I give notice that on Tuesday next I will move—

What is the subject?

It is under the Higher Education Act.

Are these the modified regulations?

It is about the 5 per cent.

I admit that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) had good intentions in introducing the Bill, but the tremendous opposition it is meeting with in the House is a proof that it is not in the general interest, I do not believe that there is one member in the House who is against punishing cruelty to animals, but as an hon. member has already said the existing Act is fairly severe. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) now wants to go further. At present, the maximum fine is £25 and I ask the hon. member if he can mention a single ease where this extreme penalty under the existing law has been applied. The opposition chiefly comes from the farmers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) means well, but because he has heard of one or two bad cases of cruelty to animals in Cape Town as, e.g., the case of the dog tied to the motor which he mentioned, he wants to apply the Bill throughout the country. I sympathize with the hon. member’s feelings for the animals, but we feel that he intends here to punish the farmer on the countryside as well. When the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) supported the Bill, what did he say? He thought that the farmer who lost his stock through drought should be punished because his stock died. I wish the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) would put himself in the place of the poor farmers in the Karroo who have suffered all the damage, and after he has lost all his stock, that he would say: “You had too many cattle and now you must be punished.”

I did not say that. The hon. member knows that is not true.

The hon. member said that if the farmer had too much stock and the stock died through drought he ought to be punished.

That is not true.

I want to be fair and accept that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) was not thinking of the farmers, but they are not excluded from the Bill. They come under it and if they are accused of cruelty to animals, the decision is left to the magistrate. Assume that a magistrate is of the same peculiar views as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North). What will happen to the farmer then? It must be clear to every member in the House that it is an undesirable Bill. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) thinks that it is necessary in Cape Town then he can make it applicable to the towns and not to the farmers. I do not wish to use stale arguments, but I want to point out that the farmer does not ill-treat his animals, because it is in his own interests not to do so. I hope the Bill will not get on to the Statute Book in its present form.

I want to point out to hon. members that they cannot now debate the merits of the Bill, but must confine themselves to the reasons why the Bill should be referred back to the committee of the whole House.

Perhaps we are kicking against the pricks if we are dealing with the merits of the Bill. I admit it, but we want to make a last attempt to induce the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) to make the Bill less drastic. We regard the old Act as adequate and we may not move amendments at this stage of the Bill. I hope the hon. member will allow us to put them later.

What is your amendment?

Well, I want the Bill only to apply to towns of more than 50,000 inhabitants. The reason is that the Bill is unacceptable to us because it is too severe. When I say it is unacceptable I mean that the people who will have to administer the law, and I say it with all respect to them, do not always know what cruelty is. Take, e.g., a policeman who prosecutes a farmer for using animals which are almost unfit to work although the farmer is compelled by necessity and could not do otherwise than use them. There is, in certain parts, terrible poverty among the people and, if the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) knew conditions on the countryside, he would possibly see what the animals have to be fed on in some parts to prevent them from dying and how, in their distress, they have to use animals in poor condition. The animals are terribly poor and if it happens that a farmer is compelled to span in those animals then the hon. member and possibly also a policeman would say that it was cruelty. We do not want to make out the law worse than necessary but it is too severe here in providing that a farmer can be caned if he does not deserve it, or if he does deserve it, then he has possibly been forced by necessity of circumstances to ill-treat his animals. Therefore we move that the Bill should be referred back to the committee. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) laughs when I say that, but if he and the supporters of the Bill knew conditions on the countryside, they would not insist on the application of the Bill to the whole country. There are no people who have more love for their animals than the farmers. Those who notice every day how the animals die of hunger or suffer get particularly fond of them. It is almost like the love of a blood relation. The farmer will not unnecessarily ill-treat the animal, but the people are sometimes compelled by circumstances, need and hunger to inspan their poor animals. As an instance we can mention the case of a doctor being required in the middle of the night. On the countryside we cannot, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), telephone for the doctor, and the farmer has to inspan his animals. I will not agree that 90 per cent. of the farmers have become bankrupt through the drought, they are quite solvent. The circumstances, however, make it necessary to plead for those people. As the Bill now stands, it is too severe. I have no sympathy with anyone, white or coloured, who ill-treats animals, but we some-times have extraordinary conditions on the countryside. I hope the Bill will not be passed in this form.

We are very tired of all the chatter about the countryside.

You are always tired.

No, but it seems so strange for the hon. member to say that the farmer has so much love for his animals. Then the farmer will not be in danger of the Bill being applied to him.

But he is possibly forced by circumstances to ill-treat his animals a bit.

But in parts where there is drought, we do not find such senseless magistrates who will punish the people for necessary cruelty. I think that we should now pass the Bill and I shall not assist in voting against it because I see every day how country people come into the municipalities when their wagons are too heavy to be drawn by the animals. If hon. members say that the Bill must apply to towns of 50,000 inhabitants, I want to point out that very often people come from the country to the towns and ill-treat animals such as some transport riders. In the Transvaal we also have many natives who use wagons and sometimes they have poor animals that one pities when one sees the heavy loads they have to pull. I live on the edge of the town and I can see how the carriers in the Transvaal often have thin animals in their wagons. They sometimes have small wagons that they load too heavily and they use harness which is made of wire attached by nails. The farming representatives are making it appear as if it were only the farmers who would receive corporal punishment, but hon. members must not forget that there are kinds of farmers and that there are farmers that do not always look after their animals, and if that is the case, then they must also be punished. I shall not vote for the motion to refer the Bill hack to the committee because the only object of it is to defeat the Bill.

We have had a very hard time on the countryside and I feel that I should be neglecting my duty if I did not support the motion by which alterations can be made in the Bill. I think that we cannot reform a man with the cat or the cane. Cruelty can only be remedied by education. Corporal punishment is, I think, very extreme, and I have never yet heard of a man being improved by it. It makes no difference whether a man is white or coloured or a native, flogging will not reform him. I do not think we ought to put that punishment into the Statute Book. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) favours the Bill, but he is not a farmer.

Come to my farm and have a look.

Yes, the hon. member tries to farm with geese and when he tries to pluck them he will be caned under the new Bill. Plucking of geese is one of the greatest cruelties, but it is an existing right of farmers to pluck their geese just as a farmer may shear his sheep. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) wants to teach the farmer how to pluck his sheep and shear his geese then he has to learn a good deal. If the hon. member is against cruelty to animals then he must raise his voice against those customs which are permitted to-day. Hon. members said that there is no serious intention in the motion to refer the Bill back, but I can assure them that we are very much in earnest and that we are not obstructing, but we feel that neither the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) nor the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is acquainted with the circumstances on the countryside, and therefore the Bill ought perhaps only to be applied to the towns. I want to warn the hon. member against the danger of their children possibly coming into conflict with the Bill by accident when it becomes law, in which case it might happen that they might be caned. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) mentioned an accident the other day by which the horns of oxen were broken. If I were to be caned for that, I should declare war. We have heard here in the House that we now have the right to declare war, and if I were to be caned then I would declare war against the hon. members for Cape Town (Harbour) and Bloemfontein (North). I should know who to look for. I appeal to the supporters of this Bill to give us a chance of referring the Bill back to the committee so that it may be in a form in which it will not be a danger to the farmers.

