Report of Education Commission (Cape).

moved that, in view of the state of anxiety in the public mind as to the increasing prevalence of the crimes of rape and of assaults with intent to commit rape, this House is of opinion that the Government, in addition to taking immediately such steps as may be deemed necessary for Combating such crimes and for allaying public anxiety, should consider the advisability of appointing a Commission of Inquiry, for the purpose of submitting recommendations for dealing with individual offenders and for the prevention of the crimes, as well as of any or all of the effects with which their continued prevalence may be followed. The hon. member said that he thought it was his first duty to thank the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister for the opportunity he had allowed him to move the motion on a day which was entirely set apart for Government business, recognising that if that course were not adopted it would be utterly impossible for them to have an opportunity of discussing the question in the House. He hoped that in dealing with the question he would not in any way use any expression which might be calculated to heighten the intensity of public feeling which existed in connection with the matter with which his motion dealt. In fact, his reason for moving the motion was of an entirely opposite character. It was for the purpose of assuring the country that the House viewed with grave alarm the evil which, unfortunately, existed to a large extent throughout the length and breadth of the country, but especially in the vicinity of Johannesburg, and that the House would be prepared in every way possible to support the Government in taking those steps which it might consider necessary immediately to deal with this evil, and further, as he hoped, to appoint a Commission of the strongest possible character to inquire into the whole of the circumstances which had to a large extent led up to this unfortunate question with which they had to deal. There was no doubt that the danger was a real one. He thought nobody who had listened to the figures given by his hon. friend the Minister of Justice the other day, in which he stated that within a certain period of time—he thought he said for the year ending on the 31st of March last—there were some 85 cases that had come under consideration, would deny that when they considered that that meant a case of this serious character had taken place every fourth day in the year, surely that was sufficient to make the House recognise the extreme gravity of the situation. He would like to say at once that the horror of this crime was viewed, he thought, as strongly by the vast majority of the native population of this country as it was by the European population, because those of them who were especially acquainted with the history of the native races in the Cape Colony must recognise that in the past the honour of their women and children was recognised by the natives of the Cape Province throughout the whole course of the native wars on the frontier, and under these circumstances he thought it was only fair that as this crime was unknown in the early days they must recognise that a great deal of it was due to the altered circumstances and the conditions under which a large section of these people found themselves placed in the large industrial centres.

Therefore he thought it was necessary in dealing with this question for them at once to allow the natives to know that while they were prepared to deal with a crime of this sort with the utmost rigour of the law, and that they would do everything they possibly could in their power to stamp it out, they were equally determined that the same punishment which was meted out to the black man should be meted out to the white man. (Cheers.) He thought that at this particular time it was more than usually necessary that the House should express in the strongest possible terms its determination that that was the direction in which they desired to see protection and justice carried out. There was no doubt that the unfortunate spread of this crime was to a large extent due to the lowest description of the white population, who were gathered together in some of their large industrial centres, a class of people whom he thought might be well described as the riddlings of creation, and he thought it was the duty of the House to see that every possible means was devised to try to bring these people to justice, and, if possible, when they were brought to justice, to try to place them entirely and absolutely outside the borders of the Union, so that they could not engage in traffic of this sort in future. There was no doubt that the surroundings of the native population must have a great effect in increasing the extent of this fearful social pest in their midst. He remembered some years ago, in the Cape Colony, when plague became rampant, they then tackled the suggestions made from time to time by the Native Affairs Department, and especially by Colonel Stanford, who was then head of the department, who said that so long as they had large bodies of natives without any supervision of any sort, it would be impossible for them to be of a respectable character, and that the tendency would be to bring these people into contact with the lowest description of the white population, and demoralise them to a large extent. When plague broke out, the Government of which he was a member was compelled to deal with the whole question with a view to clearing the city. A crusade was carried out in the most densely-populated parts of the city, especially in District Six. He went round with Mr. Justice Graham, who was then Attorney-General, when the evictions took place, and the conditions they saw existing there were of a character really almost too terrible to contemplate. And what had been the result? At considerable expense, the Government had established a native location in the vicinity of Maitland. The natives were moved out to Maitland, and the result had been of the most excellent character. From the information he had been able to get, he found that they had been moved out to a suitable location, where they lived under more or less family conditions, and had become quite a respectable body of people, and crime was not rampant in the location. That was a statement that could be substantiated by his hon. friend the Minister of Justice and by the officials of the police and the detective department, who were more qualified than he was to express an opinion on the subject. He only mentioned that as one of the justifications for the appointment of a Commission because he thought in the appointment of a Commission the first duty would be to inquire into all the circumstances at all the large industrial centres where natives were congregated together, and see if nothing could be done to place them under better conditions than they had at the present time. He was not going to deal now with the question of compounds. Any of them who knew the conditions of Kimberley in the ’eighties would recognise that the place was a hell upon earth, but when the natives wore kept away from drink and put in compounds, the condition of affairs in Kimberley became of an extremely good character. But that was not a question which he was going to take up the time of the House in dealing with that day. There was one question which he should like to deal with, and to ask the House to expres its strongest possible opinion upon. It was that in dealing with a matter of this sort it should be absolutely and entirely dissociated from party associations. They recognised that the Government was anxious to do all it could to cope with this evil, and the hands of the Government would be strengthened by letting them realise that both sides of the House would wholeheartedly support them in any steps they might consider necessary to deal with this terrible evil. He would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to what he had been informed accounted for ninety per cent, of the evil. It was especially so in the vicinity of the Rand. It was the extent to which the illicit traffic in drink was carried on in circumstances which he recognised were very difficult to cope with.

He had heard on the very best authority that there were about twenty firms on the Rand who were dealing in this nefarious traffic, and who bad organised centres which were in touch with large numbers of the lower class of whites, who obtained two or three or four bottles of liquor, compounded of spirit, cayenne pepper, tobacco, and other ingredients, and unless they could find some means of stopping them selling this stuff to the natives, it was utterly impossible to prevent crime. He had also been informed that this class of traffic was more intimately associated with the lower class of white women, who were used as inducements on the Rand. It was the duty of the Government to see that the greatest possible means were taken for striking at this blot upon their civilisation. It might cost a little more expense for the moment, but the moment they stopped this illicit traffic, the expenses would be very much less. (Hear, hear.) If the Minister of Justice found it necessary to increase his police he would find that the House would only be too anxious to vote the necessary money for providing adequate protection. In dealing with a matter of this sort, what was really wanted was a police force specially trained in dealing with crime m great industrial centres. They wanted not only an efficient white detective but an efficient native detective force, which he believed, would have a great deal to do with stamping out this tremendous evil. He hoped that the Government were going to deal with the question in a sympathetic manner, and if they could not make a paradise upon earth, surely it was possible to stamp out what was a veritable hell upon earth. (Hear, hear.) Even if they were only to allay the excitement, whether justified or not.-and to prevent the possibilities of disgracing the law by the introduction of Lynch law, they would have done a great deal. These increased precautions might cost a certain amount of money, but he would say, in conclusion, that the honour and purity of their women were above the mere question of expense in finding means to blot out this evil. (Cheers.)

seconded the motion.

