainer. With regard to the prohibition against sowing within a distance of 15 feet from the fence, the speaker said that experience had shown that the cattle ate the mealies along the fence. The cattle got into the habit of eating along the fence and to hang over it, and then when the mealies were ripe the fence was pulled down. Still if it was thought that the provision was superfluous, he had no objection to its deletion. It had been put in the Bill by request. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort referred to a provision in the Cape Act, No. 9 of 1909, for compensation for injuries caused to cattle by a fence. The provision was a good one, and should be taken over. They had not attempted in the Bill to fix a standard fence. He had thought at first of doing so, and had obtained the opinions of several well-known farmers, who, however, differed widely on the subject. If hon. members wanted a standard fence laid down it could be done, then the best plan would be to give six or eight different models. It would be unfair to make the law compulsory throughout the Union, and in some parts it would do more harm than good. Compulsion was possible in the Free State, as the conditions there were better, the farms smaller, and it was possible to make a living on a small farm. But they must remember those districts which did not possess those advantages. He had no objection to making fencing compulsory in those districts where it was so already, and that could be done by a small amendment to clause 5. They had done a good deal in the Transvaal with an optional law, and in about four years nearly all the farms in Lichtenburg were fenced. ’District Councils could from time to time adopt compulsion, and farmers could on request obtain compulsory fencing for a given district. In the Transvaal he (the Minister) had much experience in arbitration in cases of disputes, which, however, were not settled by clerks from the Department, but by inspectors who were well acquainted with the circumstances. If the Government were to advance money for fences they would have to see that it was properly spent, and, until the money was repaid, that the fence was maintained in good order. Inspectors were therefore required who could act in cases of disputes. For that there would be no charge. Arbitration, as asked for by some hon. members, would lead to charges being made Similar disputes in the Transvaal had often occurred, and had always been settled without the least unpleasantness. If a roads committee laid down that on a certain road no gate could be allowed, and that the road on both sides must be fenced, then the local authority, whether the Divisional Council or the Provincial Council, should pay a part of the increased cost. It was not his intention to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as they wanted the Bill to become law during the present session, which would not be possible if that were done. The Government could not continue to supply wire and poles, as they could not justify their position towards the traders. By cooperation the farmers could buy their wire and poles direct from the factories. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee on Thursday.