from the Cape British Indian Union, praying that the issue of trading licences be transferred from local authorities to Magistrates.

from F. White, clerk, General Post Office at Cape Town.

praying that H. J. Steyn, known as the “Cancer Doctor,” be allowed to practice as a medical practitioner.

from inhabitants of Native Reserves, Thaba ‘Nchu district, praying for removal of bastards settled on the farm Bofulo in 1897.

from B. M. Lacey, late gaoler, Calitzdorp.

from the widow of the late A. E. Batteson, in his lifetime sheep inspector, who died from an accident while performing his duties.

as Acting Chairman, brought up the fifth report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

They recommended the award to I. A. Rees, of a gratuity equal to the amount of his contributions to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund; to the widow of the Late A. McDonald, of a gratuity of £60; to the widow of the late W. C. Meredith, formerly Rector of the Grey Institute, Port Elizabeth, of a gratuity of £100; that the breaks in the services of A. E. Baigrie, teacher; of E. C. Stahl, teacher; of W. E. Verschuur, teacher; of A. Cameron, teacher; and of J. F. Louw, teacher, be condoned; that the petition of M. A. Barry, teacher, be referred to the Government with a view to condonation of break in petitioner’s service; and that, in view of the legal opinion furnished to them by the law officers of the Crown, dated the 29th April, the petition of J. P. Kruger be referred to the Government for consideration.

They were unable to recomend the following: E. Maas, W. R. McArthur, A. J. van Zyl, F. M. Sargeant, L. Jander, C. Winnicott, P. D. ‘Swart, A. B. du Toit and 22 others, J. W. Q. de Lisle, H. J. O’Leary, L. Augustine, W. J. Bruce, T. H. Morgan, P. H. Sarril, A. Wetton, W. R. Bruce, J. H. Struwig, M. Stephens, T. Foley, J. Conry, C. A. van Blommestein, P. Kelly, H. Goddard, J. Webster, H. R. Shaw, F. H. P. Moncrieff, H. Winfield, F. Hunt, W. R. Gray, H. Frier, J. W. A. Klock, C. Baxter, A. MacAdam, J. W. Howcroft, S. J. Muller, G. W. Chambers, B. W. Parkes.

They were unable to recommend award to A. H. Garcia, I.S.O., formerly Chief of the Detective Department and Commissioner of Police, of an additional pension of £11 2s. 3d. per annum; or to J. M. Tsamse, formerly interpreter, Ngqeleni, of a pension of £35 13s. 7d. per annum.

The report was ordered to be considered in Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday.

Schedules of Gratuities and Pensions granted to persons who on 31st May, 1910, were in the permanent employment of the Railway Administration, and whose services have been dispensed with owing to a reduction in, or re-organisation of, staff or for other good cause, and which it is intended to cover by the proposed new clause 84 in the Railways and Harbours Service Bill.

These schedules were referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

moved, in line 32, to omit “and incidental to the erection thereof.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved an amendment to provide, in effect, for the cancellation of a lease by a lessee of Crown land in case the erection of the fence on the land caused any additional charge out of proportion to the value of the lease.

supported the amendment. By contributions towards the cost of fencing, the hire of Crown land might be made so high that it was impossible to pay it. There would be no danger if the amendment were agreed to.

supported the amendment, which he thought a fair one.

spoke, but was inaudible.

Mr. Watermeyer’s amendment was agreed to.

moved an amendment to sub-section 4, so as to bring it into conformity with the Land Settlement Bill under the 42nd section of which, in the event of licences being cancelled, the instalments were repaid, but if the licences were cancelled through making false declarations the licensee had not the right to demand that his instalments should be given back to him. The same principle should apply with regard to fencing instalments. His amendment was to add at the end of sub-section (4): “Provided that such instalments shall not be repaid in the event of the licence being terminated under the provisions of sections 18, 21, or 28 of the Land Settlement Act, 1912.”

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 12, Payment by lessee to lessor of fenced holding under this chapter,

moved that the clause be omitted.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 13, Repayment of cost of fencing native locations,

moved the insertion, in line 4, before “of such costs” the words “one-half of.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 14, Repayment of cost of fencing town lands and commonage,

moved a similar amendment to the one introduced by him in the preceding clause.

The amendment was agreed to.

said that in the event of the local authority not paying the Department could step in and levy a rate. That seemed to be a most extraordinary power to give the Department.

asked if this would give the Government power to raise a rate beyond the statutory limit.

did not see why the Department should have any greater powers than a Court of law would give it. In the event of non-payment the Department should sue in the ordinary manner.

was putting the clause, when

said that surely the Minister was going to give a reply on the point. Why could not the Department take action in the ordinary course? Every hon. member interested in local authorities must feel that to give power to the Department to intervene and impose any rates they liked was wrong. The Department should recover the amount in the ordinary way, and to exempt the Government from the obligation that rested on the ordinary individual seemed to him to be a most amazing innovation.

said that if a weapon of that sort were held over the heads of the local authorities, there would be still greater difficulties in obtaining men to sit on Municipal Councils than there was at present.

moved in line 29, after “chapter,” to omit all the words to the end of the clause.

said the same provision appeared in the Dipping Tank Advances Act, as well as in the Transvaal law. Legal advisers considered it necessary.

said that if the Department were to take over the whole of the responsibilities of a municipality, and levy a rate, it would be very unusual. The Department should recover the money by going to the Courts. It would be impossible for the Department to step in and run the municipality.

said he did not think there was any objection to the amendment.

The amendment of Mr. Duncan was carried.

On clause 15, Contributions in kind towards fencing,

said it seemed to him that the most extraordinary autocratic powers were given under this clause. The same thing appeared in clause 34, under which magistrates, officials, and surveyors could do all sort of damage, and then the whole of the damage was to be assessed by them. He moved as an amendment that the damages should be assessed by arbitration, and not by the Department.

thought his hon. friend was quite right—(hear, hear)—but he did not think that the words the hon. member proposed to substitute were the best. It would be better to insert the words “in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV.”

said that that was very unsatisfactory, and it would leave the right of final appeal to the Department.