I think nothing could convince us more of the necessity of referring the Bill back than the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). He said he was tired of all the talk. I do not mind if he faints, but I stand here as a representative of the farmers. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) wants the poor transport rider to be flogged. That man actually has a very hard time, and the hon. member wants, when the transport rider comes to town, that he should get into trouble for cruelty to animals. If the poor man’s donkeys are a little lean and he uses the whip he will be flogged. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) gave us a very good reason the other day for insisting that the Bill shall be referred back. I am surprised that he will not vote with us. He expressly said that it happened to him personally, without his fault, that an animal was ill-treated, that it was unavoidable, but if this Bill is passed he will run a danger of being flogged. I will give my reasons why I am in favour of the motion to refer it back. I also feel that there are people in the towns who ill-treat animals in such a way that they deserve flogging, but my difficulty is that the persons administering the law will not always be able to judge what is wilful and what not. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has somewhat met my objection by providing that the cruelty must be wilful, but yet I feel the objection that it might happen that something was considered as wilful which was not actually so, and that an innocent man might get into trouble. Therefore we ought to accept the way out proposed by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert). Our farmers do not commit cruelty to animals, but it happens in the towns that cats are burnt, dogs ill-treated, and other terrible things occur, and I am prepared to meet the hon. member and to make it possible for such people to be severely punished, but I think that he in turn should also meet us and accept the amendment. We, as representatives of the countryside, know what is required there and also what is not necessary. We want to protect the farmers and prevent them from getting into trouble through anyone not knowing and not being able to judge what is wilful cruelty and what not. The terrible things that sometimes occur in towns must be punished, and I want to assist the hon. member in that, but we must not bring the farmers into danger.

I take it for granted that we must assume that much of the opposition from the other side is sincere. But hon. members opposite are now taking up the impossible position that farmers should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, because, by inference from their arguments, they are the chief culprits. Let us vote directly on the issue now. Some more drastic method than that now available is essential to stop this brutal cruelty to animals. If hon. members opposite saw the S.P.C.A. exhibit, at the Rosebank Show, of implements of torture used by mule, donkey and horse drivers, I don’t think there is one of them who would hesitate to vote for a Bill to empower magistrates to inflict corporal punishment in cases of aggravated cruelty. That exhibit was the most appalling collection of instruments of torture I have seen for many years. The exhibits included whips made of bicycle chains and barbed wire; also implements for killing animals—hammers, prospecting picks and stones, while there are instances of people hammering animals’ heads to a pulp in order to kill them. So as to put these unfortunate creatures out of their misery, the owners inflicted the grossest cruelty. The House ought by this time to be in a state of mind to say “yes” or “no” to this Bill. As a farmer I resent very strongly the statements made by hon. members opposite that farmers are to be the main sufferers under the Bill, and the implication therefore given out by them that farmers are cruel in their treatment of animals. I absolutely deny that. With regard to statements that magistrates will not be fair to farmers if charged under this Bill, I cannot imagine any magistrate convicting a man of aggravated and gross cruelty unless it is both aggravated and gross. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) moved an amendment which I think meets the case entirely, and I see no necessity for referring the Bill back to committee.

The hon. member who has just spoken asked if we were serious. Of course we are. As farmers dealing with animals, we feel that any wilful cruelty ought to be punished. I was unfortunately not present during the previous debate on the Bill and I can now unfortunately move no amendment. This Bill gives large powers to the magistrate. The magistrate can impose a fine of £25 or imprisonment with or without hard labour for three months or such imprisonment without the option of a fine. According to the existing law, therefore, the magistrate can impose imprisonment without the option of a fine and if that is not severe enough, then the mover of the Bill should rather have made the provision more severe. There is a certain distinction between ill-treatment of and cruelty to animals when they are used. I think that if the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) and other hon. members had induced the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to fulfil its duty better, the position would long since have been improved. In consequence of its own laxity the society is probably responsible for this Bill being before parliament. We see many cases of cruelty in this town. I do not so much refer to the correct ill-treatment with the kierie or something sharp, but cruelty in the daily use of animals. There are, e.g., the hansom cabs in Cape Town. The animals sweat when they stand down in Adderley Street, practically between heaven and earth. The whole weight of the vehicle and the driver sitting at the back presses up against the breast of the animal. Cape Town is very hilly and such vehicles ought not to be allowed. They were intended for a town like London where the streets are level. There are other forms of cruelty to animals. The other day I was looking at a number of animals drawing scotch carts at Three Anchor Bay. One can see them there every day and notice how the animals when fed, they can hardly stand still. Their feet are sore from walking on the hard asphalt streets and they can no longer stand still. The magistrate can impose a severe punishment under the present law and I say, frankly, that I have no confidence in all the magistrates. I am sorry to say it, but in many cases, magistrates are inclined, when Europeans such as farmers appear before them, to punish them for cruelty to animals when a farmer was possibly engaged. e.g., in taming an animal, while in the case of a native, they often give them “the benefit of the doubt.” That is the truth and nothing else. I say that the penalties are severe and hon. members should first insist outside the House that the S.P.C.A. should exercise its influence more in the towns, and people who are guilty of cruelty should be punished. We can, also, if the provisions are not strong enough, make an alteration if the Bill is referred back to the committee. It is laid down here, e.g., if a man cannot pay a fine, he can do so by instalments. We can perhaps delete that and provide that he must do so at once. It will frighten him if he has to pay £10 at once, but if he can do so in 10 monthly instalments, it will not be much of a punishment to him

I would not have entered into this debate again if it had not been for the fact that certain members on the other side of the House who have fired their shots and run away have, quite wrongly and unfairly, dragged my name into the debate. They know it is wrong and unfair. They pretend to say that I said the farmer should be whipped.

No, they said punished.

No, whipped. I can understand Afrikaans, too. The hon. member must not try to get out of things which were said. He said I said “whipped” with a lash, because certain farmers could not feed their stock. It is untrue, and they know it. I said there were certain people who had stock they could not feed. There are dozens of people, and they try to make out that these unfortunate people in Prince Albert and Graaff-Reinet who have had drought for years and have lost everything should be whipped. They know that is untrue and unfair. What a case they must have if they have to drag that in, and what a gentlemanly thing to do. They know in their hearts it is untrue and unfair, and they know it will be spread through the platteland. I know they would like to damn me, but they will have a difficulty. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) says with flippancy and levity that he will go to war. I don’t know how many wars the hon. member has been in. What do you want to go to war for?

He said, “If I got a whipping.”

He said he would go out and raise a rebellion. Will the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) allow me to say what he said. He said, “if he was whipped under the Bill.” Will the hon. member allow me to speak. The hon. member takes upon himself to lecture everybody, and he is not such an extraordinary man that he is able to lecture everybody, in fact he is very, small beer in this House. The hon. member is a legislator, and if he breaks the law, and he is punished under the law, he says he will at once raise a rebellion or a war. That is a nice sort of legislator; a fine class of man to come to Parliament.

Is that cricket?

The hon. member is sitting there and the hon. member knew he was going to be replied to, and I don’t know why the hon. member (Mr. Steytler) is replying for him. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) lifts up his brain and says we are going to punish all the farmers. He knows that is not true. He is not playing the game with the farmers. He is trying to make out that the farmer in South Africa is a cruel man. He knows the farmer of South Africa is the opposite of cruel. This hon. gentleman says that if this goes through the farmer will be whipped. How is it the farmer does not appear before the courts to-day? The farmer is not going through the country destroying animals, and here we have a representative of the farmers saying that if this law is passed the farmer will be whipped. It is an insult to the farmer.

You cannot speak for the farmers.