thanked the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) for the manner in which he had approached the subject and could assure him that as he (the Minister) was responsible for anything that might go amiss with regard to these crimes, he had felt the position of affairs in the Union for the last 18 months very keenly. There could be no doubt that throughout South Africa a feeling had gradually arisen that the crimes which had been referred to were gradually increasing and becoming a great cause of trouble to the white population in South Africa, but he had felt that they had to be exceedingly careful as to what they did in regard to this question and even as to the manner in which it was to be met. He had discussed this with his colleagues before and he would give the hon. member the assurance that what he desired to do they would have done and would have appointed a Commission to enquire into these matters. This had not been done for two reasons. One reason was that he had felt that after what happened during the past 18 months it would be exceedingly difficult to approach the matter, especially from a party point of view, without making out to South Africa that there was more in the question than there actually was. He would quote figures to show that this kind of crime was on the increase, but not to the extent to which the majority of the people believed The other reason was that they might speak generally of crime and its seriousness and its increase, but, although speaking generally, they also felt that this particular class of crime was something that bears indirectly upon the relationships between the black and white peoples in South Africa, and they had felt very strongly that the moment they went closely into these matters it would bring before the country and the House one of the most serious and vigorous problems in South Africa. He still felt that when that problem was brought forward there could be no party feeling aroused in solving that question. (Hear, hear.) In the second place, he had felt that they would have to go into the question as much in the interests of the black people as in the interests of the European people in South Africa. He felt that they would have to take up this question, but they would have to take it up in a more radical manner than they had ever done before. (Hear, hear.) He fully agreed with his hon. friend when he said that whatever they did they would make no exceptions, because they felt that the white man was no less a danger to them than the black man. Therefore he thought they ought to keep this until the time when they would have an opportunity of dealing with this question as it should be dealt with. With regard to the other and broader question—he thought they might call it that—it merely showed that both sides were desirous of getting some measure adopted. He hoped that the figures which he would put before them would allay public feeling in the country. In the first place he ought to remind hon. gentlemen of a few facts when they were brought face to face with matters of this kind and were becoming uneasy. It had been said that the police were insufficient in number and that the policemen were inefficient. With regard to this he would like to inform hon. members and the public generally that the police force in South Africa had a record which would bear comparison with the police forces in other parts of the world in the detection of crime and the bringing to justice of criminals. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) An examination of the figures disclosed the fact that 88 per cent, of the cases had been convicted, and that spoke very well for the efficiency of the police force in the country. Then with regard to the increase in the police force. Continuing, he said that every person in the country was clearly entitled to protection. In other words, it was the duty of the police force to see that every individual enjoyed a sufficient amount of protection in the country. When that was taken in view he said this, that if they compared the number of the police on the Rand and in the suburbs of Johannesburg with other centres it would be found that it compared most favourably with other centres in the Union and other places in the world. He had with him some figures which he wished to lay before hon. members in that House. The other day an hon. member asked the question as to the proportion of the police to the inhabitants of the Metropolitan area of London, and he would reply that it was 1 to every 575. In Johannesburg and suburbs the number was 1 to every 225.

Black or white?

White and black. Continuing, he said that in the southern suburbs of Johannesburg the number was 1 to 458. These suburbs had many straggling streets, and when they saw that the number was 1 to 458, and compared it with the number in Cape Town, which was 1 to 442, they would see that, as far as the number of police was concerned, Johannesburg was as well protected as any other place in the Union. If they increased the number of police in Johannesburg they would immediately have an outcry for additional police in other parts of the Union. He pointed out that he was constantly being asked for increases of the force in Cape Town and Kimberley and other places. He merely placed these figures before hon. members because he wished them to see clearly the position in which they were at the present day. He submitted that there was no reason for these complaints on the part of the public, and he thought that hon. members would see his point after he had quoted figures as to what actually had been done. Before he left Johannesburg he would like to say that some time ago the Government decided upon getting bloodhounds into the country for the purpose of assisting the police. If this proved a success, as he had every reason to believe the scheme would, then he thought this would prove one of the best deterrents of crime they could have in the country. So far, he might say that on one of the first attempts—the day before yesterday—the dogs took the police straight to the hut—they covered a great distance—where the criminals were found with the stolen goods. (Hear, hear.) He added that this case was a case of housebreaking. It had only just been tried, but the trial attempts had proved just as successful, and he did not think that any other scheme would prove as effectual in preventing crime in South Africa. Continuing, he said that he wished to quote some statistics with regard to the crimes of rape and attempted rape and so on. He wanted hon. members to understand that he was quoting from a return of the Union dealing with rapes, attempted rapes, and assaults on females. Hon. members would at once see that there had been an increase. In 1910 they had, for all colours, whites and blacks, and blacks and whites, 801 cases, which gave 202 for each quarter. In 1911 they had 952, which gave 238 per quarter. That year, for the first quarter, they had 271, and these figures showed that there had been a steady increase. The question then rose as to how far this increase had taken place in regard to blacks on whites. In 1910 they had 69 cases, which worked out at 17 per quarter. In 1911 they had 107 cases, which meant 26 per quarter. In 1912 they had 22, or a decrease of 4 per quarter. Now he wished hon. members to bear this in mind. In 1912, in the first quarter, in the quarter during which this sudden agitation had arisen, they had actually a decrease on what they had last year, and he would point out later that as far as the centre of this agitation was concerned, they were nine cases of assaults on females of all kinds, whereas in the first quarter of the previous year there were 18, or just double the number. He thought it right to point this out, because he thought those who sat in that House should calmly go into the matter, and see whether there was any reason for this agitation, and make the public understand whether there was or was not reason for this extraordinary excitement that was going on. Continuing, he said that the petition which was handed into the House the other day was signed by 60,000 or more people living on the Rand. He did not wish hon. members of that House or the public outside to get the impression that this was any light matter, or one that was not getting more serious as time went on, but he wanted to show that there was no reason for all the alarm that had arisen.

Having read the petition, General Hertzog said that it would show that the petitioners were in a state of alarm, almost of panic. To say that there were 208 reported cases, and that they felt sure that there were double that number—well, of course, there was no ground whatever for that. The correct number of cases was 212, of which 20 were white upon white, 14 white on black, 145 black on black, and 33 black on white. This was for the whole of the Transvaal. Thus in 1910 there were 33 of these cases out of 212. He did not blame the petitioners, but he had to lay the facts before the House; but the petitioners gave the impression that the whole of the 208 cases were those in which the honour of white women were concerned. Naturally a thing like that would create alarm, as undoubtedly if it had been true they would all have been alarmed. In 1911, which all along showed an increase, there were 46 cases of assaults by black on white out of 931 cases. In the first quarter of 1911 there were two cases of rape, 11 of attempted rape, and eight of indecent assault, making a total of 23, but of these three were false reports.

For the whole of the Transvaal?

No, the Reef area only. Continuing, he said that for the same period this year the following cases were reported: Rape, two; attempted rape, five; and indecent assault, three; but one report was false, so that there were nine cases only.

You don’t know all that is going on.

Naturally, sir, I and the police can only deal with what is reported to us. We can only go upon these facts. Continuing, General Hertzog said that with regard to what the police did out of the 18 cases reported last quarter, three were undetected, and this year only one was undetected. That showed that the police were very active and that they were doing very good and substantial work—work as good as could be asked for in any part of the world. (Hear, hear.)

When we consider these figures, went on General Hertzog, I say that I have a right to come to the House, and to say to the House and to the public outside: “Let us be careful; let us not get into a state of panic, but that it becomes each and all of us calmly to consider the matter, and while acknowledging that the state of affairs is not such as we might and could expect, It is, at any rate, not such as to cause any great state of alarm. 1 am exceedingly sorry that this state of alarm has arisen in the country. I feel that it is as unjust for the blacks in South Africa as it is over against the whites in South Africa.” Conturning, General Hertzog said that when they looked at the figures of black assaults upon blacks, they would see that it was really the black man who required protection. These assaults had gradually been increasing since 1901; they were 263 m 1910, and 267 in 1911. Out of the 66 cases reported in the first quarter of this year, 53 cases were those of assaults by black upon black.

Of course, any state of feeling which would take the form of white men taking the law into their own hands would be not only most regrettable, but would be one of the most unjustifiable things which could happen in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) The blacks felt it very severely. We must look at the question impartially, and above all, to do what was necessary to allay feeling and to make the people understand that there was no extra cause for alarm, and that they were determined and prepared to bake such measures as were possible and necessary to safeguard the interests of the women in South Africa in the future. As far as his department was concerned, he submitted that he had now, and the Government had done, everything that reasonably could be expected. His hon. friend had pointed to the necessity of a Commission going into the causes of all this. (Cheers.)