We shall propose arbitration for all these disputes. (Cheers.)

pointed out that the officials first had to approve of the material of which a fence was to be constructed, and then decide what they were going to pay for it.

said the chapter dealt with fencing against contagious diseases. The hon. member for Pretoria East wanted changes which were not practicable. The clause would be applied specially in districts where farms had little value. To leave all questions concerning fencing to the decision of arbitrators would cost too much.

said he agreed with what the Prime Minister had said in certain particulars. The fence was to be erected on private ground to keep out disease, and the owner of the ground on which the fence was erected would be made to pay half the cost of protecting all the land inside the fence whether it belonged to him or not. He was not in favour of protecting people who held ground which was unoccupied, but would it not be very hard on an owner if he had not stock to make him pay for a fence erected under these circumstances? He did not want to let the owner off entirely, but the fence would be to protect others, and its erection was really a Government undertaking. He would much rather see a tax put on the whole of the area that would thus be protected, so that those who owned unoccupied ground would either use it themselves or let it to someone who would use it. Again, it might be a matter of chance as to where the fence was put up. It was perfectly right that Government should do the fencing, but it was not right to throw so much of the burden on the individual through whose farm the fence happened to run.

could not understand how a Government could demand a portion of the cost of a fence which the Government itself considered necessary. He drew attention to the time when the Government erected a long fence against the spread of rinderpest, and said that if they had demanded contributions from the people concerned, they would have been ruined.

said that he had listened with a good deal of interest to what the hon. member for Prieska had said, and he would like to point out that when clause 10 was under consideration he tried to make clear what was proposed, but the hon. member for Prieska supported the clause.

I was not here.

Well, a large number of hon. members who work in concert with the hon. member for Prieska, including the hon. member for Piquetberg, supported clause 10. Proceeding, the hon. member said that when that clause was under consideration he pointed out that in many cases under Chapter II., which was entirely devoted to compulsory fencing for the stopping of the spread of stock diseases, fences might be erected in the general interests of the whole country, and practically be of no benefit whatsoever to two adjoining farmers, and yet the Government would come down on these two farmers and make them pay the whole cost of the fencing. But, notwithstanding, the clause was agreed to. The Minister of Agriculture, he thought, had misunderstood the interpretation of clause 15, but what the Minister of the Interior had said was fair and reasonable. The Minister of Agriculture said that they must not introduce arbitration of too narrow a character. But that was not what clause 15 proposed to do. All it proposed to do was to allow the owner of property, instead of paying half the cost of fencing, to supply approved material for the construction of the fence and if there was a dispute between the Agricultural Department and the owner, and no agreement could be arrived at, the value of the material should be decided by arbitration. He considered that that was very fair, and he understood the Minister of the Interior was prepared to accept that.

said the clause laid it down that the owners were only to pay for the fence against cattle diseases when it was erected along the farm boundary.

said that if disputes were not to be referred to arbitration, it would mean that they would have to be settled in the Courts. Naturally the Agricultural Department, in the interests of the State, would try to depreciate the value of the material and labour supplied by the farmer, and he thought it was only fair that the question of deciding as to the value of the material and labour should be left in the hands of unbiased arbiters.

considered the amendment was reasonable. He had referred, during the second reading, to the dangerous principle which was involved in leaving all decisions in the hands of the Department. It was unfair to make one man pay for the fence which was set up for the protection of the whole country. If they asked the owner to pay part of the cost, that would be quite sufficient. On the third reading of the Bill he would be bound to move that clause 10 be deleted.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken and others had not really realised what was the policy of the Government behind the Bill. Hon. members on his side of the House had tried to explain in connection with clause 10 that it was objectionable, because it did not harmonise with the policy explained by the Government. They did not believe it was just, so they opposed it. The policy here was that wherever the Government did fencing it was compulsory and good, but it was not good for the private individual. Here they had got two policies expressed in the Bill. The first was that the Government must be recouped for everything it did in the interests of the country, and the compulsory fencing law came into operation to help it and the two neighbours through whose farms the fence ran had, got to pay all the money back. The second policy was that if a progressive farmer set up a boundary fence he had to do it at his own expense. The hon. member for Rouxville had pointed out that that only applied when the fence ran along the boundary of a farm. Well, the Government had only to put their fence along the boundary and they would get the money from the owner. The hon. member must know that there were certain natural lines they could adopt. For instance, there was the line of a river and nine cases out of ten the fence set up for the stopping of the spread of disease would actually run along the river, and under clause 10 the two owners would have to pay the lot to the Government. He believed firmly in the compulsory principle, giving to the people, of course, the right to get exemption, and that was what hon. members on his side had advocated. The hon. member for Piquetberg and others who opposed the compulsory system in clause 10 ought to have supported it and obtained the right to claim exemption for unoccupied farms, and they ought to oppose this one where they had got to pay the whole of the cost for no particular advantage to the individual. This fence was set up in the main for the benefit of the whole country and he thought it was right to have power to put it up, but it was not right that the Government should have the power to say: “We will do this for the good of the country, but you will have to pay for it.”

said that there was a misunderstanding about this clause. The clause simply involved a question of arbitration, but now, in connection with the clause, they were discussing quite a different question. It was a discussion in reference to running a fence along the boundary of a Province. Hon. members would see that the case was covered by clause 18, where the Government may draw a line across any Province. It would pay every penny of the expense. He did not think they should discuss that matter at this stage. The only question that they were concerned with on clause 15 was the question of how they were to determine the value of contributions which were made towards the cost, when a farm was fenced in under this chapter. It was quite unnecessary on clause 15 to raise this bigger question.

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

The amended amendment was agreed to.

On clause 18, Buffer fencing,

asked what the position would be if the Government started erecting a fence on the German border? Surely, the German Government would not pay half of the expense?

said that if it were a long fence against cattle diseases, the Government would pay, but if a single farm were fenced to prevent the spread of a disease, which broke out on that farm, then the owner would have to pay.

said that this clause provided that the Minister may cause a fence to be erected along or across any road, private or public. The Minister would have power to go anywhere on a farm. By this clause he could cut a farm into two portions, and the owner might have his access cut off from one-half of his farm.

said that in such cases, where the Government was combating some big cattle disease like rinderpest, difficulties and hardships may arise. He thought his hon. friend, as a prudent and progressive farmer, would not grudge the Government to have the power to make a line, even were it across a farm. He thought it might be possible to make some arrangement with the owner by gates or otherwise to meet him.

said he thought they were calling upon the private owner to make too great a sacrifice in the interests of public safety.

said it might be that for a time a man might be cut off from part of his property, but what about many other farmers who were entirely cut off? They might have farms lying on the other side of the line to which they had no access whatever. The hardship might be great, but it was a case in which the public safety was the highest law. His hon. friend must not jib at a small point like this, when a great scourge was threatening the country.

said he still thought it was altogether too much for one individual farmer to sacrifice in the public safety. The Minister did not seem to understand what it might involve. If an individual farmer were called upon to make such a sacrifice, he should be compensated.

said it was impossible to pay compensation in such cases. For many years past there had been a fence between the Drakensberg and Harrismith, and the farmers along the fence could make no use of the ground on either side of it. That was an old principle.

said that the Minister erected a fence along the Kei River to protect the Colony from East Coast Fever. That cut off the farmers from the river. What the right hon. gentleman did was to provide gates for the fence along the river, and he gave keys to farmer speculators, and even natives. Could the right hon. gentleman say that this was the same thing?

said that the hon. member did not appear to him to want to listen.