Whether I can or not, remarks are made by members on the other side that if the Bill goes through, farmers will be whipped, and that is an insult to the farmers. You might just as well say that if a law goes through this House that thieves shall be punished, the farmer will be punished. That would also be an insult to the farmer. It is a most extraordinary thing for hon. members to get up here and say “We represent the farmers of South Africa, we stand for the platteland, and if this Bill goes through our constituents will be whipped.” That is an insult to your constituents and it is an insult to the farmers. I represent some farmers and I protest against this insult. I am sorry about the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood). I have always looked upon him as a just and broadminded man, a man who, I think, has got a future in politics in this country. The hon. member has taken upon himself to do a thing which no member of Parliament should do. He has attacked the bench, he has attacked the magistrates in this House, knowing very well that there are no magistrates here who are able to reply to him. It is not fair. It is not right. It is so easy for the hon. member to get up in this House and say that there are a large number of magistrates in South Africa who are no good or that there are a few who are no good. Taking it right through, we are particularly lucky in having a good bench of magistrates, most of them Dutch-speaking. Once again you insult your own people.

I asked you would you be satisfied if I showed you certain sentences that have been pronounced by magistrates.

That is not what the hon. member said. He endeavoured to tell this House that when a magistrate tried a white man he was harsh. That is not true. It is an attack on the magisterial bench of this country. Will the hon. member get up and give me the name of the magistrate? When we asked the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) for the name of a magistrate who was supposed to have done these extraordinary things, he said: “We have got the name of the magistrate.” He has never given it to us yet, and he has had two weeks to give it. Then again the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, who, I understand, is a really good farmer and quite a leading man in his district, said that the South African police today are men who would arrest farmers for cruelty to animals without knowing what cruelty to animals meant, and that they had had no experience of the platteland. Now 95 per cent. of the police of South Africa to-day are Dutch-speaking boys. Another insult to the Dutch-speaking people of South Africa. Of that 95 per cent. you can say that at least 90 per cent. come from the platteland. Colonel Sir Theo Truter told me that he had to-day a police force which is better than any police force he had ever had in South Africa before, and he was glad to say they were all sons of the soil. They were nearly all men who could speak both languages. The mounted police, I am told, are equal to the very noted police on the Canadian frontier. Yet hon. members over there sneer at them, at our own people, and say they are a lot of ignorant people who do not know the difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. It is not fair to those boys who come from the platteland, driven through drought and other things. No, if this is all that can be said against this law in regard to cruelty to animals, their case is very weak. When asked what their amendment is they say: “Our amendment is this, that only in towns of over 50,000 people shall the cruelty of animals law come into force.” That is an insult to your people again. You want to contract out of the law. No decent citizen wants to contract out of the law. Only the people in the big towns must be whipped if they are cruel to animals. The people in the small towns must go free. As most of us live in the small towns, they are insulting us. You get your votes in the small towns. Legislators come here and say: “We shall have a class distinction. The man who is a citizen of a big city shall be whipped for a thing, but the citizen of a small town shall go free.” That is class legislation. I think hon. members on the other side will be very sorry for this. There has been a fair case put up on the other side by men who said: “I am against this law, I do not believe in whipping for anything.” Other men on the other side have said: “You will never stop cruelty to animals by whipping.” That is a fair statement. I object, as a South African born and bred here, to the insults you are putting on our people. I am sorry that hon. members on the other side should have let down their own people so badly this afternoon.

The hon. member who has just spoken keenly wants to save the honour of the farmers, and says the attitude we are taking up insults the farmers. I think the hon. member may leave it to the farmers to speak about it. I do not know whether the hon. member is a farmer, but if he had our experience he would talk differently.

He also represents farmers.

Let him go to his farmers and ask them to approve of his attitude. No farmer will approve of it. The hon. member says that I am a small man in the House, but he is so very big that it seems to me that he wants to run away from his own constituents. It does not matter how small I am in his eyes, but I just want to say that I have always stood up for the farmers, and always belonged to one party and have not, in politics, run away from the one party to the other. I take it that the hon. member when he made his well-known statement, did not mean that all the farmers who had stock, that they could not feed, should be flogged. I assume that the farmer who is prevented by drought from giving sufficient fodder to his stock should not be punished in his opinion. I take his word now for that, but the hon. member who states that we are not fair in our criticism makes himself very guilty of it. He said that the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) stated that if he were punished under the Act he would instigate a rebellion amongst the thousands of people he represented. The hon. member did not say that, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) ought to know it. The hon. member for Bechuanaland said that if he were punished he would declare war on the two hon. members for Cape Town (Harbour) and Bloemfontein (North). Is that fair criticism? He can teach us nothing about farming and we know what takes place on a farm, and what danger we run if this Bill is passed. The hon. member says that we are insulting the magistrates. I have the greatest respect for the magistrates, but if we were to find one amongst them like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), who just runs away with any idea and such a magistrate prosecutes us, and even one farmer is punished and whipped, then I say that it is an insult to all farmers. Because we want to prevent the humiliation of the farmers we insist on the Bill being amended.

I had not intended to speak on this question, but in view of the remarks that have been made as to the possible operation of this Act and its administration by the magistrate, I think I may fairly make a few remarks. I protest against the remarks of the hon. member for Barberton imputing to the majority of magistrates a disposition to punish European offenders and acquit natives. There is no doubt that the tendency of the operation of the Act is to cause the punishment to fall more often upon the native than upon the European. I do not contend that that is in any way due to the magistrate, or that the magistrate is to blame for it, but, so far from agreeing with the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), I totally disagree with his contention. In the very nature of things, the person who instructs a native to use certain animals is very often neglectful of their condition and the native is the man who is actually charged before a magistrate and very often unmerited punishment falls upon him that should really fall upon the owner of the animal. I do not mean to say that the native should escape scot free for his own wilful cruelty, but there are cases in which he is compelled to use the animals when they are not in a fit condition to be used, and I know of cases in which natives have received punishment under those circumstances. There is another matter which is of considerable importance, and that is the proposed operation of the Act as we intend to pass it here to-day. It provides for the punishment by lashes for aggravated offences of cruelty, but we have to rely very largely upon the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals for the discovery of most of the cases of cruelty, and I wish to draw attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs existing, or said to exist, in regard to the Cape Town society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. The matter was referred to by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), who stated, quite truthfully, that we have abundant evidence that that society does not possess the confidence of the public. So clear has that lack become that a requisition signed by the necessary number of subscribers—

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not think that should be discussed now. The question is whether this should be referred back to the committee of the whole House, and that is the question which is under discussion. The hon. member cannot discuss the society in Cape Town on this motion.

Is it not open for me at this stage to discuss the possibility of the powers we propose to give under this Act being misused or being mis-applied through favouritism on the part of the societies for the prevention of cruelty?

I think that would be better on the third reading. At present we are only discussing the question of referring the Bill back to committee.

I would like to make a personal explanation. It appears I have misunderstood the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer), and I would like to express my regret to him for what I said. I misunderstood what he said; he has just told me and I would like to withdraw what I said and express my regret.

The reason I am against this Bill and in favour of referring it back is this: There is a great principle involved about which I feel very strongly, and that is the question of whipping. I strongly protest against whipping.

Will the hon. member kindly confine himself to his reasons why the Bill should be sent back to committee.

I want it referred back because I want to have that out.