It was no longer a police matter, but unless they went to the source of the trouble they would never do anything which would be satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend (Sir A. Woolls-Sampson) had strong views—and so had he (General Hertzog)—as to what ought to be done, but both of them were desirous that what was done should be done with the utmost justice to the whites and blacks as well. (Hear, hear.) And in addition to that justice they had to do something more in South Africa. They had to see and to acknowledge that the day had come that when they took hold of any measure it would be a measure whereby the relations between black and white would be so adjusted that the black would be given an opportunity—while the white man was safeguarded—of being dealt with honestly. (Cheers.) He was sorry that the black man had not been dealt with in this way altogether. The first complaint that had been made against their law was that it did not honestly deal with the black. He felt that the whites were hypocrites. They pretended in a great many cases and pretended insincerely. (Hear, hear.) They could not go on on these lines. They would have to pay the penalty as assuredly as any man paid for his sins. He would not go any further into that. He knew they were all anxious to do what was just, and that they were equally desirous of seeing the white man in this country safeguarded and his heritage sufficiently put on a safe basis for him, but he knew also that at the same time they were all anxious to see that the same justice should be done to the native in South Africa. Well, he would not go into that further. He hoped that when the Commission was appointed it would go thoroughly into the question and investigate all the causes of the trouble. Before concluding, he wished to make an amendment to his hon. friend’s motion. In his hon. friend’s motion he spoke of the “increasing prevalence.” Well, he would rather leave those words out, because, after all, in his figures were included all kinds of assaults. He did not think they should prejudice the position by leaving in the words “increasing prevalence.” He therefore, moved as an amendment, in line 2, to omit “increasing prevalence of the”, and in line 6, after “purpose of”, to omit all the words to the end, and to substitute “investigating the prevalence and the causes thereof and of submitting recommendations for dealing therewith.” He hoped his hon. friend would accept the amendment.

Yes.

I take it that he accepts them. I may say that I am perfectly prepared, on behalf of the Government, to agree to the appointment of a Commission, and I hope that the best possible Commission will be appointed.

seconded the amendment.

admitted, remembering what had taken place, that it was difficult to speak with restraint. He had only risen in order to give the public an assurance that the Government would do everything lawful and reasonable in its power to put an end to crimes of the description referred to. Wherever is was in the power of the Government to do anything, Parliament would certainly help, and he repeated the assurance that he would leave nothing undone to prevent such assaults. Where the weak were assaulted, they always received every sympathy. At the same time he was bound to recognise the fact that an end must be made to the assaults which were committed by whites on black women. South Africa would never permit the honour of its women to be defiled, and whatever it cost to prevent it, they would have to put a stop to such things. The public might be assured that both the Government and Parliament would strain all their powers to bring these assaults to an end. He was pleased that no effort had been made to make a party question of it, as if that had been done it might have plunged the country into serious difficulties. There were no parties in a question of that character. (Hear, hear.) He would venture to say to the criminals concerned that the population stood like one man to exterminate the evil, root and branch. Of course it was the duty of the Government and of Parliament to treat every man fairly and justly, without regard to the colour of his skin. It would be necessary to take certain people who had sunk low, and banish them from the country. (Hear, hear.) The actions of many of them served as a temptation to others, and the time had come when a commission should be appointed to inquire into the whole question. The time had come also to deal with the whole native question. That had hitherto been impossible on account of the division of the Country into four Colonies. That difficulty had disappeared under Union, and they must now set to work to deal with the whole question. A social equality between whites and blacks would only lead to the deepest misery, and every intelligent person must see that such a condition was as impossible as it was undesirable. Once that point was admitted they would have to turn more and more in the direction of segregation. It had become the custom to deal with the matter too lightly, but whatever they did, they must take care, in the first place, only to act with justice. He was glad the amendment was to be accepted. The Government would do its utmost to appoint a commission of the most capable men, a commission in which the whole population could have confidence, and that commission would make inquiries and bring up recommendations for the purpose of preventing these crimes. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

The notion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned till Wednesday.

moved that the House do now resolve itself into committee and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

said that he wanted to know what the policy of the Government was in regard to fencing. This measure had met with a considerable amount of opposition in the House, and since it had been introduced several pages of the Votes and Proceedings had been covered by amendments proposed to be introduced by the Prime Minister. These amendments materially altered the principles of the Bill as introduced. To his mind that was an extraordinary way of conducting the business of the House. As a matter of fact, he could give many instances of the Government introducing measures which were afterwards referred to Select Committees at the request of Ministers themselves, and returned in an entirely altered state by hon. members on his side of the House. If the Prime Minister had not opposed, this Bill would have been sent to Select Committee, and would no doubt have come back in an entirely altered state. He wanted to know whether the Government in introducing this Fencing Bill introduced it as an expression of the policy of the Government with regard to fencing in South Africa, or whether they introduced it just to see what hon. members in the House would say, or whether it was introduced to find out whether the followers of the Government would accept it or something less, or a little more? Was there any policy in these Bills? Hon. members on his side of the House could see no policy whatever. Bill after Bill was introduced and immediately referred to Select Committees or amendments were put on the paper entirely altering the principles. With regard to this Bill, was the Prime Minister in favour of compulsory fencing or not? What was the policy of the Government? Was the Prime Minister in favour of compulsory or permissive fencing? Hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House wanted to know. The Prime Minister had found that an appeal to the Agricultural Department was not popular, and so he wished to give the Magistrates power to decide. But that simply meant that if a man was not satisfied with the decision of the Magistrate, then he could appeal to the Department. This simply meant that the whole of the Fencing Act was going to be centralised in Pretoria, and surely this was not a desirable state of affairs to the people in the other Provinces. Another very important amendment was that dealing with clause 5, which provided for meetings being held by the people of a district who wished to ask the Governor-General to put the Act into force. He would rather have seen a compulsory measure with power being given the people to apply for the Act to be discontinued if they thought fit. He did not think that all this machinery was required for the purpose of putting the Act into force. Surely they had a right to expect the Government, when bringing legislation into the House, to defend the principles which were set forth in such legislation, and stand up for those principles against any attacks which might be made from the Opposition benches. He thought it was not proper that the Government should bring in measures which had not only not been well thought out, but about which the Government had not consulted its followers. He thought they had a right to expect some explanation from the hon. members who sat on the Treasury benches for bringing in a measure with one set of principles and then discarding those principles for an entirely new set of principles.

said he thought that it would be admitted that this was not a Bill of pressing importance at that late stage of the session. He believed that Natal did not want this new law. He drew the same conclusion from the remarks of the Free State members—

Oh, no.

I believe you are well satisfied. Continuing, he said that as far as the Cape. Colony was concerned they had gone on very well so far, and could go on for another session. So far as the Transvaal was concerned he believed that the Bill only made better provision for the purchase of fencing materials. Perhaps that object could be gained by inserting an amendment in the Land Bank Bill. He pointed out that one whole day had already been spent on the Bill, and that they were now faced with ten pages of amendments which would be discussed in committee. But they had not discussed one single vote of the Estimates. Then there were the Bills of the Minister of Railways—

The hon. member must confine himself to the question before the House.

said he was only endeavouring to show that there was more important business that should be given precedence. It was an important matter in its way, but he did not think that it was a question of pressing urgency at that late stage of the session. There was the report of the Financial Relations Commission which—

said the hon. member must confine himself to the question before the House.

said that he rose to record his strong protest against this measure being proceeded with in face of the important business which the House had still to discuss. He thought under the circumstances that the Bill should not be pressed.

said the Bill was both important and necessary. In the Transvaal standards and wire were both provided for the farmers, but that demanded expensive administration, which must be terminated. It was therefore necessary to amend the Transvaal law. Hon. members from the Free State were not opposed to the Bill, but wanted to have compulsory fencing. The Cape would derive great advantage from the measure, as the farmers there would be able to obtain advances for all kinds of fences, which at present they could only obtain for jackal-proof fences. He considered it unnecessary to answer the hon. member for Turffontein.

said that the House was now faced with more than eight pages of amendments to the Bill. Now it was proposed with regard to clause 3 that—

said that the amendments had not yet been moved.

