I move—

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—52.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Zyl. G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—43.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: le Roux, S. P.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House In Committee:

[Progress reported on 27th January on Clause 1, upon which amendments had been moved.]

Amendments put and agreed to.

I am afraid that this clause, even as with the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) will create as dangerous a condition as ever before. The impression is here made that we, as farmers, are somewhat in favour of cruelty to animals. If we look into the speeches which were recently made in connection with this Bill—and it is strange that the Bill is again being dealt with—we have not the least doubt that the introducers, the promoters of this Bill, have not the least idea of the farming industry. I thought that hon. members who had the least knowledge of farming would vote against this Bill. I believe the object of the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is to bring animals who have suffered through the drought under provision of this Bill. It is quite clear that he has not the least knowledge of farming. I take the opportunity of saying that the farmer is second to none as regards love of animals. No one who has not a love for animals can be a good farmer. The farmers have the greatest consideration for their animals. But when the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), encouraged by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), introduces such a Bill it is clear that he knows nothing of farming. The Bill becomes particularly dangerous when we remember that it will possibly be administered by policemen and magistrates who are not familiar with conditions in the country. I shall be very sorry if this Bill passes. It is a great danger to the farmer. I hope the promoters of the Bill will realize what a difficult position they are placing the farmer in. The provisions are indeed modified by the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), but they remain dangerous. I regret that such proposals should be put forward. I will give all my attention to a motion by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), or the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) which falls within their own métier, but as regards farming they must not propose legislation. I hope the farmers in the House will appreciate the danger in this Bill.

I am sorry to find that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) is of opinion that only the farmers of this country can be cruel. If he had listened carefully he would have recognized that we on this side of the House have said nothing against the farmer in regard to the way in which he treats his animals. We have stated over and over again that in our opinion the farmer is one who is most careful of his animals, because they are his source of livelihood. I do not know why the hon. member keeps repeating these arguments. Let me remind him that a man has to be found guilty of aggravated and wilful cruelty before he can receive such a sentence.

Who will decide?

I am going to tell the hon. member. I have told him several times. First of all, the magistrate will have to decide.

What does the magistrate know about it?

If the hon. member would not be so impatient he may learn something. I have told him several times. I will tell him again. The magistrate decides and, after he has sentenced a man to whipping, that sentence can only be carried out if a judge of the Supreme Court confirms it.

What does he know about it?

Nobody knows anything but you.

After all, if we are not satisfied with our form of justice in this country, we must change the form. The position is, to my mind, so simple; every man is fully protected. The person accused has got to be guilty of aggravated and wilful cruelty, and after the magistrate finds him guilty, his case comes up automatically for review, and no man can undergo this punishment until the Supreme Court has decided. Surely there is no greater protection in the world than to say that before a sentence of this kind can be carried out, the Supreme Court must decide that the accused comes under the conditions of this Act. My hon. friend has got the idea, as has been stated, that nobody knows anything except he comes from Graaff-Reinet.

I was not so strongly opposed to the Bill until I heard the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). If a farmer is to be held responsible, as he says, for stock suffering as a result of drought, then I fear all the farmers in this House will shortly be given whippings. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) wants to make out that the Bill is not aimed at the farmers, that the farmers will not be affected by it. But who uses animals? It is not people like the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) nor the people who have to do with dogs and cats, but the farmers on the land. I do not believe that a practical farmer would accuse another of cruelty to animals, but it happens so often that one cannot help an animal getting hurt. Only six weeks ago a neighbour came to visit me. He came in his cart from his farm about 18 miles distant, and his dog followed the cart without his noticing it. The next day the dog was in such a state that it could not walk a step. If a policeman had arrived at that moment and had reported my neighbour to the magistrate, do you think the magistrate, who possibly has not much knowledge of animals, would accept that the dog had followed the cart of its own accord? Such a man would immediately be liable for a whipping under the law. I believe the hon. member’s intention is honourable, but the existing Act which allows a fine of £25 is severe enough. We notice that this Bill is dangerous for the practical farmer, and I hope that those who represent him will not vote for it any more. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is the first lieutenant, the right hand of the hon. member. He is one of the people who recently wanted to protect little birds. Locusts and little birds are the same thing with us. Do hon. members know that locusts are animals as well? How can you differentiate with regard to cruelty to animals? In what form will it be applied. On what, and how? I believe that everyone in the House feels that farmers are not guilty of cruelty to animals. I am strongly opposed to it, but I am afraid that the whipping will be given to people who do not deserve it.

I am in favour of this measure and I voted for it at the second reading, but while so doing, I do feel and realize that corporal punishment is a very undesirable method of punishment. I think corporal punishment does more harm, as a rule, than good. To my mind, members, especially those who live in the towns, have a very distorted idea of the cruelty to animals that takes place on the farms. As a rule, not much cruelty is to be found on our farms, very little in fact. I have seen more in Muizenberg and round about here than I have seen on farms during a very long period. There are many cases occurring right under the eyes of everybody and no notice is taken thereof. This Bill should have a deterrent effect on cruelty to animals. It should go forward that the people of this country are absolutely opposed to malicious and brutal cruelty. Some time ago a native boy in my district was run in for cruelty to a horse. This horse had been knee haltered and had got away and was badly hurt. As far as I remember, the magistrate inflicted a fine of £10 on the native, more than the horse was worth. The magistrate did not appreciate the character of the case nor the difference between brutal cruelty and a mishap of that kind. Magistrates, like other people, are fallible, however well-intentioned they may be. I think this House would do well to accept the amendment which has been moved.