I want to see it in the Bill.

said that if they drew a long line, and put up a fence, and gave every owner a key, they could not put that in the Bill. It was a matter for prudent administration They should not put a general clause into the Bill to force the Government to do this in every case.

said that what his hon. friend had said might throw a little light as to how the disease got across the Kei. This clause was to meet a different case from the case met by clause 9. but he thought it ought to be made clear. If the intention of clause 9 were to enclose a farm, they ought to say so, because there was nothing in this Bill, as far as he could see, to prevent the Government from running a boundary fence along under clause 9, in which case the owners had got to pay it all. If they were going to enclose a dozen farms and then make owners pay in order to keep in them, they would be paying for an ex pensive luxury. He did not put it in the obstructive sense, but he pointed out that there were two clauses under which Government could act. The officials would certainly, under clause 10, get all the money back.

On clause 20, leaving gates open,

said it should be definitely laid down that a gate must be in good order before there could be any punishment inflicted for leaving it open. He moved that a proviso should be added: “Provided that the gate shall be in a good state of repair.”

said that under the Bill the gates had to be according to specification, and that concertina gates had seen their last days. The acceptance of the amendment would lead to great difficulty. A person could only be punished for leaving open a gate as defined under the Bill.

repeated his objections.

supported the last speaker.

said it was possible one could not close a gate owing to a defect in it. It should be stated in the law that the gate should be in order, and failing that that a traveller was not bound to close it. Some gates were expensive, and it was hard for a poor farmer to erect them and sometimes they were smashed by transport riders.

said he liked the punishment clauses, because this was a very serious matter. He believed in heavy punishments, because this trick of leaving open gates might result in serious consequences. Then there were careless people who damaged gates that had cost money. A strict specification as to the character of the gate and heavy punishments should be laid down.

said that clause 28 made the discussion superfluous.

said the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Pretoria East did not know what it meant to live on a main road.

said he thought the arrangement was hard on the individual who found a gate open and had to get down from his cart and shut the gate. Where was the great Labour party? (Laughter.) Why didn’t they come forward and protest against gates being placed across roads by the farmers. People had a perfect right to go where they liked.

said that in Natal no farmer was allowed to place a gate across a road. In Natal, in some places, it would be highly dangerous to put a gate across a road.

quoted an Act to show that gates could be erected in Natal.

On clause 21, Persons injuring fences, etc.,

The clause was negatived.

New clause 21,

moved as a new clause 21: “Any person who climbs over or through a fence or gate without permission of the owner or lessee of the land upon which such fence is situate shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £10, or in default of payment, to imprisonment, for a period not exceeding fourteen days.” In the existing Transvaal law, the speaker explained, the man who crept through a fence was only punishable if he refused to give his name and address. Creeping through fences was dangerous in regard to the spread of cattle disease.

supported the amendment. If a farmer fenced his farm, then those persons who climbed through it ought to be punished. At present damage had to be proved before punishment could be inflicted.

said he had no objection to the new clause.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 22, Malicious injury to fences,

moved the words “and unlawfully” be inserted after the word “wilfully.”

supported the amendment.

The amendment was negatived

On clause 23, Accidentally damaging fencing,

said that under the clause it was the duty of a person who injured the gate to warn the owner. That might cause much inconvenience, and he moved to make it sufficient to report to the nearest magistrate.

thought the amendment was a dangerous one. If a gate were smashed, and the damage reported to the magistrate, it might be two or three days before the owner was informed of it, and in that time a lot of damage might be caused to expensive cattle.

replied that the Minister had only looked at the matter from one side. Even if a person broke a gate, in 90 cases out of 100 it would be possible to close it.

said that in 95 cases out of 100 the gate was smashed owing to negligence. The owner ought immediately to be warned of the fact in order to prevent loss.

said he was astonished at the hon. member for Colesberg. His amendment showed he was no farmer.

said that this was the one real progressive clause in the Bill, and he was surprised to hear objections. Hon. members must know that a large number of people, transport riders for instance, who used the public roads, did much damage by breaking down gates through sheer carelessness, and what was more, they did not take the trouble to report the damage. He sincerely hoped the committee would not delete the clause, or even amend it.

The amendment was withdrawn.

moved that the fine under the clause be increased to £25, or three months, which would have the effect of making people careful.

saying that the proposed fine and imprisonment were too high.

expressed similar views.

argued in favour of the original clause, saying that the purposed fine and imprisonment were sufficiently high.

The amendment was negatived.

New clause 24,

moved the following new clause 24: “Any person who having injured a fence or gate, or having climbed over or through a fence or gate without permission, fails, on request by the owner or lessee of the land on which it is situate or by some person authorised thereto by such owner or lessee, to give his correct name and address shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or, in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month.”

The motion was agreed to.

urged that if a person had a grazing right over a farm, the owner should see that there were enough gates in the place to allow of that grazing right being duly exercised.

could not agree to the suggestion, as this might create the danger of a farm being left unfenced simply for the sake of the servitude.

supported the new clause.

Clause 26 was negatived.