It is not necessary if that is all the hon. member wants. The motion to recommit the Bill is in order to bring in other amendments. The one indicated by the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) is to confine this Bill to cities.

But why should we confine it to cities? That is why I wish to explain the matter. No one on this side of the House is against punishing cruelty to animals, and I think we all feel that, and I think it is wrong to try and make it appear that we on this side feel that cruelty must not be punished. We wish it to be punished as far as possible. I feel that we on this side of the House also will not make sweeping statements and I am sure the hon. member who spoke about magistrates means certain exceptions and the same with police. It is always said that we who are opposing this Bill are making these statements. We feel that that is not so. I feel these sweeping statements should not be made. We, on this side, just as much as anyone else, want to punish cruelty, but it is just that we feel the principle of the Bill is wrong.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—48.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, G.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Nicholls, G. H.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—40.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff. L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers. P. C.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick. M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Hugo, D.; Vermooten, O. S.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Mostert dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

On amendment in Clause 1,

A great deal has been said by hon. members as to their pity for the animals. I do not believe that whipping will improve any man. There are societies in all large towns that deal with cruelty to animals. They do not always have a good name on the countryside and in a large town. I have a letter here from someone which states that if those who look after cruelty to animals are only well paid, they look another way. I should like to read it out; the man does not conceal his name, and I am prepared to show it to any member of the House.

Who is he?

I can give the hon. member the assurance that he does not climb into a tree when the wild dogs attack him. [Letter read.] It appears, therefore, that bribery is taking place, and if that is so, we ought to be very careful. If people belonging to those societies go round to drag money out of people, then I can never agree to this Bill. The letter says that the society gets half of all fines imposed by the court. This may be a good source of income for the societies. If a Bill is passed here, the societies will also get half the whippings. Will the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), take half of the whippings on himself. In the letter it is said that when animals are ill-treated and a man can pay, then he escapes, but if he cannot pay a ransom he is prosecuted. Now hon. members say that we are insulting the farmers. I have a letter from a farmer which reads as follows—

At the end he says he regrets that he is not one of my constituents. I have another letter here from a minister of religion, who proclaims a man of love and peace, and who certainly would not ill-treat animals. He also congratulates me and he is a parson in no less a place than Durban. The present law provides a fine of £25, but we never hear of larger fines than £2 or £3 for cruelty to animals. If I look at the few petty cases which come before the court in a large city like Cape Town, then I must conclude that there is not so much cruelty to animals. Let hon. members give me a case where the extreme penalty of £25 was imposed. Are hon. members opposite honest? I think the Bill will be a blot on our statute book.

I cannot allow the statements made by the hon. member opposite to go unchallenged. What he has read from that letter with regard to the alleged wrongful actions of the Johannesburg Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a tissue of lies from one end to the other. The hon. member has concealed the name of his correspondent—

You can have it whenever you like.

There is a lot of truth in it.

The accusation that the society does certain wrongful things and takes action to make money is a deliberate falsehood.

It has actually happened and I can explain it to him.

I have been chairman of that committee for 12 years, and on that committee are some of the foremost citizens of Johannesburg.

I am not speaking of Johannesburg particularly.

I am concerned in regard to the Johannesburg society only, and I am expressing resentment at the false charge against the Johannesburg society, and I challenge the correspondent to come outside and make the charges now made indirectly inside this House. I suggest to the hon. member that a sense of decency—

The hon. member must moderate his language.

It would have been the gentlemanly course if the hon. member had brought that letter to me and asked me the meaning of it, but he comes here and, to bolster up wilful obstruction, he reads this letter to poison the minds of members against this wholesome and necessary legislation. There are some cases of cruelty for which whipping is the only corrective. We have had precedents of that kind before, and there is a class of human being to whom nothing but brute force will appeal. They are generally cowards. In cases where men have lived on the immorality of women, whipping has been the only effective punishment. Similarly in the regard to garrotting. I am as much opposed to whipping as anybody. I think it is degrading, but there are certain cases of deliberate and wilful cruelty, where a man is so devoid of any feeling of pity or humanity that nothing will appeal to him except a taste of the same punishment he inflicts. There were cases I cited the other day, pouring boiling water on a dog, flogging a horse to death, tying a dog to a motor car and dragging it for miles and miles. You cannot deal with cases of that sort merely by fines and imprisonment. If the circumstances do not warrant whipping, whipping will not be imposed. Magistrates have said, time and time again, that whipping would be the proper punishment, and they regretted the law did not give them the power to inflict it. I have risen, in the strongest language I can command, to express my condemnation of the contents of that letter, and to call them a tissue of lies and to challenge the correspondent to repeat the charges the letter contains outside the House.

How do you appoint your inspectors?

One of the members of the Johannesburg S.P.C.A. is the Government veterinary surgeon, another is a magistrate and another is a representative of the railway administration. The society took up the question of the better treatment of animals in transit by rail, and they even successfully prosecuted, inter alia, a station master. To further protect animals in transit, the railway authorities were asked to appoint a nominee on the S.P.C.A. executive, and being in immediate contact with the executive, he was and is able to do a great deal for the more humane treatment of animals on the railways. This is a matter the Johannesburg S.P.C.A. has been pressing for years. A commission was appointed with regard to the subject and on the strong representations of the society the commission recommended that an officer should be appointed to regulate the transportation of live stock. At present it is left to every station master or foreman. A recommendation made by this committee was that as there was an officer appointed to regulate the transportation of grain, it was equally necessary to appoint someone to be head of the transportation of live stock. I felt impelled to get up in view of this serious charge made without revealing the name of the correspondent and by just airily reading a letter as if it were gospel truth.

And I believe it too.

You would believe anything bad I think. If you believe it, repeat it outside and you will get your lesson. With regard to the appointment of inspectors, as far as the Johannesburg S.P.C.A. is concerned, there are at present four inspectors who have been very carefully selected. The chief inspector is an ex-police inspector, and has served in the force for over 25 years, I believe. He is a man with a very fine record, a fine presence and with a humane character. Under him are the other inspectors, carefully selected from applicants after consultation with and approval by the executive. The gentlemen of the executive who carry on this work do not do it for self-glorification. The job really ought to be done by the State. So far from these men being held up to obloquy here, and charged with trying to extract money from others by tortuous ways, they ought to be admired. I do not think anybody will support the views of the hon. member opposite. I thought it my duty to make this statement, and I do not believe anybody else would follow the hon. member in the wrong course which he has adopted.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) brought matters before the House which ought to lead to the House dealing still more carefully with this matter. I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), will give his attention to them. I hope the hon. member will enlighten us a little as to the accusation against the S.P.C.A. If it is a fact that the societies get a share of the fines imposed, then we have to do with a serious point in connection with this Bill. If people are getting personal advantage from cases which come before the court, then I strongly protest against this Bill, and we should not proceed any further with it. The magistrate already has the power of imposing heavy fines, but if we increase the punishment, the position will then be much more serious under this Bill. If already personal benefit is being got out of convictions, then the danger will be much greater still after the passing of this Bill.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but after the letter read by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) containing those wild and reckless charges against two of the most deserving bodies in this country, the Johannesburg Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Cape Town Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I wish to join with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) in expressing indignation at the recklessness with which the hon. member for Namaqualand dared to make these charges before the House. They have got nothing to do with the case, and the hon. member knows it. Without going into the merits of the internal troubles that have taken place in the society down here, I wish to say as strongly as I can that the statements made in that letter are, in my opinion, a series of reckless, false statements as far as the society down here is concerned.