As the mover of this amendment, I would like to have a few words. Last year I moved the amendment which stands in my name, for this reason: That I appreciated that there were members on this side, especially those representing farming interests, who feared that the Bill as it stood then contained a dangerous principle. My object was to avoid that danger which I personally foresaw. I accordingly moved the words “being of an aggravated nature any person found guilty of such acts shall be liable”. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) moved in the further word “wilful.” So the position as it now stands is that cruelty shall be of a wilful and aggravated nature before an individual can be found guilty and sentenced to a whipping. I would like to reply to the difficulty which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has raised. He doubts whether a magistrate would have the necessary knowledge and experience to try their cases. Let me point out that as the position is to-day, these cases are regularly before the magistrate and to-day the magistrate has the power to imprison. It cannot, therefore, be said that the magistrate has no experience of these cases. The only difference created by this Bill is that the magistrate can not only imprison, but can sentence to a whipping. Under my amendment the magistrate has to find circumstances of a wilful and aggravated nature before he can sentence to a whipping. Moreover, these words “of a wilful or aggravated nature” are not meaningless. They have received judicial interpretation on many occasions in the courts of this country. An assault, for instance, is aggravated when it is of an unprovoked or wanton nature; and a case of cruelty would have to be proved wanton cruelty before you could sentence to a whipping. In the ordinary case where a man is brought before the magistrate for driving an animal in poor condition, it would be impossible to say that was a case of wanton cruelty. I, for one, have the utmost confidence that there is no section of the community of this country that pays a greater attention to animals than the farming section. This proposal, if it is passed, will not bear harshly on the farmer. I do not believe that there is a farmer in this House who would not welcome the whipping of a man who was guilty of the crime of wilful and aggravated cruelty. This suggested law is brought rather to meet the state of affairs as we know, to the larger towns of the Union. I do not agree with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein says. I totally disagree with his exaggerations. What he said has gone a long way towards antagonising this side of the House to this measure. I would have liked to draw his attention to a type of legalised cruelty which everyone of us is guilty of, and I would suggest that we should approach this question in a less hypocritical way. Every one of us is a meat eater and we permit man’s cruelty in all our abattoirs and slaughter houses. If hon. members wish to see cruelty in its most aggravated form, let them go to any slaughter house and see the terror of the animal that smells blood and apparently realizes what is going to happen. For that reason I deprecate such a speech as the hon. member unburdened himself of at the last discussion. My amendment and that of the hon. member for Gordonia is merely to meet the difficulties of hon. members on this side of the House, and I do assure them that by the insertion of these words it will be a matter of great difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction which will result in the whipping of an individual under that section. The wanton circumstances must be present and it was with that object that I introduced these words. These words being introduced, I for one propose to vote for the clause as amended.

I am sorry that the three colleagues of the Minister of Agriculture were not here to hear the speech delivered by one of his supporters, because had they heard it they might not have given the lead they did on the decision before going into committee. I speak as a farmer, and as such I resent the statements which have been made that farmers are opposed to the clause because it may refer to the farming population. I do not think that this clause as it is amended now will refer to the farming population. I do not think a greater slur could be cast on them than a statement of this character. If there are farmers capable of wilful and aggravated cruelty to animals, I would like to see punishment of the utmost rigour that this Bill allows meted out to them. I am one of those not in favour of corporal punishment, except in particular cases, and there are particular crimes which can be put down only by the infliction of corporal punishment. Garrotting, I am old enough to remember, was put down here very quickly indeed by the infliction of corporal punishment. I do not think the cat can be administered under this provision, but only the cane; and when you see, and some of us may have seen, wilful and aggravated cruelty in the punishment given to dumb animals by people to whom you can appeal only, not by putting them into gaol, but making them feel some of that physical punishment themselves, I say we should put through this clause. It will not refer to the ordinary cruelty to animals, and I can hardly understand any magistrate or judge fit to occupy his position who would sanction corporal punishment for ordinary cases. I would appeal to the representatives of farmers not to stigmatize the farmers of this country, and not to press their objection to this clause because they think it is going to apply to the ordinary decent farmer.

We know that when a man is interested in his animals he will not be cruel, and we know that the cattle and sheep farmer and any stock farmer would rather treat his animals well because his possessions consist of cattle and sheep. The farmer will surely not injure himself by cruelty to animals, even if he otherwise possibly saw no harm in it. If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who cannot even inspan a horse, had to yoke a pair of young oxen who were unwilling and gave them a few blows, then he would be punishable. I wonder whether the hon. member, who is the oldest member in the House, has read par. (2) of the penalty in the 1914 Act. It says: [Paragraph read.] The hon. member for Fort Beaufort talks all day about farming, but he has never yet outspanned an animal. I should like to see him yoke up a pair of young oxen to a plough without beating them. Now the hon. member said—

I believe it is not so bad if one points a finger, as to come here and shed tears. We know that a farmer treats his animals well, even if only because it is in his financial interests. The farmer himself will not ill-treat his animals, but we know that he cannot always do things himself, and he must have servants, who are perhaps, not always faithful. The hon. member for Fort Beau fort goes to his farm to see if everything is in order, but he does not know what has happened during his absence. The members from the country see horses in the street here that are suffering, but they do not talk about cruelty to animals. Hon. members from the towns will never ask whether the man driving the vegetable cart is ever examined as to his health. They pay more attention to the man’s horse. I believe the law is strong enough in providing a fine of £25. Anyone having to pay that fine will see that he does not offend again. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that an animal must not suffer hunger, but what about the 300,000 sheep that starved in my district in 1924? Must the owner of these animals be punished, and even whipped? The hon. member himself instead of leaving his calves with their mothers, takes them away and gives them sour milk which is not their natural feed, and so the calves suffer hunger. If a trek farmer’s sheep lamb en route, then the lambs have to be carried. The hon. member will say this is cruelty to the animals. If by chance a policeman passes the man would be punished.

Why does it not happen now then?

I understand the hon. member has often bitten the calves’ tails to make them walk. We know that kind of person knows nothing about the matter; he has never yet cleaned out a stable and I repeat that no farmer will ill-treat his animals. I have never yet heard that a whipping has improved a man. If he is not improved by a fine or imprisonment, then it will not be effected by whipping.

I could not quite catch what the hon. member said. I understood him to say that I allowed certain of my animals to starve deliberately. Is that true?

No. I said the hon. member was starving some of his calves, for instead of feeding them on their mothers he gave them sour milk. [Laughter.]

The House may laugh, but if the hon. member says that, he is lying, and if he says it outside I shall also tell him he is lying, and I shall deal with him in quite a different way. It is not a personal question. I have not come here to point out that the hon. member is doing this or that on his farm. He does not know what I am doing on my farm, and he has no right as a public representative to make statements like he has done. However, he has had my reply. I can quite understand the farmer members taking up the line they have. They have one eye on the ballot box, like the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, who can never make a speech in this House but he has an eye on the ballot box. Thank goodness, some of us don’t worry about the ballot box.

Nor do I.