Will I be in order in

The hon. member will not be in order.

asked whether he would not be entitled to show that these amendments—

said that the amendments had not been moved. They might not be moved in committee.

said he would point out that the amendments were very voluminous, and that hon. members had not had time to give these amendments their careful attention. He hoped the Prime Minister would not press the Bill.

said he would Eke to support the remarks that had been made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Continuing, he said that in Natal they had a fencing Act that had acted very well, and he considered that the new Act would be in the nature of a retrograde step.

suggested that the Prime Minister should withdraw the Bill and bring in a Bill embodying the new proposals. He moved as an amendment to omit all the words after the word “That” and to substitute “the order that the House go into committee on the Bill be discharged and that the Government be instructed to bring in another Bill at the earliest possible moment.”

in seconding the amendment said that the suggestion that had just been made seemed to give rise to some amusement on the other side. He pointed out that these amendments only came before the House on the previous day, and as hon. members had been busy they had no chance of making comparisons. There were ten pages of amendments, and it was clear that these had been debated by hon. members on the other side.

No, no.

When did the Prime Minister get the inspiration?

Every point was discussed in the House.

said that the principles contained in the amendments were entirely new, and disclosed no real Government policy.

said he did hope that the Prime Minister would reconsider the position. He had taken a great interest in the matter, but he must say that he could not make head or tail of the amendments which had been brought before the House. He did not know whether it was in order to go into committee on a Bill which contained entirely new principles to principles that were accepted by the House on the second reading. He pointed out of the first six clauses five had been amended.

The amendment was negatived, and the original motion agreed to.

moved after line 10 to insert the following: “contributions” shall mean contributions by an owner, in accordance with this Act, towards the cost of dividing fences, and “contribute” shall be construed accordingly; “cost” shall, in respect of the erection or alteration or repair of any fence include any cost of or incidental to such erection, alteration, or repair, including the cost of transport of materials.”

Agreed to.

moved after line 13, to insert a new definition: “Beneficial use” shall mean, in relation to a dividing fence, (a) attaching a fence thereto, (b) utilising the adjoining holding for any purpose whatever connected with farming or agricultural enterprise.

said they should not widen “beneficial use” in the way proposed. The definition was an extraordinary one.

said if there was nothing to be said for his “extraordinary” definition, there was still less to be said of the extraordinary attitude taken up by the Minister of the Interior. He (Mr. Wyndham) was not responsible for introducing the phrase “beneficial use,” but the Prime Minister was. Unless it was laid down what was “beneficial use,” farmers would not know where they were in regard to this matter. If the House used terms, it should use specific terms, which-everyone would understand.

hoped the matter would be held over until the Minister could give some definition of the expression. He (Mr. Fichardt) would have liked to add the words “or wherever such a fence adds to the value of property. There must be some protection against the land speculator who allowed his land to lie idle, and whose ownership often prevented the proprietors of adjoining farms erecting fences. (Hear, hear.)

agreed that there must be some definition. As the thing stood now, the land speculator would be protected. Then it was not right that the onus of judging in these matters should be thrown upon the officials of the Department. The absence of a definition would protect the land speculator and loafer. (Hear, hear.)

said he regretted that the last speaker always saw something wrong in the actions of the Government. It was not possible to adopt any other than the permissive principle. The Bill could not be made compulsory. If it were, it would be tantamount to saying to the people in the north of the Cape that they were to quit. They had the permissive principle in the Transvaal, where it had worked splendidly, and served as an encouragement to fencing. He could not understand the attitude of the hon. member for Ladybrand, who was a representative of a farming district. The speaker had travelled in the north-western districts, and personally examined the conditions there, and he found it quite impossible to make fencing obligatory. The people there did not live beside a railway, which could carry their wire and other things, and generally speaking if they made the Bill compulsory, it would not be a success.

said the hon. member for Turffontein knew little of the conditions. A permissive law acted very well in the Cape, whilst compulsion might be a failure.

said that surely hon. members saw that they could not quote a single case where a fence was put up that two people did not get the advantage of it. Now, what sort of a position were they putting the Magistrate in, if his decision were going to be upset by an underling in the Agricultural Department? The Prime Minister stated the other day that the beneficial user was the man who attached his fence to another. They were putting both the Agricultural Department and the Magistrate in a very difficult position, unless something definite was laid down.

said his constituents were all in favour of compulsory fencing. Wherever there was beneficial use, and the value of land was increased by the fence put up by a neighbour, he asked that the owner of that ground should be required to contribute towards the cost of erecting such a fence.

thought the Minister of the Interior had only hastily looked at the Bill when he referred them to clause 6. That clause did not deal with this question at all; in fact, it was very difficult to follow the Bill and also follow the amendments because they were really in committee, and dealing with what was practically a new Bill. What his hon. friend (Mr. Struben) was trying to deal with was beneficial use. He would appeal to practical farmers in the House. He understood from the Prime Minister that joining one end of a fence to another constituted beneficial use. At least that was what he understood was in the minds of both the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. If that was not the intention, what was the intention? The intention, it was stated was going to be defined by the Agricultural Department, but he thought it was unwise to allow the Agricultural Department to define things without knowledge of them. Section 18 of the Cape Fencing Act would have sent the question of beneficial use to arbitration. He would rather see the practical farmers of a district arbitrate as to whether a neighbour was making beneficial use of a fence or not rather than leaving the matter to the Agricultural Department. Therefore he supported the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein. The unfortunate thing was that the Bill was not compulsory.

hoped that the hon. member would see his way clear to withdraw the amendment. They could not define beneficial use.

But you let the Agricultural Department do so.

suggested that the clause should stand over and in the interim the hon. member for Turffontein light see his way clear to withdraw.

said that if they accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein they might as well make the Bill compulsory.

said that while the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was in office he was unable to make fencing compulsory. In many parts of the north-west the ground was not worth fencing, and compulsion would be impossible.

could not agree to a provision which might lead to the abolition of the rule in the Free State under which a neighbour was bound to contribute towards the cost of a fence.

was astonished at the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Compulsion was quite impossible in the north-western districts. The hon. member for Turffontein had shown that he was not acquainted with farming conditions. He (the speaker) felt bound to oppose the amendment.

said he knew many cases where people were content to pay nothing and look for a lot. It was all very well to quote the north-west, but that was quoted on every occasion.

opposed the amendment. The hon. member for Edenburg would be satisfied with new clause 5.

said the hon. member for Newlands had shown clearly that he had no knowledge of the country’s conditions, and was only acquainted with those of Wynberg. The speaker felt bound to oppose the amendment, as it was impossible to make the law compulsory. That Bill had to serve the whole Union, and it was wrong to pass a law which was impracticable in certain districts.

then put the amendment, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

moved in lines 25 and 26 to omit “unless imprisonment with hard labour is specifically provided as a punishment for the offence.”

Agreed to.

moved, after line 36 to insert the following: “standard” shall, in relation to any fence, mean the minimum specifications as set forth in the Third Schedule to this Act. It was unfortunate, the mover remarked, that the definitions were put at the head of the Bill, as their discussion often involved a waste of time.

suggested that every area should select the type of fence best suited to its purposes, instead of fixing a standard. He moved as an amendment to the amendment that “standard” should mean “the type declared of standard as provided hereafter in section 5 of this Act.”

suggested that it would be better to say the type of fence described in schedule 3. There was a confusion between standard, as meaning the uprights to which wires were attached, and standards as meaning a type of fence.

pointed out that different types of fence were used in the same area. It would be a fatal mistake to lay down definitely what the type of fence should be. The matter should be left to settle itself according to individual requirements. The amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam was an unworkable proposition.

said there would be nothing to prevent people erecting a better fence than the standard one.

thought it would be better for the definition to stand over, as it depended on the schedule being passed, and he sincerely trusted that no schedule of that kind would go into the Bill at all. It was an utterly impossible matter to lay down what a standard fence should be. (Ministerial cheers.) The type of fence was constantly varying and being improved.

considered a certain standard should be laid down, especially in view of there being a possibility of this matter having to come up before a Court of Arbitration. Such a Court would never be able to arrive at a proper decision unless they had some standard to go upon. In other respects the type of fence should be left to the decision of the farmers concerned.

moved to omit the definition of “owner,” and to substitute “owner” shall mean (a) the owner of a holding as above defined and (b) the Union Government in respect of all Crown lands. The mover said he moved the amendment because the Government would not be looked upon as an occupier or owner. If the man was in a proclaimed area, the Government would give him no assistance. In the old Cape it was acknowledged by the Cape Government in their Act 42 of 1905, where the Government was held to be occupier in respect of all Crown lands.

pointed out that if his hon. friend referred to clause 39, he would see that the question was solved there.