I can quite appreciate the warm feelings of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I am as much in sympathy with the S.P.C.A. movement as the hon. member is, and I can also appreciate the feelings of the hon. member for Hospital when he stated that, in his opinion, speaking broadly, the allegations read out by the hon. member on this side were a tissue of falsehoods.

So far as concerns the Johannesburg S.P.C.A.

And so far as concerns the Cape Town S.P.C.A.

I am not going to bring on to the floor of the House detailed accusations, but I have it on the very best authority that the S.P.C.A. throughout the country—I am not going to mention any particular town—is in need of immediate reorganization, and that things are taking place there—

Where?

I will give the hon. member details off the floor of the House.

The Johannesburg S.P.C.A. is in no need of re-organization.

In reply to the hon. member for Rondebosch, I would like to say that I do not think this question immediately concerns this Bill, and so I am not going to bring up any details here. I merely broached this subject in reply to what the two hon. members had said. What I have said I deemed it necessary to say in the public interest. I am as much in favour of the work of the S.P.C.A. as these hon. gentlemen are, but I do not think their statement should go out to the country uncontradicted. It is necessary that re-organization should take place. As regards the Bill, I may say that I have already tried to persuade hon. members sitting on my side that my amendment was drafted with the sole object of avoiding any possible abuse by magistrates of the proposed law. I think that as the original Bill stood when it was brought in by my hon. friend, there was a danger, and I accordingly moved that the word “aggravated” should go into the Bill. I think it is now safe.

I accepted that. What more do you want?

Let me once more impress upon members on this side of the House that in the past magistrates have had the power of inflicting imprisonment in cases of cruelty, and I do not think any hon. members on this side of the House could point to a single case of abuse. If I knew of such a case of abuse, where a farmer or anybody else had been wrongly sentenced by a magistrate under the law as it now exists, I still would listen to their argument, but, in spite of the fact that magistrates have had the power of inflicting imprisonment, I know of no case of abuse, and, therefore, I would ask why in the future should a magistrate abuse the law if the law is altered in the way that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) wishes to alter it? I do think that hon. members on this side of the House are putting themselves in a very bad light in this matter. There is no need, I am convinced, of protecting the farmer here. The farmer does not need protection. It is in the nature of a tilting at windmills, rather a Quixotian attitude that hon. members on this side have taken up. In those few cases where one can imagine that the magistrate might decide wrongly, there is always the Court of Appeal. In any event, cases, in which whipping forms part of the sentence, are sent up automatically for review. Let me point out to hon. members again on this side that the law enables magistrates to punish common assault with imprisonment There is such an offence as aggravated assault, and in such cases the magistrate can order the offender to be whipped. As in my amendment, so in cases of aggravated assault, special circumstances have to be proved before a whipping can be given. If the argument of my hon. friends on this side of the House holds good, that there could be an abuse against the farmer, so I say in ordinary cases of assault—and the bench is exactly the same—the magistrate may go wrong, and yet my hon. friends here do not object to the fact that the magistrate has the power to whip for aggravated assault. If I believed, for a moment, that this law could be turned against the farming section of the community, I would be with my hon. friends all the way. But I do not believe it, and for that reason I have brought in this amendment to make the position safer, and for that reason I must still insist on voting for this measure.

The letter which the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) read throws a very different light on the opposition in connection with the protection of animals. An hon. member said that they were “wild and reckless” statements. Let us go into the matter a little closer to see if that is so. The writer of the letter says that half the fines, in the case of conviction for cruelty to animals, goes to the S.P.C.A.—the association which prevents cruelty to animals. Is the hon. member prepared to deny that?

It is the law.

If he admits it, then it is not a “wild and reckless” statement. The hon. member admits that this part of the letter is absolutely true. There are other statements which were not read by the hon. member for Namaqualand. He was much too discreet. Much more could be got out of this letter to support the attitude of the hon. member. I shall quote something more from it. I want to add that the letter was properly written and dated in Johannesburg. [Letter read.]. There is, therefore, another statement which the hon. member did not read and which can easily be followed up. He says that Attorney-General de Villiers in 1921 asked Inspector Frames of the Cape to investigate certain complaints which the writer of the letter made against the S.P.C.A. in Johannesburg. Within a short time the inspector had a number of cheques in his possession showing that bribes had been paid. He says that the S.P.C.A. was better than a gold mine. These are probably possibly slightly exaggerated statements, but names are mentioned of persons like Attorney-General de Villiers and Police-Inspector Frames, from whom further information can at any time be obtained.

They are all lies.

But the hon. member admits the first statement, viz., that half the fines are paid and how can he say that it is all lies?

I know the facts.

The hon. member possibly does not know all the facts. The charges are so serious that a detailed enquiry is necessary. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water), who was always in favour of the Bill, admits that the drift of the letter, in the main, is correct, and that the re-organization of the S.P.C.A. is necessary. If half the contents of the letter is true, then, not only would the Bill be a blot on our statute book, but the Act would make the unhealthy position that exists to-day still worse.

What right have you to accept the statements in the letter?

What right have I to deny the truth of them? The person who wrote the letter is not a politician. He, therefore, has no interest in putting one side of the House in wrong, because, as he says, he belongs to no party, hardly ever votes, and sells boots. The fact is that this letter is a definite allegation. I want to read another extract from it. [Extract read.] Three cases are, therefore, mentioned where inspectors were bribed and when the writer of the letter wrote and asked the S.P.C.A. what they were going to do, the reply was “Nothing”.

Do you know the man?

No. I must say that I do not know the writer of the letter, but his English and his handwriting are good, and there are certain facts in the letter which no one here denies.

I deny them.

The hon. member admits that half the fines go to the society. What reason have I then to assume that the writer is telling untruths when it is acknowledged that certain statements are not imaginary. The hon. member says I must accept his statement, but the hon. member can also err, and I want to point out to him that the names of Attorney-General de Villiers and Police-Inspector Frames are referred to, and they can be subpoenaed any day to testify as to the accuracy thereof. I am convinced that the hon. member for Namaqualand is prepared to hand over the letter to any hon. member who doubts its authenticity, just as he has handed it to me. We can apply this Bill to people like the natives who have not an inborn love for animals that we have.

The native loves the animals just as much as you.

I maintain that the native does not have our inborn love for the animals. I have myself seen proof of this, but, because I have the same love of animals as the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius), I am not prepared to vote for a Bill which, as a result of something which is not wilful cruelty, may cause me a whipping. I think that it is time that the House should seriously consider the matter, and that members who were slightly in favour of the Bill, and who, I believe, have a strong feeling for justice, will not allow justice to be defeated by people who have possibly a few pounds interest in a conviction. I, therefore, move—

The hon. member cannot do it now.

I am sorry, but I want to say this—that I hope hon. members who were still hesitating will now vote with us. I have just heard that it is, perhaps, possible to move that progress be reported.

The House is not in committee. The hon. member can move the adjournment of the debate.

If that is the only thing possible, I move—

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—35.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

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.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Hattingh, B. R.; Hugo, D.

Noes—49.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Motion for adjournment of debate accordingly negatived.

I wish to point out to hon. members that the debate must be strictly confined to the amendment, that is, cruelty of a wilful and aggravated nature.

Amendment in Clause 1 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 23rd March.

I move—

seconded.

I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 23rd March.