We are certainly not going to put our principles into cold storage on account of votes. I do not withdraw one word of what I said on the previous occasion. I have had letters from all over South Africa and from all classes of people, including numbers of Nationalists, and no sooner had I finished my speech than a man came down from the gallery. He told me he was a farmer in the Heidelberg district and an official in the Nationalist party, and he said “I want to shake hands with you, for I have seen what you said was done in the last few days.” I don’t care what people say, for what I said is absolutely true. I said the farmers’ animals were being badly treated—I did not say the farmers were doing it, but the natives. These men have to be punished. I further said that if any man has cattle and he cannot feed them, then he should not have them, and I say so again. After all, I was only preaching the doctrine the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) is always preaching—you must conserve your fodder and feed your cattle. I have 1,400 farmer voters, and I am quite prepared to tell them every word I told the House, and I believe they will agree with me. If they don’t, it is unlucky—for them. Why are people in South Africa allowed to take wild animals and put them into small cages, as is being done even now at Groot Schuur? These animals are being kept under the most painful conditions. Why don’t the police punish the responsible people? It may be that one of them is the Minister of Public Works. The animals at Groot Schuur are a disgrace. I suppose a section of the public will say I am talking wildly again, but it is absolutely true. Why are not the circus people punished? I saw a lion and a tiger in a small cage in a circus. (Laughter.) It is not a joke. A very well-known clergyman preaching in the Cape Town Cathedral said there is no place outside Central America where animals are worse treated than they are in the Cape Peninsula. The farmers will stand by us and put the Bill through. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, who is doing a good deal for farming, will stand by us if he looks at the thing in a proper way.

If it is done in the proper way.

How is it the farmers are not being punished to-day if they are doing the things he says they are doing? It is because they are not doing them. What is the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) afraid of? If the farmer is not punished under a light law, will he be punished under a heavy law? South Africa will have to take stock of the position, because we treat our animals worse than most parts of the world. Unfortunately, that is true. At Muizenberg it is shocking to see the type of animals dragging heavy carts along every day of the week, and on the seventh day taking out their owners’ wives and families. Then dogs are badly treated in South Africa. Not long ago the police, in the northern Transvaal, beat to death 70 or 80 dogs with sticks. That could not happen in any other part of the civilized world. We have to stir the people up. When a question was asked on the matter, the Minister of Justice slurred over it. Fancy the police deliberately killing between 70 and 80 dogs with sticks by knocking their brains out! Yet nothing has been dona. Some people say that is the right way to kill a dog, but surely we cannot stand for that. These people should be punished. This House is the place to mention facts like those. We take the responsibility for mentioning them, and if we do not we shall sink to a low level. I admit I am not as good a farmer as the hon. member for Namaqualand, and I also admit I am not a bad one either.

It is with a great deal of diffidence one ventures to contradict the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), particularly with regard to farming matters, but, if he will make inquiries, he will find there are other methods of feeding young calves than allowing them to drink the milk from their mothers. The most scientific farmers do not allow these animals to run with their mothers, and I suggest the hon. member might follow that line of inquiry. I am also a farmer, and I also would like to show him over my farm, and I do not think he will find animals better treated or looked after anywhere else. I have had a great deal of experience of the working of the Cruelty to Animals Act, because for 12 years I have been the chairman of the executive committee in Johannesburg, where, as the House is aware, we have a very cosmopolitan population. There is a great deal of cruelty practised, and these cases come before the executive committee for review, and I want to point out to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) what is the sort of cruelty this Act aims at. A man deliberately pours boiling water on a dog. What is the good of putting him in prison? He should be made to feel some of the pain he inflicts upon the animal. A man deliberately flogs a horse to death. What would you do with a man of that sort?

Give him the same.

Exactly. And that is what this Act is for. A man deliberately tried to saw a live dog in two. What would you do with a man like that? The magistrates in Johannesburg dealing with this particular class of cases have far more experience than we have in this House, and like many other magistrates regret that the law as it stands does not allow them to inflict a whipping. It is our obvious duty to protect dumb animals, and where the law is defective in this regard we must get the law amended. It is not a question of the towns as against the country, such a comparison is futile. I am sure the hon. member for Namaqualand will condemn wilful and aggravated cruelty. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) talks about a dog following a cart, unknown to the owner, for 18 miles with its feet bleeding. There is nothing wilful or aggravated about that. This amendment is sought for by the judiciary, and those with experience, and I ask for the honour of the House and the fair name of this country that members stand by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and allow this Bill to be placed on the statute book. There are certain kinds of cases in which only whipping will be effective and deter. It was found in the case of men who lived on the proceeds of the immorality of women that flogging was the only way effectively to put it down. The man who treats his animals humanely has nothing to fear from this measure. Only the man who is devoid of feeling and perpetrates unnecessary suffering is the man who should be made to feel the kind of punishment he inflicts upon dumb animals.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has just mentioned that there is another way of rearing calves. Of course I know it, but the hon. member must allow me to say that the other way is for the purpose of making money. The calves are taken away from their mothers so that the milk of the cows can be sold. Why are the calves intended for exhibition not reared in that way, but left with their mothers? Because it is the best way of rearing calves. I am pleading for the man who is possibly convicted innocently. The law goes very far. I am not even frightened so much for the farmer, but for his responsibility for the servants. What if a foreman inspans oxen, and uses the double whip to beat them? It is the farmer’s whip, and his animals, and he will possibly get into trouble for it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) spoke of Muizenberg, and of the hard work of the lean animals there. Why are they not arrested under the existing Act? It is severe enough. If a man is fined £25 he will not ill-treat an animal again. This is the kind of person who does not mind ill-treating families, putting women and children out of their houses and robbing them of everything under the law, who complains so much about cruelty to animals. These people who one moment abuse a motor costing £300, and then again get money from other people to buy a new one, are the ones who want no animals. They want no animals on the road, and cannot even endure people there. Our existing law is severe enough.

I hesitate to get up and say anything in favour of this Bill, because one would feel that one is only playing into the hands of the opponents of it and assisting them to waste time and prevent it from going through. But I do think that it will not be to the credit of this House if this measure is not placed on the statute book, and it won’t be to the credit of this House if an opposition is so organized that it is going to prevent a right being done where a wrong to-day is in existence. It is a matter of notoriety to anyone who comes down into this part of the country that cruelty to animals is in an increasing ratio. You can see it wherever you go about the Peninsula, and it is almost a matter of notoriety that, in the circumstances, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Cape Town hardly carries the confidence of the people generally.

What nonsense.