New clause 26,

moved that the following be a new clause: “26(1) An owner shall have the right to fence his holding or to contribute towards the costs of erecting a dividing fence between such holding and any adjoining holding notwithstanding that such first mentioned holding is subject to a servitude of grazing, or a servitude of watering live-stock thereon in favour of any other owner or person whomsoever, provided that reasonable-means of ingress and egress be allowed to the live-stock of the servitude holder through suitable and sufficient gates, and in default of agreement between the owner and the servitude holder either of them may claim that the matter shall be determined as a dispute in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV. (2) The holder of a servitude of grazing as in subsection (1) described shall be liable to pay to the owner of the holding a fair share of the costs of erection, maintenance and’ repair of the fence proportionate to his interest in the grazing rights over the holding, and in default of agreement between the owner and servitude holder as to their respective shares in the grazing rights either of them may claim that the matter shall be determined as a dispute in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV.” He explained that the clause in the Bill did not go far enough. If a man had a servitude on his farm, and that farm were fenced, then care had to be taken that there were sufficient gates in order to give effect to the servitude.

supported the amendment.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 27, Specification of fence to be approved by the Department,

suggested the addition at the end of the clause, “unless the owners have come to a mutually satisfactory agreement.”

said he would meet his hon. friend by deleting the old clause. He would move a new clause 27. On the notice paper it would be seen that the original amendment referred the matter to the Magistrate, and from the Magistrate there was an appeal to the Department. In place of that, be proposed to introduce arbitration. He moved that the following be a new clause: “27. Whenever under this Act, two owners are unable to agree (a) as to the specifications of any dividing fence proposed to be erected or altered; or (b) as to the assessment to be made of the value to any owner of any dividing fence; or (c) as to the use which an owner is making of a dividing fence and whether such use is beneficial use and if so the extent to which the beneficial use is being made; or (d) as to any other matter in respect of which a dispute has arisen between the two owners, the provisions set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Act shall apply.

asked what would now be done with the inspectors.

The old clause was negatived, and the new clause agreed to.

On clause 28, gates,

moved to omit the words “capable of being opened both ways,” and also to omit the proviso in lines 36 to 40. He explained that the provision was not practicable, as a gate could not always be opened on both sides.

supported the amendment.

said he wished to protest against this erection of gates across main roads. Act No. 9, 1902, distinctly said in clause 15 that no gates should be erected upon any main trunk road in Natal. It seemed to him that the rights of the public were being infringed by the erection of gates across public roads. He proposed as an amendment: “Provided, further, that nothing in this section contained shall apply to the Province of Natal which is in opposition to Act No. 9, 1902.”

moved in line 28, to omit “fifteen” and substitute “twelve”.

supported the amendment, saying that in his district all the gates could be opened on both sides, and it was a retrogressive step not to make the opening of gates on both sides compulsory.

said that on steep roads it was impossible to make the gate to open on both sides, and if the amendment were accepted no gates would be set up.

moved as an amendment that in areas where there were Divisional or other local Councils the question of erection of gates and the defining of the sort of gate should rest with such Councils.

moved in line 31, after “purpose” to insert “and swinging clear of the ground,” and in the same line after “thereof” to omit all the words down to “closed” in line 35, and to substitute: “Provided that any gate placed across any public road which is not a gate constructed as in this section required shall not be deemed to be a gate as required by this Act,” and to add at the end the following proviso, viz.: “Provided further if any fence not being a boundary fence determining an outspan upon any property crosses a public road, it shall not be lawful to construct gates across such road nearer than one mile from one another.” He said that in the long run they would get so many gates on the roads that there would be a grievous interference with traffic. He thought that when a man fenced his farm on both sides of the road, and thus did a service to the public by reducing the number of gates required, he ought to be assisted financially. He asked for that solely in connection with proclaimed main roads.

said the amendment was out of order, as, if accepted, it would lead to increased expenditure.

replied that in clause 28 provision was made for paying half the cost for erecting certain gates. He explained that poles near gates were expensive, and thought they were unnecessary. There was nothing in the Bill concerning the distance at which gates were to be placed on a boundary fence, and in his view the distance on a public road should be not less than a mile. That should be laid down, because otherwise the gates might be placed at distances of a quarter of a mile.

said the local authorities should have power to have areas proclaimed in which it should not be lawful to erect fences across main roads. Between Cape Town and Mossel Bay there was 108 gates, the opening and shutting of which would take five hours, allowing three minutes for each gate. This was a great waste of the time of the travelling public.

It is not a waste of time; it is to protect the property owner.

said the Divisional Council of Oudtshoorn had the powers to prevent the erection of further gates across public roads and to order the removal of existing gates. It should be made possible on the request of the district concerned to have the erection of gates across roads made illegal. He moved in line 40, to add at the end of the first proviso: “Provided further that notwithstanding any law to the contrary the Governor-General may declare the erection of gates across any proclaimed main road to be prohibited and gates so erected liable to removal in any such area as may be declared an area for the purposes of this section. The provisions of section 5 shall mutatis mutandis apply hereto, and any dispute arising here out shall be settled failing agreement in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”

said he could not agree to the amendment until all the Provinces were put on a fair basis of taxation. (Cheers.) If the amendment were adopted and districts had to contribute towards the cost of erecting fences along roads across which gates had been removed an enormous amount of taxation would be thrown on the Cape ratepayers, but in the other Provinces the money would come out of the Exchequer. He was going to move that the proviso in clause 28 be omitted. Until the other Provinces adopted the Divisional Council system they could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. member for Newlands. While the present inequality in the matter of taxation between the Cape and the other Provinces existed he would not vote for anything of the kind. (Ministerial cheers.)

said it should be laid down in the clause that there should be no gates on the banks of a river or spruit. The placing of gates there was bad for travellers.

said he wished to protest strongly against the principle of erecting gates across public roads. The public had rights just as worthy of preservation by that House as were those of the farm owners. In countries like Natal, where they had gates across roads in steep and difficult spots, the gates were absolutely dangerous, for in a case, say, in which horses attached to a vehicle ran away and the driver could not stop them and a closed gate was encountered, an accident might happen involving loss of life. He moved the deletion of the clause and the substitution of words to the effect that no gates should be erected across any public roads at all. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) As the matter demanded serious attention by the Government, he moved that the clause stand over.

in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi, said that speaking as one who was not tan extensive landowner, but as one who liked to go about the country occasionally

The point is whether the clause should stand over.

withdrew his motion.

proceeding, said why, if in the course of an afternoon’s drive he passed through half-dozen of these so called gates and refrained from shutting them, should he have to pay a fine of £10. (An HON. MEMBER: “Quite right,” and daughter.) He might pass through three gates on the public road which had been left open and would be penalised to the extent of £30, or he might crawl through a fence to pluck a flower without doing any damage whatever.

Oh! Oh!