I move—

I see there is no Minister to make the proposal and I think in the absence of my leader that it would be the proper thing for me to do. There are eleven Ministers of the Crown, but we have the extraordinary spectacle of not one of them being in his place.

seconded.

The hon. member said he was moving the adjournment of the House because no Minister was present. I ask him why Ministers should remain when two private Bills, which have been debated several times, are on. Ministers have other important work and cannot sit here to listen to all the arguments again.

Motion put; upon which the House divided:

Ayes—36.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—57.

Alexander, M.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

I want to say a few words in connection with the discussion which has taken place on this particular clause, I wish to explain again, as I did on the second reading debate, that this clause has been inserted here because we want to really open existing schools which were exclusively used for indigent children, also the children of parents who are able to pay of the well-to-do classes. Take, for instance, the existing agricultural school, which is now under the Education Department, at Tweespruit in the Free State. When I visited that institution a few years ago I was approached by farmers of the neighbourhood, well-to-do farmers, who appreciated very much the instruction that was given at that school in agriculture, and they asked whether that school where only poor children were admitted—the Government paid everything in connection with that school—could not be open to them. My reply was: “I think it is a very good thing if you want to make use of these privileges for these children, but then you must pay, you are in a position to pay, and I think you ought to pay,” and they said they were willing to pay. That is only an instance which I mention here to show the necessity of a provision of this kind. I want to open schools which were practically closed to the children of the more well-to-do classes.

Why are they closed now?

Simply because it is a bad principle for the Government to give free education to the children of such parents who are able to pay. I cannot face Parliament every year with a big increase on the education vote, and tell Parliament, at the same time, that a big portion of that money is being spent to provide educational facilities for people who can pay, and who ought to pay. That is the principal reason why we have incorporated this clause. There has been a discussion, chiefly on the part of hon. members representing Transvaal constituencies, on the question of free technical education generally. That is a matter, I should say, which, in the first place, ought to be discussed not on this Bill, but on the estimates, because, after all, this Bill does not introduce any new departure as far as that is concerned. The principle of the payment of fees in the case of parents who can pay has been actually introduced and has been in operation for some years, and that is a matter that has been dealt" with administratively, and can be dealt with on the estimates. Let me further say that the grievance of hon. members who have spoken on this particular point is not so much in connection with any school that falls under this particular Bill. Their grievance is in connection with the technical institutes in Johannesburg and Pretoria, the only technical institutes existing in the Transvaal, and none of these institutes or schools existing under the Government fall under this Bill. They are controlled under the Act which was passed in 1923. On that account, therefore, I do not think this is the proper place to raise this question. If I have to enter into any discussion in regard to free technical education, I would say this, that for technical education to-day we have one uniform system throughout the whole Union, and it must be evident to every hon. gentleman that it is impossible, in one province, to have education free and in another province to make people pay for the education. It may be possible under the provincial arrangement, but it is not possible under the Union arrangement.

Make them all free.

The only alternative is to make them all free, but, as I said before, it may be good in theory—I do not think it is good in theory—but if it is good in theory, I say it is absolutely impossible in practice, because I have already taken steps of which I gave information to Parliament last year, steps of which I have again given notice this afternoon in the House, to reduce considerably the automatic increase in the higher education vote every year, technical institutes included, and I do not think it will be possible for me to face Parliament, which will be necessary if we introduce free technical education, with a very big additional increase in the education vote every year. I do not think any Minister will be able to do that. As far as technical education is concerned, I do not think that hon. members have any cause, or the country generally has any cause, for complaint. We began, a few years ago, when I assumed office, in connection with this department, with 4,000 pupils in our technical institutes. In four years’ time that has been increased to over 16,000. So we have made tremendous progress, and I do not think there is any cause for complaint. We have extended the facilities for technical education to practically all parts of the country where it is possible to have such technical education. If we give all this technical education free, then hon. members must realize what the result will be. I cannot face Parliament with such a tremendous increase in the education vote. The result will be that we will have to cut down the facilities which are now given, especially to the poorer people in the country, to have that sort of training for their boys and girls, and the one who will eventually suffer will be the child of the poor man. For that reason I do not think hon. members should insist on that, seeing that in any case it is an impossibility, at this stage, at any rate.

made an interjection.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), I think, has pointed out that while every student in our universities costs the State, I believe he said £82, it costs the State £9 only for every student in a technical institute. As I pointed out here to the hon. gentleman while he was speaking, you cannot compare the two. In connection with professional education in our universities, you have to do with full-time students, and in our technical institutes they are practically all part-time students. In the one case the student attends classes for at least five hours every day of the week. In the technical institutions they attend, as a rule, only for one hour a day. That makes a big difference, and for that reason you cannot compare the two, and the cost in the one case must be so much lower than in the other. I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). I hope the hon. member won’t insist on that, because, if accepted, that motion has implications which the hon. member has probably not seen. In the case of physically or mentally defective children he wants the State to shoulder the whole financial responsibility for the care of such children.

You do it for ordinary children in primary education.

There again it is not a fair comparison. The hon. gentleman wants to introduce a principle which is practically nowhere accepted in any province of the Union, and that is to give free, not only day-school education, but also boarding, because all these defective children have to be taken away from their homes and have to be placed in institutions like the Alexandria and others. As far as that is concerned, he wants to introduce a new principle. The further implication is this—why make an exception for physically and mentally defective children, and not include also on the same principle the care on the part of the State of people who are mentally disordered? It is an accepted principle in our Mental Disorders Act that parents or near relatives have to pay what is reasonable as far as they are able to do so for the maintenance of their relatives in the mental hospitals. Why should the State shoulder the whole responsibility for the care of the physically and mentally defective child, and not of the mentally disordered patient? There is no difference in principle, and I cannot see why, if we do not make it general, the hon. member should make an exception. If a child is taken from home and cared for in an institution by the State, then the parents of the child are relieved of the maintenance of that child in the home, and in view of that it is not unreasonable for the parents to pay as much as they can pay.

The Minister is not well-informed in regard to the technical and training schools in the Transvaal. He has stated they are only part-time training schools.

The full-time schools are only a small proportion.

At the Witwatersrand school the boys have to attend for seven hours a day every day in the week except Saturday. They do three hours in the morning in the classroom, one hour’s recreation and three hours’ work. I merely ask the Minister to go into the matter as to whether it would not be a fair proposition to make these schools free. I don’t want to thrash the question, but I just want him to go into the whole question as to whether vocational education should not be made free.

It is a rather delicate subject to deal with, especially after the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown), has been speaking about free technical education. I have not touched that matter at all in my amendment, although I believe that all education should be free. What I want in my amendment is that blind children or defective children should not be at a disadvantage compared with healthy, normal children in the benefits given by the State. The ordinary normal child has free primary education for approximately eight years at a cost to the State of roughly £160. I do not think it is doing justice to either the parent or the child which is defective for the parents to have to contribute the whole cost of their education at State institutions. I know it is a difficult matter, and if the Minister could suggest some way out of it, by which to give these children some advantage, I am sure it would be acceptable to the persons concerned, but I do say that no legislation passed in this House should place an extra burden on one section of the community which burden other sections have not to suffer. I am alluding specially to blind institutions and also deaf and dumb institutions. It is wrong for these parents to have to pay full fees. We know there is exception given if they plead poverty, surely we do not want anything of that character in this country, where we have persons who are so proud of their nationality, whether it be Dutch or English, that they would not seek any benefits under those conditions. I know, as an old member of the Cape School Board, of parents not in very good circumstances, but who would rather live on dry bread than come and plead poverty, even to the Government or provincial authorities. These men and women are the cream of the nationality to which they belong, and we have no right to expect these people to plead poverty. I am only asking for a very small thing. I know the Minister can word an amendment much better than I can, therefore if my amendment is not approved of, he could insert in the Bill something which will effect and achieve what I am out for, that is that children who are defective should have the same benefits as those not defective, and if we are willing as a. State to give free primary education to children who have their normal faculties, then I hold we must do the same for those who have not their normal faculties. That is all I ask. In the schedule the Minister has dealt with institutions like Alexandria, but he has not dealt with institutions like the blind institution at Worcester.