Well, I say that is the feeling, and I say that, because there is a feeling amongst the public that there is cruelty to animals going on down here which is not being stopped as it should be. Whoever is responsible for that, it ought to be stopped. I would like to call the attention of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) to an incident which came to my knowledge. There was a man who trained his dog, a retriever, to go every morning to get his newspaper. This dog became the sport of the boys in the street as he returned with the paper in his mouth, and they used to shy stones at him. On one occasion they threw a stone which broke his leg, and that is an act of brutality which can hardly be too strongly condemned. I hope the opposition to this measure will stop. It may be that in Namaqualand the stock, owing to stress of circumstances, drought, etc., has to undergo an amount of starvation and hardship which cannot be prevented, but nobody in their senses, no official, would ever hold a farmer responsible for conditions over which he has absolutely no control, but, on the other hand, even if a farmer is responsible for deliberate cruelty to his animals, there is no reason why he should not be punished equally well with anyone in the towns who over-drives or underfeeds, an animal, or starves a dog, or anything of that kind.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) introduced an amendment which, according to him, will considerably improve the Bill, namely, the insertion of the word “wilfully.” The principal Act No. 8 of 1914 on examination leaves not the least doubt that the inclusion of the word “intentionally” will not make the slightest alteration in the effect of the law. The hon. member now wants to provide that for intentional cruelty anyone can be punished. The principal Act provides that a person will be punishable if he beats, kicks, ill-treats, overloads, pains, etc., an animal. I cannot imagine that anyone can do one of those things otherwise than wilfully. He cannot do it in his sleep. In (b) it is stated that a man is punishable if he causes unnecessary suffering to an animal, by the way in which an animal is made to draw or carry, etc. That also cannot occur otherwise than intentionally, and I do not see what difference the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia will make.

The intention must be proved.

That anyone beats or causes unnecessary suffering cruelly has also to be proved. The hon. member’s argument was that he could vote for the Bill, if the word “intentional” was included, but he will now see that he is still obliged to vote against the Bill. The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) provides that the cruelty must be of a worse kind. The decision whether anything is of a worse kind, etc., will, of course, have to be left to the magistrate or judge who sits in the case. The position is the same today. The existing Act provides that the decision as to the nature and extent of the crime rests with the judge. Thus, in my opinion, the amendment alters the Bill just as little as the other amendment. I therefore think that the amendment will not alter our opinion. I do not want to be misunderstood; I think that if such a law can be applied to a certain section of the population we might favour it. We know that in general the natives have no sympathy with animals. Europeans love animals, they are their animals, and it is their nature to love them, but the natives usually do not have the least sympathy with animals. I also know of cases of natives ill-treating animals without the least sympathy, and if the law can be applied to a certain section who do not sufficiently possess that love towards the animals, I shall be in favour of it. The speeches which have been made here have, however, convinced me that the measure contains dangers, and my opposition remains unaltered.

I should also like to protest. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) undoubtedly thought that he was introducing a good Bill, and I will admit that he honestly thinks so, but if he had grown up on a farm, and worked with animals all day long he would adopt a different attitude.

I did grow up on a farm.

Then the hon. member has forgotten all about it. The hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) said that he voted for the Bill, but was really opposed to it.

I did not say so. I said it was better to pass the Bill.

I am surprised at any member from the countryside being in favour of the Bill. I have met farmers in my constituency from elsewhere, and they are all very angry about the Bill. The farmers are unanimously opposed to it. If we beat a horse on the countryside and, without meaning to, possibly beat a little too hard and give the horse a little scratch the police will be able to come, and if we have an inexperienced police officer and a magistrate who does not know the circumstances, where will the farmer stay then? The judgment will be sent to the judge for confirmation and the farmer will be given the cane. It is an impossible Bill, and I protest against it.

I would feel sympathetic towards the Bill if it were merely to apply to the towns. I think it is necessary in the towns, but we must not make it general. It might happen on the countryside that policemen did not know the conditions, then the Bill might cause trouble. There are always people who are not able to judge properly. We know from experience that a certain instruction by the Minister of Justice, with which he had no serious object, was wrongly applied because the persons administering the law did not interpret it practically. If the Bill applied to the towns, where possibly there is a need for severe punishment, then we could support it, but not when it is to apply throughout the country.

I differ from the last speaker when he says that he sympathizes with the Bill.

I feel very sore about it.

As I said, the hon. member would do better in protecting the horse of the greengrocer. There is a large market here where vegetables are sold every morning, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is too lazy to go so far. If he was to go to the market every morning. [No quorum.] As I said, if hon. members who are so sorry for the horses pulling the greengrocers’ carts would go every morning to the market to fetch the vegetables themselves. Then they tell me that the animals are ill-treated! Another remedy would be not to buy from the carts, but they encourage the cruelty to animals simply by being too lazy. They prefer to pay three times as much as on the market, but do not mind that the poor horse has to draw the cart. How can such men say they are in favour of protecting animals. The man who talks so piously must first practise what he preaches. How can he expect me to sympathize with his proposals? I remember a similar case during the last war. The hon. member encouraged young men to go to the war, but he took care not to risk his own skin. It reminds me of the parable of the fig tree; if it bears no fruit it must be burned. I could even understand their being concerned about the man sitting on the vegetable cart, and enquiring whether he was clean or needed medical attention. The Bill will affect persons who have absolutely nothing to do with the towns. We are afraid that if the Bill is passed, the hon. members who now so defend it will not be satisfied. We can understand that it would be useful to give a whipping, if that would effect an improvement, but it will not help at all. Much more serious things happen in the Cape than cruelty to animals. People are forced to do things in Cape Town that they do not want to. [No quorum] Cruelty to human beings takes place here. There are, e.g., girls who earn 18s. a week, and they are forced on to the streets. Are hon. members not sorry for them? Before they speak about cruelty to animals they had better first rectify those things. Let them pass an Act against ill-treating thousands of people. There are, for instance, hundreds of natives in the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) who do the work of the Europeans, and coloured persons who have the first right to it, but are out of employment. The natives rob the other workmen of the work. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) mentioned the case of a cat without a tail as an instance of the cruelty that takes place. Now I can say that in all the offices there are cats, and the people are in such a hurry to leave after working hours, and close the door so quickly behind them, that the tail of the cat is thereby cut off.

It is surprising that the farmers are opposed to the Bill and the townsmen in favour of it. I do not so much want to protest on behalf of the farmers, but on behalf of the townsmen. I differ from hon. members who say that the farmers only will get into trouble. I do not know why the other side of the House is chiefly in favour of the Bill, and we are opposed; I can only suppose that we have more sense. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) still has an opportunity of being promoted because he is such a linguist, and possesses such extraordinary brains. He will possibly become a magistrate some day, and if that happens, I shall be very sorry for the farmers who come before him for cruelty to animals. I heard last year—I do not know whether it is true—that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) was once terribly concerned about kittens being put in a bag and drowned. That is why he is so much perturbed about cruelty to animals. The townsmen will get into trouble, and we want to protect them. The townsmen put birds in cages, while farmers are willing to allow them to trek away as quickly as possible, so that they do not eat up the fruit and vegetables. Townsmen are prepared to pay £2 or £3 for a cage for a bird. I think that is one of the grossest ways of ill-treating animals. I was myself in prison for two years during the second war of independence, and I always thought of the canary that the town folk keep in cages.