The amendments moved by Mr. Watermeyer and Mr. Oosthuisen were withdrawn.

asked what was the definition of “owner”? Why not include the definition as they did in the Dipping Tanks Act? Surely it would take no more space in the present Bill.

said his hon. friend would see that they had already passed that definition.

said his objection to this was that it looked like a serial story, where the reader was referred back to former numbers for what happened in previous chapters. It would be better to have the definition set forth clearly, and not refer a man to other Acts for it.

said that really there were so many amendments that it would be very advisable that when they came to consider them he thought this definition should be put in. This question had been constantly brought to their notice by their constituents. They had got this Bill, and they could not make head or tail of it. Surely the Government ought to make it as plain as possible, so that the ordinary man might be able to understand it, without consulting two or three other Acts of Parliament.

admitted the justice of the contention of his hon., friend, and at the next stage they would do as suggested.

said that what he wanted to draw attention to was that they could not have hard-and-fast rules with regard to the types of fences. He had looked through the types that this clause might tie them down to, and they were not at all suitable to this country. Many farmers had different plantations of trees, and there was no reason why they should have these particular fences, and to tie them down to these types was a great hardship. He thought it would be better to use the word “standard” before “types.”

said that under the definition of “owner,” in the measure dealing with advances for dipping tanks, owners of undivided farms were not included. This was not satisfactory. If that definition were taken over, the owner of a portion of an undivided farm would not be able to obtain an advance.

The amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

Clause 3 was negatived.

New clause 3,

moved that the following be a new clause 3, viz.: “3. (1) Whenever an owner of a holding (a) desires to erect a dividing fence upon that holding; or (b) is required, in accordance with the provisions of this Act toy another owner of a holding to contribute to the costs of a dividing fence between the two holdings; or (c) is required, in accordance with the provisions of this Act by another owner of a holding to contribute to the cost of such alterations to an existing dividing fence as will make that fence a standard fence, or if it be already a standard fence, as will make it a standard fence of a superior type, such owner shall be entitled to obtain from the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa an advance to defray such cost or contribution has the case may be provided such cost or contribution exceeds ten pounds. (2) The provisions of the Dipping Tanks (Advances) Act, 1911-(Act No. 20 of 1911) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any such advance or to the application therefor, with the following modifications: (a) The application for the advance shall be made to the said bank and not to the Department; (b) the advance shall be made by the said bank and not by the Department, but shall only be made upon a certificate of the Department that the terms and conditions and all other provisions of the said Act and of this Act have been complied with by the persons concerned; (c) every power conferred or duty imposed by the said Act upon the Department shall, in respect of any such advance or application therefore, be conferred or imposed upon the said bank, except that the bank shall not exercise any powers relative to the supply or transport of material as the Department has heretofore exercised in respect of advances for the erection of dipping tanks; (d) the maximum period of ten years shall be substituted for the maximum period of eight years mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 2 of the said Act as the period within which the advances in respect of dividing fences and interest on such advances shall be repaid; (c) contiguous holdings shall not be aggregated for the purpose of any such advances, as is provided in sub-section (6) of section 2 of the said Act in the case of advances for the erection of dipping tanks.” He said that there was no new principle introduced in this clause. Instead of moving alterations, it had been found more convenient and intelligible to set out the new clause in full. The man who would get the money from the Land Bank was not the man who was going to fence his land, but his neighbour; The Minister pointed out the differences between the proposals he placed before the House and those which had been dropped. He mentioned the new clause was a great improvement on the old clause which was almost unintelligible.

asked how the farmer was going to understand the second portion of the clause-which the Minister had to explain to the committee. He thought the farmer-should be told clearly what he had to do.

hoped that the hon. member for Pretoria-East would not press the point.

moved to omit “any” and insert “such”’ in paragraph (c) of sub-section (2).

said he would not press the point he had raised.

The amendment of the hon. member for Newlands was agreed to.

said the clause was vague with regard to undivided farms, and ought to be amended.

put the case of the owner of three or four farms, and asked whether he could obtain an advance for the outer fence only, or for the dividing fences as well.

said in the Dipping Tanks Act a number of owners of property could have one dipping tank between them.

regretted that it should be necessary that in every Bill they should be forced to refer to other measures, thus causing considerable complication.

said it appeared to him that the clause operated in a retrospective sense.

explained that this matter was dealt with elsewhere.

said he thought it would be much better to put other 23 lines in the clause; it only meant 40 lines altogether, and he did not want to press the matter to a division.

asked what security would be required for advances?

asked whether it was possible to repeat the clauses referred to and appearing in the Dipping Tanks Act, in this Bill. He supported the hon. member for Vrededorp, saying the costs would not be excessive.

pointed to the debate which had last session taken place on these clauses, and feared that if they had to be passed again there would again be considerable discussion. That was the reason for the reference of the one Bill to the other.

The new clause was agreed to.

Clause 4 was negatived.

New clause 4,

moved that the following be a new clause 4: “4. If any owner has, under this Act or any other law or otherwise, lawfully erected a dividing fence on the boundary lines of his holding in an area in which contributions towards the cost thereof are not obligatory, and the owner of an adjoining holding adopts means whereby such a fence is rendered of beneficial use to himself, either owner may demand that an assessment be made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV. of the value to each owner of the fence, regard being had to the extent to which and the time at which the beneficial use is being or has been made.”

moved, as an amendment, in line 6 of the clause, after “to himself,” to omit all the words to the end and to substitute “and such adjoining owner is required to contribute towards the cost of such dividing fence; if such owners cannot agree to a fair apportionment of the then value of the fence between themselves, such apportionment and any question as to what is beneficial use for the purposes of this section and as to the time at which such use is made, shall be determined by arbitration as hereinafter provided.”

moved, as an amendment to this amendment in line 2 after “fence,” to omit “if”; in the same line to omit “cannot” and to substitute “may”; in line 3 after themselves” to insert “and if such owners cannot agree” and to add at the end “and it shall be obligatory upon such adjoining owner to contribute such proportion as might be agreed upon.” That amendment, he said, introduced the principle of arbitration.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam. Disputes in regard to fences could not be decided by a magistrate. Arbitration was the proper method, and arbitration was already applied in the Cape, Natal, and the Free State. He had experienced the good results to be derived from arbitration.

said the settlement of disputes should be left to the people concerned, and that there should be no compulsory arbitration.

said the question of arbitration came up in clause 28, and could be discussed there.

said the effect of the clause would be to protect a man who would not do anything at all in the way of fencing.

The hon. member is now back to the definition of what is beneficial use.

objected to postponing the discussion on arbitration.

Pretty near it.

said they had purposely left that question open. In a case of difficulty the arbitrator would say what was beneficial use? But there must be the adoption of active means to obtain beneficial use.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

drew the attention of the Minister of the Interior to clause 4, which, he said, was drawn up in such a way that it was necessary for its elucidation that they should adopt his amendment, supplemented by that of the hon. member for Turffontein. When these two amendments were put together, then they knew what a divided fence was, and could agree upon it. But if neighbouring owners did not agree upon the question of what was beneficial use, that point would be determined by arbitration, and then it should be obligatory for the adjoining owner to contribute. If they did not put the clause in this way, then they were going to spoil the clause.

Both amendments were negatived.

pointed out the difficulties that might arise when the owner who had already contributed desired to have the fence altered for larger stock.

asked the Minister what was the meaning of partial liability and partial use? If a fence divided two properties, the principle underlying this was that one of the owners should pay one-half and the other owner the other. If they agreed upon a standard fence, and if they agreed that some sort of use was being made of it, surely they were going to make unnecessary complication if they were going to analyse how much value a man had got out of it.

said that supposing A had a fence, and B. wanted to make beneficial use of it, but he only wanted four or five strands, then the contribution would be based upon that. Later on B. said he must go in for heavier cattle, and the contribution would be then further assessed.

said that supposing a fence were broken, who were they going to send round to see who did it, and which owner would have to contribute—whether the ostrich farmer or the stock farmer, for instance? (Laughter.)