For that crime he would be liable to pay another penalty of £10. Very few could afford a walk on those terms. He failed to see also why the general taxpayer should pay half the cost of enclosing the land of a landowner, and he moved that the clause stand over.

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

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam. There were four sorts of roads in the Cape—namely, proclaimed roads branch roads, other roads, and public roads—and seeing that different provisions applied to each of these, some account should be taken of that fact.

The motion that the clause stand over was negatived.

moved, as an amendment, in line 29, after “wood” to insert “or of both iron and wood or of wood or iron frame spanned with wire.”

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam, as it would leave the settlement as to the gates to the local authorities.

also supported the amendment, and said that the clause as printed was in conflict with the law dealing with Divisional Councils.

said that all the roads in the Union came under the Provincial Councils or Divisional Councils. Provincial Councils should make provisions with regard to roads.

moved the deletion of clause 28, and the substitution of: “No gate shall be erected across any public main road.”

said the point raised as to the power of the Divisional Councils was an important one, and the clause ought to stand over for further consideration. There were a whole crop of amendments which were difficult to follow. That of the hon. member for Mossel Bay was a very important one. He (Mr. Struben) would, therefore, like to withdraw his amendment.

said he did not think there would be much difficulty about this clause, although there had been many amendments, but these amendments largely overlapped. There were only two points really that had been raised. The first was as to the sort of gate. He thought that was met by the amendment of the hon. member for Clan william. The next point was that raised by the hon. member for Hope Town. He (the Minister) thought they ought to delete the first proviso. This clause seemed to go a good deal beyond the province of their Bill. He thought they would get over the difficulty if they passed the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam and deleted the proviso.

said he did not think that would meet the case, because in Natal they had Certain laws which dealt with this matter, and in the Cape Province they had the Oudtshoorn law.

said that the clause as printed should not be in the Bill, as according to the Constitution the roads came under the Provincial Councils.

said he could not understand the clause.

said the amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam left the position in Natal unchanged.

said the hon. member might be satisfied, as contributions towards the cost of fencing public roads should come from the Provincial Councils.

said that, as he understood the hon. member, he said that the law in Natal made it impossible to erect a gate across the main road, but towards the cost of fencing the road the Government may contribute. The intention of this clause put in by the Government was to encourage the fencing of main roads, indirectly, to stop the spreading of disease by stock travelling along main roads. The Bill made this proviso that, should gates be prohibited on a main road, the local authority was compelled to pay half the cost of a fence. What his hon. friend the member for Hope Town wanted to know was, if that went through, under what authority could the Divisional. Council raise the taxation necessary to meet the charge? Suppose they deleted the clause, the local authority might put a farmer to great inconvenience and expense by putting a gate across a main road and there may be no legal provision in this Act whereby they might have to pay anything towards the erection of the fence. He would suggest that the clause should be allowed to stand over. He thought there ought to be some regulation whereby the local authority, whether a Divisional Council or a Provincial Council, may be compelled, if such regulations were brought into operation, to pay their proportionate cost of the fence should the owner be compelled to fence off the road.

said the Bill ‘forbade the placing of a gate right across a public road. In the Transvaal there were many roads 200 yards broad, and if an owner had two such roads on his farm he lost a big portion of it.

said he did not really think it was necessary that this clause should stand over. The more he considered the first proviso the more he saw very serious objections to it. Here they said that when a road was to be fenced half the cost should be borne by the road authority. The position was who was to bear the expense of fencing in the road? Either the owner, or the Divisional Council, or the Provincial Council or the Union Government. He thought it would be an improper thing for them now to lay the burden on the Provincial Councils. If they passed a general Act regulating the relations between the Union and the Provinces let them put clauses into such an Act. but here they should not lay the burden and say that the Provincial Council should do this, that or the other. If the Provincial Council were moved out, on the same grounds, he thought the Divisional Council should be ruled out. They should not say that the Divisional Council should do this, that or the other. It was for the Divisional Council to say that. The proviso raised a big question, a constitutional question, that they should not attempt to deal with here. His hon. friend must remember that this was a roads question and should be dealt with by the Provincial Council. He thought the proviso should be deleted.

said that his hon. friend had stated that they should not insert provisions which would result in the expense falling on the Provincial Council. But the Bill did that already, and he pointed out that in regard to the fencing of outspans the Provincial Council had to pay half the cost of such work. They, on that sine, said the Government should go further, and, in a case where a man was forced to fence, make provision that half the sum should be contributed. They should protect the interests of landowners. He believed in the individual bearing his share, but he thought in certain cases the authority should also contribute.

said that at present the farmers of Natal were fully protected by the law in force.

asked how the clause affected the present fencing law in the Eastern Province?

It has nothing to do with the present fencing law. It leaves the matter where it is. That is why I have such confidence in supporting the deletion of the proviso. Continuing, he said they were not dealing with roads or gates across roads.

protested against the clause as it stood. He referred to the number of gates met with by travellers in the country, and thought the House should take action.

said that it was a roads question, to be dealt with by the Provincial Council, and they would be going outside their province in touching this matter.

pleaded that the clause should stand over, as the matter required very careful consideration.

pointed out that the Government, under clause 14, proposed to levy a tax on Municipalities. That, of course, had been deleted by the committee, but that was the first proposal of the Government. Was his hon. friend not going out of the province of a fencing Bill in that instance? If the Government could do it in one case why not in another?

said he would point out that the Municipality was the owner of a certain piece of land. When they dealt with a Bill in regard to fencing, naturally they must provide for all cases. Thus they provided for the fencing of native locations and commonage ground. As to the proviso in clause 28, the thought they were making a mistake, for it was objectionable.

Why was it put in then?

The draughtsman made a mistake. The Minister added that they would have trouble if they attempted to deal with this question, for a Provincial Council might want to pass an Ordinance which would be in conflict with the Bill now before the House.

said it was not exactly a question of roads, but of fencing. The farmer did not want a gate, but a fence. It was the people who wanted a gate, and the general travelling public having got more gates now desired a substitute for them. Thus the farmer had to fence miles of his land in order to provide the public with a substitute for the thing the travelling public first asked for. It would not be fair to ask the farmers to fence off these roads for the convenience of the public. (An HON. MEMBER: “Why not?”) Anyone who had to do with farming would know why. A fence might cut a farmer off from water. What the farmer wanted was not gates, but a farm. Roads, sometimes 200 or 300 yards wide, were made across farms to the detriment of the veld. Then there was the trekking question—people coming on to one’s land with their stock and feeding on one’s land; that had to come to an end. Then diseases would raise the question of whether they should have compulsory fencing. Although the matter had been postponed, the question of fencing roads would have to be faced before long.

suggested that if Government bore half the cost of the fences it would be fair to all the Provinces.

supported the idea of the Minister of the Interior.

said he did not agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East. The public did not want the gates, but the roads. The farmer wanted the fences. He (Mr. Madeley) wanted to point out that the people owned the roads.