You were not alone.

It is still worse if you are without companions. What is going to happen if a complaint comes in connection with a canary? Will the owner not get into trouble? What do we see on the De Waal Drive? Is worse cruelty to animals imaginable? The first to get into trouble as a result of this Bill will probably be the Government itself. It is peculiar that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), who is also surely a member of the Government, has never protested against the farmers being so badly branded that fire and smoke are caused by it. The hon. member stands there and represents that he is as clever as the drop of the gallows. The farmers are not afraid, but the townspeople will get into trouble under the Act. What about all the children who go during vacation to the farms to shoot birds? They bring airguns and thousands of plugs and shoot at the birds causing the worst cruelty that I know. Hundreds and thousands of birds are terribly wounded. Will the children be whipped? In the zoos the animals are taken from a state of nature and put into small cages, where they have to stop for the rest of their lives for the sake of the people’s pleasure. The existing law is severe enough, and nothing more is required. The law is administered too lightly. Let anyone give one instance where the extreme penalty has been applied in Cape Town during the last few years.

It seems to me that the help the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) wants to give the townspeople is entirely uncalled for. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has not stated that the farmers are cruel to the animals, or ill-treat them, and as a representative of a country constituency I want to say definitely that I am convinced that this Bill will not affect the farmer population. As far as I know him, the farmer loves animals more than anyone else does. He does not ill-treat them, but that may possibly be done by his workpeople. I consider the speech of the hon. member for Middelburg as an insult to the farmers. The hon. member casts a slur on the farmers by saying that if this Bill is passed they will suffer through it. I voted for the Bill last year and raised the matter at every meeting and all the farmers said that I did right, and that we must stop the servants from ill-treating the animals and that would be effected by the Bill. I am sorry about the objections of those members who say that they represent farmers. No magistrate in the country will have a farmer whipped because in his ordinary employment he possibly hurts animals a little. There may possibly be here and there a farmer, as well as other people, who will become liable under the Act, but in such a case we can have no sympathy. We are living in a civilized country, and the farmers are the most civilized section of the population. This Bill will not apply to them. I can quite see that the repetition of the arguments is merely with the object of wrecking the Bill. I therefore move—

Listening to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll), one would think he knew all about farming. I do not know how many animals he has ever had in his charge. The Bill is clearly intended as a protest against the cruelty to animals on the countryside, but I challenge any supporter of the Bill to come on to a platform with me and to read aloud the 1914 Act. He must also mention the penalties of £25, etc., and the new provision of corporal punishment, and inform the people that this can be given to Europeans. He must add that it is now proposed to give power to flog Europeans as well. He must say further that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) desires that when stock suffers hunger through drought their owners should be punished for it. I do not doubt what the result will be. I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is not here. What I said with regard to policemen, magistrates and judges in connection with this Bill might possibly create a wrong impression. I want, therefore, to say that it was not meant in disrespect of those persons. I have no doubt of their legal capacity. They do not know what cruelty is, except what they can infer from the evidence. They are merely sometimes not so well-acquainted with the conditions. I can assure the House that I know various judges and magistrates personally, and have every respect for them, but they cannot judge farmers’ cases.

Why not?

Notwithstanding all the legal knowledge they have, they know nothing about animals. Take, for instance, the case of the lambs whose tails have to be cut off. If a policeman who had no common sense saw it he would consider it serious cruelty. It will only cause trouble. I remember the case of a sheep farmer who had many lambs. Now hon. members who are farmers know that lambs are carried on the shoulder; to a layman this looks cruel. In this case an ignorant, meddlesome person saw it, and summoned the man before the magistrate and he was fined £2.

It seems impossible.

Yet it is a fact. The magistrate takes the word of the man who knows nothing about it. I do not say this because I despise the police.

When was the sentence inflicted?

What is the name of the man?

If hon. members are interested, I am prepared to find it out. It happened a number of years ago. I well remember it, and I will have the matter looked up. There is another interesting case. On my farm there was an Englishman just arrived from England, and I took him with me to see the ploughing. He considered it interesting that we put so many oxen before the plough, and was only sorry for the small Hottentot boy who had to drag all the twelve animals by a rein. That is a good example of the judgment by ignorant people. I hope the House will not pass the Bill, because it will only cause trouble on the countryside.

I have moved—

Mr. Chairman, you surely are not entitled to refuse that. I have not yet spoken on the subject and want to do so.

On a point of order, can the motion be debated.

I did not accept it. If the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) wishes to speak he can do so.

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll)—

Order!

I should like to know whether the debate will be closed after I have spoken.

I have not yet put the motion to the vote. The motion was made, as I have mentioned, and I will decide about it later. The debate is not yet closed.

This is not the first Bill which appears, but is not really so innocent. If the penalties in the 1914 Act have been thought insufficiently severe, and if proof was given that cruelty to animals has, notwithstanding the penalties, increased, then there will be something to say for this Bill, but the proof has not been given. I have been told that the maximum fines in the 1914 Act have never yet been imposed. The hon. member also has not proof of an increase in cruelty. When he furnishes that proof, and it appears that the penalties are not sufficiently severe, then there will still be time to introduce the Bill.

Clause, as amended, put and the committee divided:

Ayes—47.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—40.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I move—

objected.

Amendment to be considered on 9th March.

I move—

When we have such a drought as during the last few years the farmers consider and make plans to do something to alleviate the consequences of the drought. We are dealing with a comprehensive irrigation Bill. Many of the farmers go in for irrigation works, and the Government also spends millions and millions on them, but one thing is very beneficial to the farmers, especially in the Karroo, and that is boring for water. When we see the great benefit from boreholes and windpumps then I can, I think, say that it means at least just as much to the people as all the big irrigation works. By the windpumps and boreholes thousands and thousands of farmers have made a living which they otherwise could not have done. The drought has taught us that when there is a drought for two years, even the very largest dams become dry. We cannot make rain, but when the drought comes and there is good subterranean water, then in the worst periods there is always a little to give to the stock and to cultivate lucerne, so that the man and animal can be kept alive. If there are many boreholes in the stricken areas, and the people can grow lucerne and can stack it, then the losses will probably not be so great. We particularly require many boreholes in the Karroo. Experience has taught us that it is a good thing to make small camps and to have a borehole in every camp. In every camp we have a piece of land and a windpump under those circumstances, then our lucerne can grow. In prosperous years it can be stacked, and in droughts the farmer will be able to keep his stock alive in the best way, while they would die if it was lacking. Hon. members will ask why the farmers do not bore. They do so, but the Government must encourage them and support them on the £ for £ principle. If a farmer spends £50 on boreholes, the Government must support him on that principle. It is not a new one in our country. In the old Cape Government days we had the same system in the Cape Province, and many of the thousands of windpumps would not have existed to-day if it had not been for that system. If the Government will follow my advice it will assist very much in fighting the drought and enabling the farmers to look for water. Hon. members will possibly say that we should use the Government bores, but there are not enough of them and they come out too expensive. The ordinary farmer cannot afford it. The cost is too much and the result is doubtful. If the Government applies my system on a large scale, even if it costs a few thousand pounds, or £50,000 or £60,000, the money will be well spent and mean very much in the development of our country. I hope the motion will be favourably received by the Government and the House.