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 5,

stated that the machinery of the old clause was unworkbale. This was a criticism that was correctly levelled at the old Bill. Sub-section (5) was new. He believed it was originally in the Bill and was apparently knocked out in the drafting. (Opposition laughter.)

said he had prepared amendments to the old clauses and the amendments did not fit into the new clause. He pointed out that his amendment on this clause involved a question of principle on which he would divide the House.

said that the Minister had confessed to the House that the old clause could not De explained. He could quite understand the principle which his hon. friend wished to get into the Bill.

said that the matter was entirely in the hands of member.

asked whether his hon. friend could move his amendment to the old clause before it was deleted.

said that the old clause was now before the House.

moved, in line 24, to omit all the words after “declared” to the end of sub-section (1), and to substitute “this Act to be suspended in such area.”

said that unless the Minister accepted the principle it would be hopeless for them to try and carry the amendment. Hon. members would perhaps speak in favour, but they would loyally obey the call and vote for the Government when the time came. Let them take a district where the Act was not yet compulsory. There were progressive farmers in that district, perhaps, who had fenced their farms. As the law stood if they wanted to get that district under the Act for the purpose of developing the district a majority would have to be obtained in order to make application to the Government. How was it going to be done? The progressive farmers having fenced their farms would have no interest in the matter and would not attend. The law should be made so that it was compulsory, unless there were objections, and in that case throw upon those who did not want compulsory fencing the onus of taking action. When meetings were called only the backward farmers would attend to vote.

said that progressive farmers in the districts would have a great incentive to come forward because the provisions of the measure were retrospective, and when it was passed they would get the contributions to which they were entitled. (Hear, hear.)

asked what took place in areas where there was already a fencing law in existence? Would that area come under the new law?

No.

said it would not do to make the Bill compulsory. If that occurred, it would be impracticable:

said that if it were worth while for any owner of land to put a fence round his farm, then; the neighbours who benefited should make contributions in respect of the use and benefit they derived. They would not have to pay out of hand, but could go to the Land Bank for the money.

said he could not understand the last speaker. The poor people had already so many difficulties to contend with that it would not do to burden them with more. It was wrong to compel them to pay more, as in many cases they had to pay interest on bonds and other debts.

could not understand the attitude of the Opposition, and said the proposal of the hon. member for Turffontein was a step backwards. He opposed the amendments.

said some harrowing details had been drawn of the poor man who would be compelled to subscribe under the law that was under debate. There were certain districts in the Union where the compulsory principle was to remain in operation. The harrowing details would, therefore, remain in operation, so that the only logical conclusion was for the hon. members to vote against the Bill. He would like the law to be compulsory; an Act of that sort should be brought into general operation. In the country districts, where the present Act was in operation, there were many people in the same mind as his hon. friend the Prime Minister, who, judging from the manner in which he conducted his farms, was in favour of fencing, but he thought his hon. friend the Prime Minister was rather afraid of that section of his supporters in the country who did not like to be compelled to do anything. He felt convinced that if they adopted the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein and apply the Bill to the whole of the Union, whether in districts which, under the Bill as it was now proposed, would not for years come under the Fencing Act, it would not be possible to find a number of people to come forward and contract out of the Act. They had the same nervousness as the Prime Minister had about coming forward and asking for a fencing law to be applied compulsorily, but if such a law were passed these people would be those who would refuse to attend meetings or sign petitions asking for the repeal of the law. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he would urge upon the Prime Minister, in the interests of the general development of the country, to accept the lesser of two evils. Many people would tell them privately that they were in favour of fencing, but that they did not like treading on the susceptibilities of “Oom Klaas” or “Oom Piet.” (Laughter.) Without making the law compulsory, the Prime Minister had an opportunity of conferring an enormous benefit if he would only take the responsibility of adopting the amendment and thus making the Bill far better than it ever appeared that it would be when it was first introduced into the House. If the amendment were not adopted they would be wasting their time in dealing with the measure, or else they would not be one whit better off than they were when the Bill was introduced, and the passing of which in its original form would have been one of the most retrogressive steps in the interests of the development of the country it would have been possible to conceive. (Hear, hear.)

said that South Africa must be led on until all the farms were fenced. Its people could not be driven, and a policy of compulsion would only lead to failure. In those places where the law was compulsory, it would remain compulsory, but in other places it would be permissive. If the amendments were agreed to, the Bill would be generally compulsory, and that would lead to attempts to evade its provisions. When that kind of thing occurred they would not get the desired co-operation. Although they had a permissive law in the Transvaal, yet fencing had greatly increased. The amendments would only awaken great dissatisfaction.

said the inducement referred to by the Minister of the Interior was removed by the last lines of the clause. Encouragement should be given to those who desired to be progressive by making the adjoining farmer pay something towards the cost of a dividing fence.

objected to the amendment, and said if it were accepted it would have the effect of causing considerable discontent throughout the country. He supported the new clause.

said the Bill in its present form was a farce, and to proceed with it was wasting the time of the country and the House, and it was certainly wasting his time. (Laughter.) He moved that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

The motion to report progress was negatived.

said the motto of the progressive farmer seemed to be, “Sweet are the uses of compulsion.” He, for one, was not to be coerced. If it were not worth the while of farmers coming under a permissive Fencing Act, then they were not very anxious to have fencing at all. The clause did not sufficiently guard the rights of the minority.

said the discussion was not really altogether wasting time. He could not understand the hon. member for Umlazi, for he was a staunch supporter of compulsory dipping last year. All the arguments against compulsory fencing were put forward by the Prime Minister last year against a compulsory Scab Act. A man with 90,000 morgen of land could scarcely be called a poor man, but he was a very poor man to-day when he was asked to do a little bit of fencing. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Du Toit), with whom he sympathised very often, had made one mistake about that, because a man was not a poor man who owned a large property which required fencing in the interests of that man and his neighbours. He should do what he (the hon. member) and others had done, sell part of his property and improve his position. There was no sacredness in property, and people must be told that they must not own more land than they could profitably develop. A man could surely sell some of his property for fencing if fencing were needed in the district. It was most improper to say that people were being forced: there was no one trying to force them, but to give people who could not afford it an opportunity of objecting. If there were the onus of objecting on the people they had to come out and give a reason for it, and if there were a sufficient number of people in a district to object they would carry it, but what he did object to was to inspan all the forces of inertia and prevent the law being put in force where it ought to be enforced.

said that the hon. member was not taking into account conditions as they existed in the North-West, where a man was often 100 or 200 miles from the nearest railway station, and if he had to get the material for fencing it would cost twice or thrice as much as the value of a small farm: A rich man would go into that part of the country and force the poor man to sell his farm. That was what would happen; and that was his objection.

said that the hon. member had skipped one point: the rich man would only have one vote, and one could not outvote him. They had only to call their meeting and say that they wanted the law enforced there. If they had a sufficient number of people in the country to object, all they were asked to do was to call their meeting together and object to it.