First amendment put; and the committee divided:

Ayes—19.

Bates, F. T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown. G.

De Villiers, P. C.

Hay, G. A.

Le Roux, S. P.

McMenamin, J. J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—50.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien. W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Richards, G. R.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Smartt, T. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Robinson, C. P.; Vermooten, O. S.

Amendment accordingly negatived and the second amendment dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

The clause provides that if parents receive exemption from the payment of the fees, they must agree to keep the child at school for whatever time may be required by the authorities. Sub-section 2 contains the drastic proposal that a parent who fails to keep a child at the school must not only pay the cost of maintenance, but is liable to a criminal prosecution, and may on conviction be fined not more than £5 or in default of payment, be imprisoned for not more than one month. There may be cases in which it is impossible for a parent to keep the child a school, but it is a little drastic to make that a criminal offence. I suggest that sub-section 2 be deleted.

On the face of it, it looks rather serious, but I do not think these provisions can, or will be, used harshly or unnecessarily. This is not at all a new principle, but has been accepted for many years in the educational laws and ordinances of the country. For instance, the compulsory education ordinances of the Free State and the Transvaal provide that if a parent does not send his child to school when he is compelled to do so according to the judgment of court, he must pay a penalty not exceeding £2, or in default, undergo seven days’ imprisonment; in Natal the maximum penalty is £10 or 30 days’ imprisonment. That provision has been on the statute books for many years, and I do not see why, if it is an accepted principle, we should now object to it. The difficulty we have in schools of this nature is not with parents who can pay, but with the parents who cannot pay. The State goes to the expense of maintaining a child—in many cases the State spends hundreds of pounds on it—but before the child has completed the course, it is taken away by an unwise parent, and the State has no remedy, because the parent has not the means with which to reimburse the State for moneys spent on the education or the training of the child.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 18.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

The law advisers think that the words “head of department” are quite sufficient. If there is a secretary at the head of a department, it means the secretary; if there is a department with an under-secretary as head, it means the under-secretary. Head of department is the usual term used in all our laws. For a long time the department was not under a secretary but an under-secretary, and it is much safer to say the head of the department.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12, standing over (to which amendments had been moved by Mr. Brown),

There was some confusion the other night when this clause was under consideration. Some hon. gentlemen, including my predecessor in office, were under the impression that some new and dangerous principle was being introduced. The clause is practically the same, word for word, as a similar provision in the Public Service Act. The whole intention of the Bill, so far as staff and schools are concerned, is to make them part of the public service with certain reservations. It is most undesirable that there should be certain provisions for one part of the service and other provisions for another part of the service.

I see the point put by the hon. Minister. I should like to reiterate the point I made on line 62 of Clause 12 about the power of suspension being delegated to another officer other than the head of the department. I should like to know from the Minister whether that particular provision is in the Public Service Act, because it seems an objectionable thing to me.

Yes, it is word for word as in the Public Service Act.

I misread the first part of the clause, thinking it meant serious offences instead of non-serious offences.

The Minister should not delegate this power to any subordinate officer. Right throughout these words “any other officer” appears, and I am averse to that. I agree the Minister should have the power to delegate to the head of a department, but I do not agree to him delegating it to the principal of a school.

No, it is a magistrate, generally.

Any serious matter of this kind I want to remain in the Minister’s hands or the head of a department.

The hon. member is under a misunderstanding. I said the appointment should be delegated as a matter of good administration, very often, it is the only thing you can do, to the head of a particular school, the appointment of subordinate officials or temporary officials or employees. As far as enquiries into cases of serious misconduct are concerned, I said the person most suitable to make the enquiry would he the local magistrate.

First amendment put and negatived.

With the leave of the House I withdraw the other amendments.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the schedule,

I move—

1. (7) Deaf and Dumb School, Worcester.
2. (8) Blind School, Worcester.

I want to ask the Minister if he puts the blind school in, will it be under a greater disadvantage than it has been previously. I understand it has been governed by certain regulations between the State and church. Will the Minister tell us whether it will be more beneficial for it to come in?

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the question of the Weston Farm Training School, and to ask him what attention has been given to the training of the boys in up-to-date sheep shearing methods. Has anything been done in this matter? It was promised last year. It is an important matter, for not only does the trade demand that shearing should be better and more perfect than in the past, but this particular supply of labour is rapidly decreasing. There are less good shearers now than in years past, and the demand has increased. Natives are not taking to shearing, but are going to more profitable work. Now there is something over 100 boys at Weston living in the midst of a sheep-breeding district, and the farmers are willing to place their sheep at the disposal of the Government. In the training of their boys, and if the Minister will meet us, I will help to assist the Government without placing the department to any expense.

The request of the hon. gentleman has already been granted. Sheep have already been transferred from the Free State agricultural school to Weston, and this only became possible since both schools were taken over from the provincial council and placed under the Union Government. I do not think this is really the place to discuss these schools, and the ordinary administration in connection with them. This schedule is here for a special purpose. These are schools taken over from the provincial administrations and they are placed here merely to safeguard certain salary and pension rights of those teachers who had been employed at those schools before, rights which had been safeguarded under previous legislation. We want to give these teachers a choice, either just to keep what they had before, or to come in under this scheme under this particular Bill. That is the only reason why these schools are mentioned here. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), has asked me a question in connection with the Worcester special schools. The position is this, that these schools are under the Dutch Reformed Church, and we have come to an agreement with the Dutch Reformed Church now that the State will be responsible in future for the ordinary day school, the ordinary education of these children, but the boarding houses will remain under the church. I think the position of these schools has been materially improved under the new arrangement.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 20th March.

I move—

I hope that the Bill will pass without debate. The House passed a second reading of this Bill two months ago. We are merely concerned here with a slight extension. This Bill has been on the Table for two years and is now introduced in the third year. It was debated last year, but only towards the end of the session, and there was no time to pass the whole Bill. We then agreed that I should only proceed with certain clauses and should put a separate Bill about the matters of urgent importance through both Houses of Parliament. That was done, but the second reading of the complete Bill had already been passed by the House. Here we have merely the remainder, and I think it is quite unnecessary in the circumstances, and that it would be a waste of time, to go more fully into the Bill. Nothing new has been added and as the House passed a second reading six months ago, I hope it will now pass this second reading without any debate. We can deal with particular points in committee.