I second the motion. Boring for water is of the very greatest importance, and I spoke to the Minister a few days ago as to the possibility of assisting us more. He said that after the 1st April the charges for the Government bores would be less, that is, £3 10s. per day instead of £5. That is a great concession, but it will not quite solve the difficulty. In my constituency there are insufficient bores, and there are many applications waiting attention. If there were water in the stricken areas, thousands of farmers would have been saved in the drought. We must assist the farmers in boring for water by a grant on the old system of the Cape Government, so that the farmers can benefit more by the subterranean water. We feel that in this way the farmers will be able to manage with much less ground than at present. There are hundreds of large farms in my district which unfortunately have no water to-day. The farmers cannot make use of the Government bores, with the result that the ground remains uncultivated. If the Government assists on the £ for £ principle, 50 per cent. of the farmers will make use of it to bore for water. It will encourage people to get private bores, and in that way boreholes will be sunk on a large scale. I hope the motion will be passed, and that a thorough enquiry will be made whether it is not possible to adopt the proposal.

I think that all hon. members can support this motion, and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us to what extent the Government can adopt it. I feel the difficulty the Government has, but the motion should have the hearty support of every farmer. I quite agree that Government bores are not satisfactory. It is almost impossible to make use of them, the cost is too high. The Minister is making a reduction in April, and it is a great concession, but I feel that the Government should rather assist the farmer on the £ for £ principle, then many more will be benefited than by the Government bores. I am much in favour of the motion, and I hope the Government will adopt it if it is at all possible. It is one of the best proposals that could be made.

It may possibly be asked why the Government should now be expected to assist the farmers further, but I think that when everything that has already been done in this direction is remembered, then the question arises whether the people have had the full benefit of the money spent, whether the public money has actually been expended in the best way. The Minister of Agriculture will reply that the State has already spent or lost £40,000 in connection with boreholes. In considering the motion which is now under discussion, the question arises at once whether the money which is spent could not possibly be better employed. We admit that the Minister has already done much to meet the farmers by reducing the boring charges from £5 to £3 10s. per day, but we feel that the best results are not obtained with the Government bores. We all know that where the State undertakes anything it costs much more than when private individuals do it, and if this boring were rather done by the farmers themselves, and the State were to give a small grant we should obtain more and better results with the money. Especially as we now hear of artesian wells in our country. The Government should very earnestly consider the matter. The water is often only obtainable very deep, and if a great depth is gone to, it will often come to the surface. The State department is not very willing to bore deep, but if the Government gives grants for deep boring, water will probably be found in many parts. Take my constituency. There is no question of water near the surface, but it has been proved that water exists if you go deep. At Robertson the farmers bored 300 to 400 feet and found water. If the Government adopts the proposal to give grants instead of Government bores, then I think much better use will be made of waterbores. The necessity is great. We know particularly that in times of drought tremendous damage results from the stock not having water, and we know what great expense it involves if farmers have to trek to find water. If by means of bores they are enabled to remain on their own farms in times of drought, and to keep the stock alive, then much loss will be obviated. Our farmers are not fond of trekking, and if there is water on the farms then they can possibly buy a little fodder, such as mealies and other feed, and remain on the farm. This will be beneficial to the country in general, and I therefore hope the Minister will very carefully investigate the matter and enquire if no better use can be made of the £40,000 which we spend on boreholes.

As a farmer, retired after an unequal contest with nature—

I went so far as to prove, after spending £3,000 on a farm, it is possible to get £1,500 for it—and if that is not experience of farming, I do not know what can be. While fully supporting this motion I would much prefer a different system from the pound for pound one, which, after all, is bringing the first cost heavily upon the farmer, and I know what that means. I would advocate a system of deferred payments, like the American one of selling motor cars. Governments are everlasting, although I am glad that does not apply to a Cabinet, speaking particularly of the last one; therefore they can afford to borrow and give credit for 25 to 30 years, so long as they get back interest and redemption. They can afford to put down boreholes, with standard windmill pumps, and do the whole thing on the credit of the people for a small sum per month, repaying capital expenditure over a period of 25 years. That indebtedness could remain as a servitude on the farm. A really sympathetic Government—and I see my “King Charles’ head” present—could borrow the money for this purpose, and we would not see such a wretched record as that contained in the irrigation report of 1926. Since 1903, in this country which is always crying out for water, and with large stretches dependent on subterranean water, we have advanced only £1,339,000 on water boring, and there are now only 82 water boring plants owned by Government. When one knows and has seen what Queensland has done in regard to developing subterranean water, it can be realized that we have left too much to the unfortunate farmer. A really paternal farmers’ Government would have put up two or three millions to assist boring on farms, and instead of 80 bores, there might be from 300 to 400. There is a quick return from them; for the moment the farmer has water for his stock, he gets a return, which is to the advantage of the State and swells the revenue. Properly done and with standardized windmill pumps, there would be no necessity to ask any individual to put down the cash for the operation. By a circular letter from a farmer, I see in one case in the Kuruman district a borehole cost £364, and another one £900. That simply breaks a man, and it is only very wealthy farmers who can afford to pay these high charges, even if it were on the £ for £ principle. I had a somewhat unfortunate experience of water boring, and it contains a warning to others. Government officials certified a certain amount of water from several boreholes. Unfortunately, I accepted their statement, and when I sold the farm practically guaranteed that amount of water would be forthcoming. It was found, however, that the returns as furnished by the Government engineers were not dependable, and the purchaser of the farm would not pay the full amount agreed upon. The certificates furnished by Government officials are based on a forced extraction of water, but afterwards that quantity of water is not forthcoming by ordinary means. This is misleading to the farmer, and when he complains he is told that the level of the subterranean water has subsided. I hope the Government will take this matter into consideration, but I gravely doubt it, because my “King Charles’ head” simply answers “No money, and I want my reputation to go down the corridors of time as the builder up of big surpluses.” When the Minister of Agriculture retires from office he may find that he has lost his reputation for action because, for lack of money, he is not able to do what his vigorous activities would have led him to do. If ho had his way, I feel sure he would have 400 bores instead of only 86. The Government can afford to borrow a large sum of money for water boring, and to deal with the matter in a large and wholesale way. Even on the £ for £ principle, many farmers would be debarred from facing the expenditure on boreholes under present conditions. A man should be allowed to pay 10s. a month, or even less, the repayments to be spread over a long term of years. If boring is warranted at all, it should he taken up by the Government in earnest, not to play with it in the present unsatisfactory way.