said that the argument raised by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Kuhn) had no weight whatsoever in a matter of that sort. A man had 10,000 yards to fence at a cost of £300; he could go to the Land Bank and get a loan of £150 at 5 per cent., and was that going to ruin the farmer? The same argument as had been used by the hon. member had been used in regard to scab. Proceeding, he said that his right hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture was now in the van of retrogression. They knew the time when he had been in the van of progress. He challenged his right hon. friend to refer his Act to, and put that clause before, the Western Province, the Port Elizabeth, the Eastern Province, and the Bloemfontein Agricultural Societies, the Judges’ Associations in Bloemfontein, and the Cape Province, the Agricultural Unions of the Cape Province, the Free State, and the Transvaal; and he challenged his hon. friend to take a verdict of these people. It was because he wanted the country to wake up to the condition of affairs that he (the hon. member) was strongly urging that position. A large number of people in the country—progressive farmers, both Dutch and English—who had for a considerable time supported his right hon. friend because they thought he was going to advocate a progressive agricultural policy in that country—(An HON. MEMBER: So he has)—found that he had not been strong enough to withstand the pressure of a certain section which sat behind him. He was sacrificing the interests of the country to a certain section of the farmers of the country—the majority of the people who owned the largest number of sheep, ostrich, and cattle farms in that country were in favour of the amendment, and not of the clause of the Bill. His right hon. friend had said that in two or three years all districts would see the benefit of that Act; but the same argument had been brought to bear in the Cape Parliament in 1883; and if he (the hon. member) had advocated the same policy in the Cape of Good Hope in regard to fencing then, which he was advocating in the Union now, the advance would have been enormous, as far as fencing was concerned. The responsibility for legislation of that sort rested upon the right hon. member and his colleagues, who had the power to carry it if they only took their courage in their hands.

said the last speaker had shown in his speech that he wished to drive the people. The Bill was submitted to the best representatives of the public, namely, Parliament, and he would leave the Bill to the decision of Parliament. The speaker was not disposed to ask for a testimonial as to his conduct from the Leader of the Opposition. He had never used his majority to silence the minority. He was quite aware of his responsibility in regard to that Bill, which he bore, because he had accepted the responsibility of government.

said the Leader of the Opposition had had his chance—as the Prime Minister now had it—but had lost it because he favoured a policy of force. Now he wanted the Government to fall into the trap, but he would not succeed. The Government must carry out its own policy, and then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who was now sitting for his fourth constituency, would be prevented from driving the people.

who was for the greater part inaudible, said that what the Right Hon. the Prime Minister said was that if they applied this measure through the whole of the Union, then although they left a loophole of escape for the people who objected to it, it was equivalent to driving them with a sjambok; and they drove the progressive farmer with the retrogressive farmer to obtain the benefits of this Act. He did not see where the difference was. When they heard the Prime Minister talking—it was astonishing, when they had from the other side of the House the opinion that the measure that the Prime Minister submitted to the House was not progressive enough. He supposed it was hopeless to expect this amendment to be adopted. He would like the Minister of the Interior to show him the inducement that was talked of.

said he would like to point out that the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior had in 1908 in the Transvaal Parliament said that they looked forward to the time when the Fencing Act would be compulsory in this country. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister talked about the sjambok, but what of the legislation he had introduced himself with clauses embodying compulsory principles? Let him think of the Defence Bill and its compulsion, and the education compulsion.

said that after the remarks made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) he felt that he could not give a silent vote on this matter. He tried to frighten those who represented progressive constituencies; but he was glad to say that in every ward of his (the hon. member’s) constituency the Fencing Act was in operation. He was not in favour of the compulsory principle being applied irrespective of local circumstances; but he realised that throughout South Africa, in the last few years, a new spirit had manifested itself, and in view of that spirit and the advantages the Government were offering in the way of advances, he thought they could leave it to the farmers. There were very few people in this country who were going to lose this opportunity of borrowing this money if they saw the chance to do so. He would support the clause as it stood.

said the hon. member was evidently not acquainted with the Act of 1883. He said that owing to the liberal terms that would now be offered under this Act the people would ask the outlying districts to come in under the Bill. Well, he could not see so much of the new spirit about, except that this Bill had been roundly condemned by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister’s own people as a retrogressive measure. If his hon. friend (Mr. Vintcent) took a vote among his own people he would find that they would be in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham). In the districts where the 1883 Act came into operation it was within the power of a man, who got notice from his neighbour, to say he had no cash, and that he would continue to pay instalments for 15 years until the capital and interest were wiped off. In this case they could borrow money from a bank but under the old system a man had the right of paying interest on the money for 15 years, and was not obliged to find the capital.

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

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

moved: That the following be a new clause 5, viz.: 5. (1) Contributions towards the cost of a dividing fence shall be obligatory in any area declared by the Governor-General by proclamation in the “Gazette” after the provisions of this section have been complied with, and contributions when so declared obligatory in any area shall be made as from a date to be by the said Proclamation fixed. (2) The Governor-General shall declare contributions to be obligatory in any area or part of such area wherein a divisional council has jurisdiction if such divisional council has transmitted to the Minister: (a) a certified copy of a resolution passed by it recommending that such contributions be so declared obligatory; and (b) proof that the resolution was passed at an ordinary meeting of the council after the expiration of such notice of intention to propose the resolution as is required by the standing rules of procedure of the council relating to notice of resolutions; and (c) proof that the said notice of intention and the terms of the proposed resolution had been published in the newspapers in which notices of the council are usually published, and at least one month prior to the date when the resolution was first moved. (3) Whenever in any district no divisional council has jurisdiction but the district is divided into wards or field cornetcies, the Governor-General shall declare contributions to be obligatory in any ward or field cornetcy of that district if the magistrate thereof has transmitted to the Minister: (a) a resolution passed as hereinafter provided recommending that the said provisions be declared in force in the said ward or field cornetcy; and (b) proof that: (i) the resolution was passed at a meeting convened upon a written request signed by not less than twelve owners of holdings in the ward or field cornetcy; and (ii) one month’s notice of such meeting was given by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating in the ward or field cornetcy; and (iii) the said magistrate presided at such meeting and the said resolution was duly put to the meeting and carried by a majority of the owners present or represented thereat. (4) Whenever any district in which no divisional council has jurisdiction is not divided into wards or field cornetcies, the Governor-General shall declare contributions to be obligatory throughout the whole district if the magistrate thereof transmit to the Minister a resolution passed at a meeting convened and held by him therein in manner, as nearly as possible, described in sub-section (3). (5) Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in this section contained, every area in which immediately prior to the commencement of this Act contributions to the cost of dividing fences were obligatory upon owners under any law hereby repealed shall be deemed to be an area proclaimed under’ this section.

moved as an amendment: In sub-section (3), paragraph (b) (ii), after “cornetcy” to insert “and by posting up a notice by the field cornet and police at out-stations.” The object of the amendment, he explained, was to give greater publicity to any announcements.

moved in sub-section (2) paragraph (a), after “obligatory; and,” to insert “specifying the type of fence which shall be the type of fence of that area and.” The mover stated that the reason of this was they might come back to the standard type of fence. It was only right that the public should be safeguarded. The hon. member then moved another sub-section, to be added to the end of the clause, to the effect that in areas where contributions have been declared obligatory, and no resolution as to the type of fence has been passed, such resolution shall be passed as provided in clause 5 in six months from the date of the promulgation of this Act, failing which, the Department shall declare what type of fence shall be a standard fence in that area. This amendment would show that if no standard fence has been arranged for, then the standard fence must be arranged for within six months.

This amendment was negatived.

moved to add at the end of paragraph (b) (iii) of sub-section (3): “Provided that not more than one vote shall be recorded in respect of any one holding.”

thought the proviso was unnecessary.

put the case of farmers holding an undivided farm. Surely they would not all have votes?

supported the proviso.

said he had misunderstood the amendment. He would accept the proviso.

The amendment moved by Mr. P. Theron was negatived, that by Mr. Wyndham agreed to.

New clause 5 as amended was agreed to.

said it would be necessary to fix a standard fence to suit each locality, else the Act would be unworkable.