They don’t make the roads.

Usually roads occur. If such a suggestion were made in England you would have hundreds of people breaking the gates and fences down.

The Labour party?

No, the public generally. The farmer wants the fence to keep his cattle from straying, and the law in every part of the civilised world is that the onus of keeping his stock from straying rests with the owner.

said that if the roads were the property of the people, let the people fence their property. (Cheers and laughter.)

We are quite prepared to leave roads crossing farms as they are. Let the farmer pay for what he wants.

The amendments Proposed by Mr. Venter and Mr. Cronje were withdrawn.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of the Interior and Mr. Watermeyer were agreed to.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Oosthuisen were negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

inquired whether the clause should not mention arbitration.

New clause 31,

moved that the following be a new clause: “31. Where any holding fenced under this Act is held under lease the owner shall be entitled during the term of the lease to receive from the lessee, as from the date when such holding became so fenced, a payment of six per cent. per annum on any sum which such owner has paid in instalments in respect of the fence. The owner shall have the same rights in respect of recovering any such payment as he has in law to recover rent due to him from the lessee and the lessee shall, anything to the contrary in the lease notwithstanding, have the right to determine the lease.”

Agreed to.

On clause 31,

moved in line 1, on page 16. after “agreement” to omit all the words down to the end of sub-section (1) and to substitute “any such owner may claim that the matter may be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.”

moved in line 5, after “any” to omit “fair”; in the same line after “agreed” to insert “or determined,” and after “upon” to omit “or surveyed,” an amendment which introduced the question of arbitration.

asked the Minister of the Interior to consider that matter. If they would agree, the boundary line was practically a new division. Suppose they took two farmers adjoining, who agreed upon a straight line fence, surely that was for all time permanent.

No; that is not a boundary.

argued then that if a new man took one of the farms, he could command the removal of the fence; he could say it was not the boundary line that was fixed by the title deeds.

moved the deletion of the words “that in default of such agreement, such owners may apply to the Magistrate of the district, who should indicate a fair give and take line, to be surveyed at the cost of the owners concerned.” He said the matter was one that was entirely between the two landowners, and there was no necessity to call in an arbitrator.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

withdrew his amendment, because, he explained, of the difficulty in connection with water.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of the Interior and Mr. Watermeyer were agreed to.

said that the new clause provided that where a property to be fenced was leased the lessee should pay an additional rent representing 6 per cent. on the cost of the fence, and the option was given to the lessee, if he did not agree, to determine the lease.

said that the definition of “owner” in clause 2 was stated to be the same as in Act 20, 1911. There “owner” included also lessee. Here they referred to an owner or lessee. The Bill, he remarked, had been very badly drafted. The drafting was, he considered, disgraceful.

asked, supposing the owner got his money from the Land Bank, was he to pay 6 per cent interest on that money?

thought 6 per cent was the legal rate of interest.

said that 6 per cent was the common rate of interest before the Land Bank Bill was brought forward. When the Land Bank Bill went through 6 per cent would cease to be the legal rate of interest, seeing that money was to be lent by the bank at 5 per cent.

supported the clause as printed. The owner was entitled to interest and a certain percentage for depreciation.

said that, on that line of argument, there was no reason why an owner should not pay the Land Bank six per cent. He thought the clause might read “that the lessee shall pay to the owner a rate of interest not exceeding six per cent., or such lesser rate as the owner himself has to pay.”

said that although the Transvaal Land Bank had been in existence a number of years, the interest on money borrowed through that bank had not increased. He hoped the clause would be agreed to.

said that the Minister and the hon. member for Prieska must surely see that at the end of the lease, even if the fence had depreciated, the owner still had the fence. It did not seem to him to be fair that the lessee should have to give the owner more interest than he had to pay for the fence.

said that his hon. friend was not really correct. The life of a fence might be ten years, and the lease might be running for ten years. Continuing, he said he took exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Turffontein, who was usually a courteous member of the House, and though one of the youngest members, set them all an example. The hon. member, however, used very strong language with regard to the drafting of this measure, and more particularly to the owner or lessee point. He (the speaker) would say that the statement in the Bill would say that the statement in the Bill was quite correct

said he withdrew what he had said with regard to this particular clause, but not so far as the rest of the Bill was concerned.

said another point was that this clause did not appear in the original Bill at all.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 32 was negatived.

New clause 32,

moved that the following be a new clause: “32. If any dividing fence whatever be out of repair the owner of each holding separated by the fence shall be liable for the cost of the repair to the extent to which under this Act he would be liable to contribute to the cost of such fence; and either owner may serve upon the other a notice requiring him within a period of one week to assist in repairing such fence; and if such owner fail to comply with the terms of such notice the first-mentioned owner may himself repair it and recover from the owner the proportion of the cost of repair due from him.

asked what procedure would be adopted if the owner did not pay?

said they would proceed to the Magistrate’s Court in the usual way.

moved that the words “such other” he inserted before “owner” in the last paragraph of the clause.

said the clause was one of the most important in the Bill. When two neighbours decided each to construct the half of a fence and repairs became necessary, then each owner should repair his own part of the fence, and not that both should pay a share of the cost.

and this was a point of law; the whole matter depended upon the question whether and what arrangement had been come to between the two farmers.

moved to alter “one week” to “fourteen days,” as a week was too short.

opposed the amendment on the ground that 14 days was too long.

also objected to the amendment.

said the fence ought to be repaired as speedily as possible. The amendment was not desirable.

said that clause 32 did not entirely satisfy him. It laid down that the wires were to be immediately repaired, whilst clause 38 said that the two owners together must repair the damage. It should be laid down that the repairs should be effected, and that the one owner could recover half the cost from the other:

thought that each owner should be made responsible for his share.

supported the clause as printed.

said the farmers ought jointly to repair the fence.

wished that each one should bear his own share.

said every man should be responsible for his portion, but if the neighbour did not keep his portion in order, the first should have the right, if the repairs were not effected within seven days, to make the repairs himself at the cost of his neighbour.