I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the Government will favourably consider the motion. I hope they will not say anything which practically bars the matter. We have already spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds on State settlements, in putting people on to the countryside, increasing the farming population, in order to increase the production. On examining the estimates, I find that for the maintenance of the settlement below Hartebeestpoort £23,000 a year is paid, for that at Olifants River £7,400 and at Sundays River £11,400. The settlements, therefore, cost us a good deal, and why cannot the Government allocate a certain amount for assisting farmers to bore on the £ for £ principle? There are many farmers who could stop on their farms if they had such a system. There are many farmers in my district now practically being driven from their ground. They can no longer stay there because they cannot make a living through lack of water, and they cannot bore for lack of money. There are many people in our country as we know who are farming on property which is actually their own. They have to live on farming and they borrow the money to buy the land, sometimes the full purchase price. If there is no water on such a farm how can such a man pay £3 10s. a day for boring? If will be of great assistance to him if the Government can help him, and it will keep the people on the land. If the Government says that they are going to assist the people with money for boring on the £ for £ principle, then we shall make the country flourish, and we shall keep the people on the countryside. We have large irrigation works in our country that have cost millions and produced nothing. I mention the Bellair works. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) knows what I mean. They cost £45,000, and no interest is being paid on the money. The irrigation works at Prins. River cost £22,000, and similarly there are many other irrigation works. The Government—

No. They are some of the oldest works. The Government who borrowed that money for the irrigation works did so with a good object, and now we ask for money to be given to the farmers also with a good object. There are quite a number of people with good farms who would like to bore, but they have no money. On the branch line Hutchinson Calvinia there are about 42,000 sheep waiting along the line to be carried by rail. Water, however, is so scarce there that the locomotives can not get enough water to run. The sheep can, therefore, not he removed, and they are dying for lack of water. The farmer cannot have boring done because the charge is too much, but if the Government will now assist the people, then they will find water for their sheep, and possibly later also be able to assist the railways.

This question is closely related to the spectre of South Africa. I mean the gradual continuous drying up of our soil. Notwithstanding the good conditions given by the Government the people are often not able to make use of the opportunity given. Sometimes no water at all is found, and at other times brakish water is got which is useless as drinking water for the animals. The people cannot have boring done to-day. Even I would not be able to bore under the existing conditions. I am convinced that if in the past we had acted differently in connection with boreholes, there would not have been so many cattle lost through the drought. The water is limited on the farms, and the veld still good for grazing is overstocked by the stock. The stock suffer hunger because they cannot get to the good places. In Ladismith district one finds large farms with beautiful houses today changed into a sand desert. As the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has said, the people are leaving the countryside because it is becoming a desert. I know of a case in Barrydale where people were taken to court because they could not pay their debts for boring. They are willing enough, but not able to pay. And the people cannot undertake boring because they cannot pay for it.

Why do you not ask for all the expense of boring operations to be borne by the State?

Yes, and I will go further than the hon. member for Albert, and ask the Minister to spread the repayment over 20 years; of course, with 5 per cent. interest, and 2 per cent. redemption. It looks as if the Minister of Finance is dissatisfied at our asking for money for the farmer, but he must not forget that the farmer is the backbone of the country, and that the whole country depends on the welfare of the farmer. What then is being done to assist the farmers in their difficult times in consequence of the drought? I admit the Government has done much for the farmers, as for instance through the hoard of control of fruit export, and the reduction of railway rates, but what has been done for the drought-stricken areas? The public has hitherto given generously to collections, and I see another appeal is being made to it, but we cannot always go to the public. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) said that the big irrigation works do not pay. He also mentioned the Prins River scheme in my district. But I can assure hon. members that it is a good system and will pay well. Bellair was a failure. I do not wish to blame the last Government, because they meant well, but the expenditure was estimated at £29,000, and the actual cost £45,000. I hope the Minister and the Government will assist us.

I have noticed that not a single speaker has shown that the system suggested by the mover will be of use to the farmers. It was rightly said that the old Cape Government used the system but why did they abandon it?

Because the money was exhausted.