On clause 6,

moved in line 13 to omit “of and incidental to the erection.” In lines 19 to 22 to omit “of and the expense necessarily incidental to the erection and a claim that such owner shall contribute one half of the said cost and expenses,” and to substitute “thereof and the proportion of such cost which he requires such owner to contribute”; in lines 33 to 36 to omit from “submit the matter for decision by” to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute “claim that the matter shall be determined as a dispute in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV.”, and to add the following new sub-sections (4) and (5): “(4) The provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of a dividing fence existing at the commencement of this Act or at the date as from which contributions become obligatory by proclamation under section 5, provided in either case the owner makes such fence a standard fence, or if it is already a standard fence, makes it a superior type of standard fence; (5) the specifications of any dividing fence erected or made a fence of a superior type after the commencement of this Act shall be not less than as described in the third schedule to this Act according as the fence is to be proof against great stock, small stock, ostriches or vermin.” The object of the sub-sections, he said, was to enable owners who previous to the Act had erected fences to get their contribution after the Act.

said these were further inducements to people to vote against the compulsory law, instead of throwing the onus on the right quarter.

referred to the extraordinary English used in subsection 5. He had never heard such expressions in English as “being proof against great stock and small stock.” It was faulty.

moved: In sub-section (3), line 29, after “period” to insert “either to the estimated cost or to the type of fence proposed to be erected, or to both”; in line 34 to omit “the Department” and to substitute “arbitration” in two places; and to add the following new sub-section (4): (4) If either owner desires to erect a dividing fence of a superior type to that decided upon by the arbitrators he may elect to erect such fence and to pay the difference in cost between such fence and the type of fence decided upon by such arbitrators, and the difference in cost to be paid by him shall be determined by the arbitrators at the same time.

thought that such a case was already provided for.

did not think the Minister of the Interior was correct. The proposal advocated by the hon. member for Clanwilliam (Mr. Watermeyer) was very frequently done. The proposal was an admirable one, and it gave him the greatest pleasure in the world to support a proposal by such a good old crusted Tory as his friend the hon. member for Clanwilliam. (Laughter.)

hoped the Minister of Agriculture would accept the amendment. If a farmer wished to erect a more expensive fence than required, he should be able to do so, if he paid the additional expense himself.

said provision was made in new clause 33 for cases referred to by the hon. member for Clanwilliam.

would see if he could deal with it at a later stage.

said that he drew up the amendment on the strength of the Bill as it was originally introduced.

said he appreciated the difficulty of the hon. member for Clanwilliam. As they now had to deal with what was practically a new Bill, it was difficult to make these things square.

Mr. Watermeyer’s amendments in subsection (3) were negatived.

withdrew the new sub-section (4).

The amendments moved by the Minister of the Interior were agreed to.

said that the wording of sub-section 4 did not seem very clear.

said that was so, and if they inserted “provided,” instead of “if,” and made a proviso of it, it would make it clearer, as the “if” was rather misleading.

said that there was still the little difficulty that an owner had got to do something—make a standard fence, or a fence superior to a standard fence. It did not deal with the case where a man already had a standard fence.

If he already has a standard fence the proviso is unnecessary.

asked if it was the intention of the Bill when a district was brought under operation of the Fencing Act and it happened that certain farms were fenced and the-fence was of a standard character at the time the Act was brought into operation, the owner on the other side was to pay half the contribution?

Yes.

There was a great deal of ambiguity in the clause as drafted, and could the Minister not give a guarantee to re-draft the clause, which could now give rise to some misunderstanding?

said that if the intention of the Act was (as the previous speaker had stated) that the owner on the other side had to pay half the contribution of the standard fence, people of a district would not ask for the Act to be put into operation there. The clause would therefore act in restraint of compulsory fencing.

The new sub-section (4) was agreed to.

On new sub-section (5),

moved to omit the word “great,” and insert “large” before the word “stock.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved to insert, after “small stock,” the words “or large and small stock mixed.”

The amendment was negatived.

New sub-section (5) as amended was thereupon agreed to.

On clause 7 (Notice to absentee owner),

moved in paragraph (b), line 44, after “published” to omit all the words to “situate” in line 46, and to substitute: “once in the ‘Gazette’ and three times in a newspaper circulating in the district wherein the holding is situate, and in a newspaper circulating in the locality where such owner was last known to reside.”

Agreed to.

New clause 8,

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 7: “Whenever, in an area in respect of which a proclamation is in force under section five of this Act, the whereabouts is not known of an owner of a holding, or the owner of a holding in such area fails to contribute his share to the cost of and incidental to the erection of a dividing fence whether such share has been agreed upon or determined by arbitration or by the Department, the owner who has already erected or intends to erect such dividing fence shall be entitled to obtain an advance from the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa as provided in section 3 of this Act on behalf of such absent or defaulting owner; provided that such advance shall only be made upon the authority of the Department after sufficient proof is lodged with the department that the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of this Act have been complied with, and that the owner of the adjoining holding is in default.” He said that where there was an absentee owner or a man was in default, the Department or the Land Bank should advance the money and charge it up in the Deeds Office. It would do a great deal to encourage fencing, and would settle a good many disputes.

reply was inaudible.

said there was more in the hon. member’s new clause than the hon. Minister imagined. He knew cases where in districts there happen to be farms and nobody knows who the owners are it an owner could not be found, then it might be possible to advance a share on that property and it would be a first mortgage on it if it should be disposed of in any way. He did not ask the hon. Minister to accept the new clause now; but it was worth looking into. There were many such cases, especially in the North-western Districts.

said that if the hon. Minister would look into it—he thought it did want some consideration—he would withdraw the clause for the present.

said he would occupy the farm in that case and take it out in grazing. (Daughter.)

The clause was withdrawn.

On clause 8,

moved in lines 58 to 60, to omit “and in that case he shall be liable in the manner and to the extent described in section 4.”

Agreed to.

Clause 9 was negatived.

New clause 9,

moved that the following be a new clause 9, viz.: “9. For the purpose of preventing the spread of diseases amongst stock, as defined in any law relating to diseases of stock, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the Minister may call upon the owner of any holding to erect a fence along the whole or any part of the boundaries thereof if the holding be within an area declared under any such law to be infected or suspected of being infected with disease. The specifications of any such fence shall be determined by the Department, as laid down in the Third Schedule. If the owner fail within the period specified by the Minister to erect such a fence the Minister may cause the same to be erected by the Department.

considered that the Department was getting too much power.

agreed with the last speaker, and said he intended to vote for clause 9 if clause 10 were left unchanged. Without an assurance in regard to clause 10 he would not vote for clause 9.

asked if his hon. friend could make provision in a clause that was not yet before the committee. His hon. friend accepted the principle and now became alarmed.

replied that the Minister should specify what sort of fence he would erect. The hon. member did not properly understand the matter.

said he was prepared to meet hon. members, and moved to insert a provision that specifications would be laid down as determined in the Third Schedule.

said the Minister should only be able to charge for a standard fence.

reiterated his objections to the Minister being able to charge more than he would do for a standard fence. It would be better to accept clause 9 as printed.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 10,

moved in line 5 to omit “of or incidental to the erection”; in line 9, to omit “of or incidental to the erection”; in line 24, to omit “as if the said costs had been advances made by the Department under that Act.”

moved in line 9, to omit “the total cost,” and to substitute “the cost of a fence according to the standard type proclaimed in such area or the nearest adjoining area.”

said he would like to point out how different had been the arguments adduced in the discussion on the different clauses. How different had the Prime Minister’s ideas been in connection with the principle of compulsion. He himself advocated the principle of compulsion to a certain extent. What he wanted the House to understand was how that in the general interests of the whole body of the people they could go into a district where there was no Fencing Act in operation and compel two owners to put up, perhaps, miles of fencing for the purpose of stopping the spread of disease throughout the whole country, but they were responsible for payment of the whole cost of the fencing. If there ever was a case in which it was worth while fairly considering what amount the State should bear in stopping the spread of disease in the general interests of the country, it was in clause 10. He left it to his right hon. friend, with the assistance of the Minister of the Interior, to explain the logical character of a clause of that description in the present Bill.

Mr. Watermeyer’s amendment was negatived.

The amendments moved by the Minister of the Interior were agreed to.

said that part payment should be in operation only in districts where the compulsory sections of the Bill would be enforced. It did seem to him rather unfair where the Act was in operation in one part and not in another to make a man pay his contribution.

said that they had the same principle in the Dipping Act passed last year. He thought it was a good provision.

said that the Dipping Act was entirely different.

said he considered this was a matter that concerned the whole country, and he hoped it would have due consideration. To ask for half the costs of a fence erected against cattle disease on the boundary of an infected district from the owner of the farm, was very harsh.

said in this case the dividing fence shut the one man in, and he paid for being shut in.

moved that progress be reported.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.