The amendment of Mr. Rademeyer was negatived.

Mr. Griffin’s amendment was agreed to.

The new clause, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 33,

moved that the following be a hew clause, to follow new clause 32: “33. Any owner of a holding separated by a dividing fence shall have the right at any time so to alter the fence as to make it a standard fence, or if it be already a standard fence; to make it a standard fence of a superior type: Provided that the owner of the adjoining holding separated by the fence shall not be liable to contribute to the alteration unless or until he derives beneficial use from the type of the fence as altered. The provisions of the next succeeding section should apply mutaris mutandis as if the alteration were an erection or repair of the fence.”

Agreed to.

On clause 34,

moved in line 41, to omit all the words after “determined” to the end, and to substitute “in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.”

moved in line 32, to omit “the magistrate of the district or,” and in line 33, after “department,” to insert “or any arbitrator appointed under the provisions of this Chapter.”

These amendments were agreed to.

On clause 37, No person shall plough lands alongside dividing fence,

The clause was negatived.

moved that the following be a new clause: “37. No owner or occupier of a holding shall be liable in damages in respect of an injury caused to any person or to any property by such person or property coming in contact with any fence: Provided that the injury has not been occasioned by the negligence of such owner or occupier in erecting, altering, maintaining or repairing the fence.”

Agreed to.

On clause 38, Act not to affect agreements as to dividing fences,

wished to know whether clause 38 made sufficient provision for the carrying out of the amendment which he had moved, but had afterwards withdrawn.

replied that the hon. member went too far, and wanted the Government to pay for jackal-proof fences. It was only when the State made use of such fences that it was obliged to pay the cost. The hon. member wanted that to be done in all cases.

said the State wanted to escape a liability which it wished to impose on private persons. Under those circumstances he would have to move the amendment again, and if necessary to challenge a vote on it.

ruled that the amendment was out of order, as it called for additional expenditure.

First schedule,

moved, after line 8 of the second column, to insert “Act No. 9 of 1909”: line 7 of the third column to insert “the Non-liability for Damage by Fencing Act, 1909,” and after line 9 of the fourth column to insert “the whole.”

Agreed to.

Second schedule,

moved in line 16 to omit “fourteen days,” and to substitute “one month.”

Agreed to.

Third schedule,

moved that the following be a new third schedule: The minimum specifications for a dividing fence shall be: (1) If it is to be proof against great stock: Barbed wire: Five strands of galvanised, 12½ S.W.G. 4 point, 6 inches barbs, twisted round one or both strands; top wire not less than 3 feet 10 inches from the ground. Standards: 14 lb., 6 feet long, placed 20 yards apart, and driven 2 feet into the ground; or wooden posts: Approved hard wood, 6 feet long, measuring 4 inches in diameter at the thinnest end and planted 2 feet into the ground; 20 yards apart; or stone pillars: of such quality and dimensions as may be agreed upon by the owners concerned or prescribed by the Department. Iron droppers: Any kind, hung 4 yards apart, or four between standards. Lacings: No. 10 plain galvanised wire, 3 wards and 1 foot apart, or five between standards. Straining posts: Iron of approved dimensions, or hard wood of an approved quality, measuring not less than 6 inches in diameter at the thinnest end and 7 feet long: planted 3 feet into the ground, 500 yards apart, and on the highest point of a rise or the lowest of a depression. (2) If it is to be proof against small stock: Barbed wire: Six strands of galvanised 12½ or 13 S.W.G., 4 point, 6 inches barbs, twisted round one or both strands; or plain wire: eight strands of No. 8 galvanised steel: or plain and barbed wire: six strands of the above quality mixed as may be agreed upon. Standards: 14 lb., 6 feet long, 20 yards apart and driven 2 feet into the ground; or wooden posits: Approved hard wood measuring 4 inches in diameter at the thinnest end by 6 feet long, 20 wards apart; or stone pillars: of such quality and dimensions as may be agreed upon by the owners concerned or prescribed by the Department. Iron droppers: Any kind, 4 yards apart, or four between standards. Lacings: No. 10. plain galvanised wire, 3 wards and 1 foot apart. Straining posts: Iron or hard wood of an approved quality, measuring not less than 6 in diameter at the thinnest end and 7 feet long planted 3 feet into the ground, 500 yards apart and on the highest point of a rise or the lowest of a depression. (3) If it is to be proof against ostriches: Plain wire: No. 8 plain galvanised wire, six strands. Standards: 16 lb., 7 feet long, 10 yards apart and driven 2 feet into the ground; or wooden posts: Approved hard wood, 7feet long, measuring 4 inches in diameter at the thinnest end; planted 2 feet into the ground and 10 yards apart. Stone pillars: Of such quality and dimensions as may be agreed upon by the owners or prescribed by the Department. Droppers: Any kind, one yard apart. Lacings: No. 7 plain galvanised wire, 1 yard and 1 foot apart. Straining posts: Iron or hard wood of an approved quality measuring not less than 6 inches in diameter at the thinnest end; planted 3 feet into the ground and 500 yards apart, and on the highest point of a rise and the lowest of a depression. (4) If it is to be vermin-proof: Of a specification to be agreed upon by the owners concerned or as the Department may prescribe.

moved to reduce the number of strands from five to four, which he contended was amply sufficient.

drew the attention of the House to the misuse of terms and said the word strand should not be used. It was just as well that the correct word “wire” should be used, and “five strands of galvanised” should read “five galvanised wires.”

thought the provisions concerning straining standards ‘were not clear.

supported the amendment. He thought three wires were sufficient. His farm had been fenced with three wires for thirteen years, and no cattle had got through. In his district there were old poles which were only two inches thick at the upper ends, and they lasted longer than iron poles.

opposed the amendment, considering that four wires were insufficient. If an animal once learnt to get through a fence, he would get through one with six wires.

did not agree that a three wire standard would be sufficient, as experience had proved it to be too weak.

supported the amendment. He had long ago fenced his farm with wooden poles and four wires, and the fence still lasted. Why, he asked, compel people to use more wires than were necessary?

supported the amendment, and said he had three wires round his mealie lands, and his cattle never got through. Four wires were sufficient, and it was not necessary to fix a standard type. The farmers might agree mutually as to the kind of fence to be put up.