The fact that it almost costs more to control the system than the amounts which the Government would give. It was therefore stopped. So much is said about private bores. Do the private individuals do boring for the farmers or to fill their own pockets? Must we now go and assist those private bores on the £ for £ principle? As soon as we give grants on the £ for £ principle, the price for boring, which is to day possibly 15s. to £1, will go up to £1 5s. or more, and the Government pays for it. Not a single argument has convinced me that it is in the interests of the farmers for the Government to adopt the £ for £ principle. So much has been said that the Government does not get value for its money which almost comes down to saying that the officials of the boring department are not doing their duty. I can only say that if they show me concrete cases of a man in charge of a bore not doing his duty, not keeping to the number of hours prescribed, nor working for the full time. I will take action. The officials do their duty. Now I have here a circular which was sent to every member of the House by a certain Mr. Freyling of Kuruman, and he asks what this Government has actually done from year to year in connection with boreholes. He thinks that the Government, instead of spending more for this purpose from year to year is spending less. Just let me give the figures—£64,500 in 1923-’24. £80,300 in 1924-’25, £95,700 in 1925-’26, and £94,600 in 1926-’27. This year we are going to reduce the expenses more from £5 to £3 10s. per day for bores. Instead of gratitude, which we surely might expect for all that is being done in the farmers’ interests, the truth of the old proverb that ingratitude is the world’s reward, is again being illustrated. Now they want that further assistance should be given to private boring. Where will it end? A man who owns a bore does not work it from love of the farmer, but to make money. He buys the bore as a speculation. The attitude of these people is inexplicable to me. The same Mr. Freyling some years ago tendered for boring work, and his price went up to £2, while the Government bores come out at about £1 7s. 6d. per foot at most, which is, therefore, cheaper. It is said that in the drought-stricken districts there are not enough bores, that enough is not done in making boreholes, and that if there were boreholes there it would be a tremendous saving on the carriage of stock which would then possibly be obviated. I am sorry that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) is not here. I have a telegram from his constituency which says that the farmers are in a parlous condition, and asks ns to immediately provide bores. I telegraphed at once to the magistrate as to how many applications for bores had come in, as I thought that I should have to intervene if conditions were so terrible. The magistrate replied that not a single application for a Government bore had been made. It is very easy to criticize and to pass resolutions at meetings saying that the Government is neglecting its duties. As for boring for water the Government has now reduced the charge to £3 10s., and extended the time for payment from three to five years, and in districts which cannot pay the money has already in certain cases been in arrear for seven or eight years. This year the subsidy has even been increased from £23,000 to £43,000 in connection with water bores. Thus the Government is doing everything it has been asked to, to meet the farmers. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) said that if the £ for £ principle were allowed, and the Government made grants thereunder, the farmers would still not be able to make use thereof, because they could not pay their quota. Why then is the motion supported by the hon. member, if in the same breath he says that it will be useless, as the farmers will not be able to make use of it? The hon. member is surely not merely saying it to be able to say that he is doing something for his constituents. The hon. member contradicts himself. We give the man that bores an extension of time for payment, and we are now going so far as to make it five years. If the hon. member had moved to request the Government to extend the time of payment, then there might possibly have been something in it, and the Minister of Finance would undoubtedly have enquired if anything further could be done in that direction, but to support a motion here, and then to say at the same time that it is impracticable is surely futile. If we support the private bores, double the present price will be demanded, and the taxpayer will have to bear the burden. What happened in Robertson? Some years ago the farmers met together, borrowed money, and bought a bore. They used the bore, and I am just informed that it has been paid for and the farmers now have their own bore. Those people attained that by cooperation, and are reaping the fruits. It is said that there are not enough Government bores. I admit that there are not enough to meet the needs, but I am sending as many bores as possible to the drought-stricken areas. It will be Splendid if people followed the good example of Robertson and co-operated to buy a bore. Then it will pay for itself. Farming is just as much a business as any other branch of business, and we must learn to stand on our own feet a little. We must not always run to the Government and ask it to do this or that. We have passed the Drought Emergency Loan Act, and we are assisting the drought-stricken areas as much as we can. I have also approached the Land Bank and asked them to give the people as much grace as possible in connection with payments. The people are not being summoned, but are getting further time. The Government has not sat still, and the Department of Labour has also given assistance, while the railways have carried food and water gratis in the stricken areas. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) said that, if the Government had provided waterbores in Calvinia, the people would have seen that the Government has water to run the trains. Did the Calvinia people apply for bores? How many? We have 75 bores, of which there are only six in Kuruman, and we are withdrawing bores from Natal and the Transvaal and certain parts of the Free State where there is no drought, as much as possible, and giving them to the drought-stricken areas in the Cape Province. I think, however, that this motion will not assist the farmers at all, but only the speculators. If there had been a request to buy more bores, it would have been a practical thing the Government could consider, but the £ for £ principle will only rush up the boring charges. If I were convinced that the system would benefit the farmers, I would not hesitate to adopt it, but the proposal will not have the intended results. I know that the motion is well meant, but I feel it is impracticable, and will not assist the farmers. If my friend asked for more time for payment it would be something practical, but the system recommended by my hon. friend was tested in the past, and then appeared to be undesirable. I do not think, therefore, he is doing right in pressing the Government in this matter. It will do the farmers no good. Experience shows that as soon as a farmer strikes rock, as soon as the boring gets into difficult ground, Government bores are always applied for because they have always so far given the best results. I therefore hope the hon. member will withdraw his motion.

I think we all appreciate the value of boreholes and agree that they are necessary. We know that we cannot farm as in the old days. Experience has taught us that if we did not sink boreholes, then we should all have been ruined a few times during the last ten years. It is of the greatest importance that we should be prepared for drought. We remember the old Cape system of boring operations. It was not so much, however, to financially assist the farmers, but to teach them what value boreholes had. The question with us is whether the Government is doing enough in connection with this matter or not. I cannot do better than quote some figures. In 1926-’27 the Government spent about £150,000 on irrigation, of which £64,986, that is a round £65,000 was for water boring alone. I think the Government can be congratulated on this favourable position. Against the costs which were incurred, 720 holes were sunk during the year. The depth of the holes amounts in all to 110,000 feet. The department delivered 62 bores. I want to congratulate the Minister on that result. The advantage of the present system is—even if the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) thinks otherwise, even if he talks of thousands of animals which had to be taken to other parts through lack of water in the drought—it is still the best for the simple reason that they can get water to-day if they wish, while I am afraid that on the £ for £ principle there will not be sufficient initiative to expect success from private boring. If those people apply, the Minister will at once arrange to grant the application. As for subsidizing boring I do not think it will work so well as the existing system. I think the Government has done quite a good thing with the existing system.

I am very sorry that the Minister has taken up such an unsympathetic attitude. It is, nevertheless, encouraging that so many farmer members have supported the motion. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) said he was thankful to the Government for what it has done. I cannot understand it. We are of course all thankful to the Government, but what do the 720 boreholes amount to? They only assist a few farmers. It is like a drop in the bucket. There are farms which require 40 to 50 boreholes each.

If a farm is so large as to require 40 boreholes, then the farmer can pay for them himself.

The farms in the Karroo easily require 40 boreholes. In the Karroo the farms are subdivided into small camps, and the farmer wants a borehole for each camp. It is just the large farmers there who are threatened with bankruptcy as a result of the drought. They must be assisted. This £60,000 is spent, and the 720 boreholes will not solve the question. I honestly think that the Government must send all the bores for sale so that the people can buy them, and then the Government must assist the boring on the £ for £ principle. If the Government accepts the motion, it can decide what it will do with the bores. It will find many buyers for them. The Minister’s particular objection is apparently fear that the people boring to-day, he calls them speculators, will thereby be the only ones benefitted. I do not agree with him. They have done very useful work. The Minister said that they were boring for 15s. a foot, but in my district they bore for 5s. a foot, and if water is not found, they only charge 2s. 6d. Of course, the cost of coal, etc., which we have to supply, has to be added. This system will work much better, because it will not then be confined to a few farmers. I, myself, would not apply for a Government bore, because I am not prepared to pay £5 or £3 10s. a day, and possibly find no water. Why should I do so if I can, myself, possibly get hold of a private bore for 5s.? The £ for £ system will come out cheaper. I shall not withdraw my motion. The House will doubtless reject it after the unsympathetic attitude of the Minister, but I have done my duty, and shall not take it to a division.

Motion put and negatived.