I take it will not be necessary to deal in detail with some of the matters I want to raise until the committee stage, but there are a few matters to which I want to direct the Minister’s attention. There are one or two things that ought to be amended when an amendment of the Public Health Act is under consideration. The most important one is that dealing with the exemption of conscientious objectors to vaccination. There have been some very serious developments. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the serious state of affairs that has come about in Holland. An important inquiry is taking place and in the meantime compulsory vaccination has been suspended. It has come out that some very serious things have been caused as a result of vaccination. In 1927 a Bill was introduced exempting persons on the ground of religious scruples, but also bringing in certain restrictive provisions in regard to children and teachers. The Bill was withdrawn. About this time it was found that a number of reports were coming in—which are now being investigated—that such serious diseases as encephalitis and meningitis and so on had come about as a result of vaccination. Compulsory restrictions had been suspended until these inquiries have been concluded. It is a very disquieting thing indeed and forms very strong support for those who object on religious scruples to vaccination, and it is also a very powerful argument in favour of making the Bill a little more elastic than it is. No exemptions at all are given in respect of Sections 100 and 102 of the principal Act. Then the time—six months—ought to be extended, and then there is the position of public servants. That certainly ought to be dealt with. A public servant might be exempted under this Bill, but by virtue of Section 104 of the principal Act he will not be allowed to be employed. There are a few things like that. Those who object to vaccination on religious grounds are prepared as a compromise to accept the Minister’s proposals, provided that a few things which have been overlooked are put right. Then there is the position of sanitary inspectors, they come under this Bill in certain respects. Under Section 14 of the Public Health Act certain protection was given into sanitary officials against victimization. The evidence given before the select committee showed that such protection was necessary, and now they cannot he discharged without the Minister’s approval. But what happens at present is that the papers are sent to Pretoria, and the man is not heard and he cannot be legally represented. The Minister should have the power to order a proper inquiry and to give the man a proper opportunity of being heard. We would like to hear some explanation from the Minister of his proposed amendment of Section 16. Under the Public Health Act the Minister pays in certain circumstances a portion of the salary of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, provided their whole time is taken up with their duties. The Minister now has an amendment to the effect that even if they are performing duties not ordinarily coming within the scope of their office portion of their salary may be paid by the Minister. I think the matter can be cleared up by saying what the duties actually are, and I hope the Minister will see his way to define the duties in some way in the clause amending the interpretation section of the principal Act—159.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the time is not ripe to include in the Public Health Act power to deal with slum areas in our large cities. There are buildings which cannot be put into a habitable condition, and should really be demolished. Power to deal with buildings or areas of that kind by expropriation is altogether too expensive, as a higher return is got from property of that kind owing to the manner in which it is let, and the price which must, therefore, he paid for such property in expropriation proceedings is usually very high. The Minister, in a Bill of this kind, could take power to declare an area is a slum area after an inspector or commissioner appointed by the Minister at the request of the local authority had enquired into the question whether an area should be regarded as a slum area or not, and, if that declaration were made, and if the owner failed to re-build within a specified time, then power should be given to the local authorities to expropriate the property at its site value. I will not elaborate the point, but I put it broadly to the Minister to give him the opportunity of dealing with it if he will kindly do so.

Will the Minister be good enough to tell us what the Government is going to do to combat the plague outbreak? The spread of plague-carrying rodents is becoming a most serious menace.

As the Minister has all the facts at his disposal, perhaps in his reply he would make a statement as to what the position is. I understand the Government and local authorities are fully alive to the danger of plague spreading, and that a great deal has been done to clear belts between here and Ceres.

With regard to the last question, I should very much like to give the House all the information at my disposal, but I cannot do so now, and it would be much better if I made the statement after obtaining all the facts and in a considered statement, as early as possible. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) has asked me if I am going to deal more drastically with slum areas. That is rather a big question to tackle at this stage. I have not gone into the matter specially, but under the existing Public Health Act very wide powers are given to the department and the health officers. We can condemn houses, whether in slum areas or not, as unfit for human habitation, and we can condemn them one by one or on a large scale. If houses are condemned as being unfit for human habitation, they have to be demolished, but we cannot compel the owners to build new houses in place of them. It is much better to deal with the question of slums in connection with the housing question. It is very difficult for the department to condemn houses in any urban area on a large scale, without first making sure that the municipalities will take steps to provide proper housing for the poorer classes.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 21st March.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary to say much about the Bill. We find that certain districts are receiving assistance under the Drought Emergency Loan Act, and that others are assisted in connection with sowing, but there are districts like Oudtshoorn, which need assistance in connection with plants. Oudtshoorn, e.g., is greatly dependent on irrigation works where vineyards are being planted. They are anxious to use good vines, because the ostrich feather market is lost, and we want to assist the people, but we are unable to do so under the existing law. That is why this Bill has been introduced.

We appreciate the amendment, and I just want to mention something which will possibly seem strange to some hon. members. We find that in the drought-stricken areas the best means of keeping cattle alive is by the cultivation of prickly pear. Experiments have been made at Graaff-Reinet and the Agricultural Department has stock there. Now Ï just want to ask that the railway rate for the carriage of prickly pear be reduced. Many farmers will go in for prickly pear, and I hope the Minister will assist us in obtaining the reduction.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On the motion to go into committee now,

I do not object, but I understand, informally, that the House is not going beyond this Bill to-night. Perhaps the Government will not bring us back for that.

I take it, according to the rules, the House is sitting tonight.

Many of the members were under the impression we were not. We did not know we were sitting to-night. There is a serious misunderstanding, and I hope the Government, in view of the progress that has been made to-day, will not bring us back to-night. This is the first Friday night on which we sit after 6 o’clock, and I hope the Government will reconsider it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

Does the Minister move that the Liquor Bill stand over? I understood that the Minister in charge of that Bill had informed members of the House this afternoon that it was not the intention to go on with that Bill, and that the intention was the moment the Drought Distress Relief Bill had been dealt with to adjourn the House. That was why I appealed to my hon. friend just before 6 o’clock, as this other Bill was so simple, and there was no opposition to it, whether he would not then adjourn.

Did the Minister say that in the House?

Not in the House. I was told by several hon. members that they were informed that the Liquor Bill would not come on to-night, that the Minister in charge of it would probably not go on with it, and that the only thing before the House was the Drought Distress Relief Bill, and that when that was through the House would adjourn.

I would like to confirm that. I am very anxious to speak on one of these industrial Bills, but members in the lobby were told that the House was adjourning after the Drought Distress Relief (Amendment) Bill was through, and many members have gone away under that impression. That was distinctly said. I can confirm that. Many members who wanted to take part in this debate are not here. It is hardly fair to press the matter forward in view of that misunderstanding. This is the first Friday evening sitting this session. Just before 6 o’clock it was said that when the Drought Distress Relief (Amendment) Bill was through the House would adjourn.

I would ask the Prime Minister under these circumstances not to let us continue the work this evening. We have made very great progress this afternoon. As the House will see, we have got through a number of Bills and the Drought Relief Bill was hurried through and was allowed by us to go through on the impression that that was the end of the business, and that, as far as I could gather, was the universal impression among members from what they had heard. I am sorry if a misunderstanding has arisen, but the Prime Minister hears now there were good grounds for this impression that existed in the lobby. Under these circumstances, I would ask the Prime Minister not to let us stay any longer, but to let us stop business at this stage.

I must say I am very much surprised at this. The Minister came to see me, and I certainly told the Minister we had to go on, that I would prefer his Bill not to come on this evening, but that we were to go on and consider the other Bills. However, I take it there is a misunderstanding and under the circumstances I am quite prepared to move—

seconded.

I object. We were told at 6 o’clock there was a lot of business before the House.

Yes, there was, but we are now agreeing to an appeal made by the leader of the Opposition.

Motion put and agreed to.