could not agree with the two last speakers. By having one wire more they would enjoy all the advantages of the law. With five barbed wires they got a satisfactory fence, which increased the value of the farm-Four wires were sufficient for big cattle, but five were necessary for calves.

said that four wires were sufficient. In fencing against cattle diseases the Government only used four, and the cattle did not get through them. He protested against the laying of an unnecessary burden on the farmers.

urged that the matter should not be made too heavy at once. He moved to add at the end of the schedule: “Provided, however, that the above specifications shall not apply to any area wherein a Divisional Council exists and where such Council has by resolution decided upon a standard type of fence for each of the various classes of stock or for such area.”

said that they had agreed to the principle of arbitration and he would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that it was not necessary to describe a standard fence. The peculiarities of the various districts of the country varied according to the character of the farming operations carried on, and, under all the circumstances, he would urge upon the right hon. gentleman that he should withdraw the schedule. They might sit until twelve o’clock without being able to arrive at a satisfactory declaration as to a standard fence.

moved in specification No (1), item “straining posts,” in line 3 thereof, after “ground” to insert “or stone pillars.” He thought the proposed thickness of the wooden poles was excessive. There were good wooden poles of three inches in diameter. The number of wires in a fence for large animals depended on the circumstances of each district. For instance, on the high veld they required to have six.

moved in specification No (1), item “barbed wire,” line 2 thereof, after “less than” to omit “3” and to substitute “4”; and in the following line to omit “10” before “inches” and to substitute “6.” He said hon. members were under the wrong impression that all fences had to be in agreement with the standard types. Those standard types only applied when the farmers could not agree. Arbitration would only make the law impracticable, and he could not understand the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. It should be laid down that a standard fence should be four feet six inches high. He hoped the schedule would be accepted.

foresaw difficulties with the standard, and agreed with the hon. member for Bechuanaland. When once cattle got into the habit, they would even go through a six-wire fence. The East Coast fever fences consisted of four wires, two with barbs and two without. In the western districts four wires were sufficient.

said that in spite of what had been said he would support the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He thought that the Minister should accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and allow the schedule to stand over for further consideration. He pointed out that whereas No. 8 galvanised iron wire was mentioned in the schedule, they had been using Buffalo wire, and found that it acted far better than the wire that was mentioned in the schedule. He put the case that he, as a farmer, erected a fence of Buffalo wire. Well, his neighbour might come along and say that the fence had not been erected in conformity with the Act, and refuse to pay his contribution. He mentioned that the discussion that had taken place round the third schedule had clearly shown that there was a big difference of opinion on the subject. He moved that the whole of the third schedule be omitted.

said the hon. member could vote against the schedule.

said that from the beginning he had judged it wrong to define a standard fence, as circumstances differed so very much. For big cattle a fence of three feet was considered sufficient, and for small animals they wanted one of four feet. Opinions differed so much on the subject that the committee could never come to an agreement. It thought the best thing to do would be to delete the whole of the third schedule and to leave the question of the fence and the poles to the people themselves, so that they could act as under the old Cape law.

said that when he moved the second reading he had pointed out the impossibility of fixing a standard. If they came to a decision many persons would still be dissatisfied. They had a guide in the Natal law, which prescribed standard fences, but there was a proviso that the two owners could agree to erect some other. He thought that some such provision might be added to the schedule. Failing agreement, they could go to arbitration. (Hear, hear.) The schedule had better to be deleted.

expressed the view that the schedule should be allowed to remain.

said a fence of four strands would be totally useless. He would move that they should have a standard of six strands, the posts not to be more than 10 feet from each other. He foresaw the present difficulties during the second reading. He represented farmers who were in favour of a fence of six barbed wires with poles ten paces apart and four supports between. If they were to fence at all, they should fence well.

was also in favour of retaining the schedule. When they had to do with horses, donkeys or mules, 14 lb. poles were of little use. Poles of 30 lb. were required. Some wooden poles were stronger and held better than iron poles.

was in favour of deleting the schedule, and thought the best fence would be obtained by arbitration.

said the Crown Colony Government had erected fences against cattle disease with two smooth and two barbed wires, which fences appeared to be quite satisfactory. The schedule ought to be deleted.

said that to overcome the difficulty he thought it would be best to leave the section as it was, and add another subsection (5): “Any other description of fence mutually agreed upon by the persons interested.”

said the discussion showed clearly how difficult it was to fix a standard fence. The Free State members wanted everything to be done on Free State lines. Personally he favoured the Cape practice of arbitration. The schedule should be withdrawn.

said they should have a schedule specially for the Free State, which did not want arbitration.

said that it seemed impossible for them to agree as to a standard fence that evening, and it might work too harshly if a standard was laid down which was too high for a particular Province.

He thought the Prime Minister was rather unfair to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in insinuating that it was owing to his hon. friend’s action that the Prime Minister had put this schedule on the paper, and that his hon. friend had, in vulgar parlance, “let him down” by taking the action he had taken now. It was the Government that put this on the paper. If the Government had made a mistake, let them withdraw as quickly as they could. He thought that the position would be met if they put in a clause at a later stage which would say that the standard fence for this Act should be such fence as was laid down by the local authority for that district.

said the committee should not waste more time in discussing that question, as it was evidently impossible to come to an agreement, and it would be better to leave things as they were. The people in the different Provinces would then be free to do as they wished. Circumstances varied so much that it would be impossible to have a fixed standard

said the North-western districts were poor when it was a question of killing the locust or the scab insect, but they were rich when asking for railways. Parliament should not allow itself to be led by those districts. Four wires were absolutely insufficient for a fence, and the Government should lend no money on a fence of that character. He opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Rouxville.

said that even if a standard were fixed on, it should not be compulsory on everyone, but should only apply when farmers failed to agree. The amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg made the schedule unacceptable.

said he had been directed by his constituents to vote in favour of a fixed standard. There was nothing in the arguments of the hon. members from the North-western districts. In the Free State, where there were big cattle farms, they required good fences of at least six wires, with standards not too far apart, and strongly built.

said in the whole of that debate they had heard only from the Free State, whilst the members presumably represented the Union. Compulsion was not desirable.

hoped the discussion would now be allowed to close.

The amendment moved by Mr. My burgh was negatived.

All the remaining amendments were withdrawn.

The new schedule was negatived.

moved that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Wednesday.

amid cheers, laid on the table a copy of the draft South African Police Regulations.