Before we proceed with the business of the day, with your permission and the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the pleasure of referring to a very important event which synchronizes with our meeting here to-day. Though members of this House, on both sides, very often engage in the most severe criticism of the actions of one another in connection with public affairs which occupy a good deal of our deepest attention, I think it is the view of hon. members on both sides that we have tried as far as possible, no matter how strong our political opinions may be, not to allow those differences of opinion to interfere with our personal relations when we leave this chamber. It is, therefore, to me, as the oldest sitting member of this House, a great pleasure and a privilege to be allowed to propose, I am perfectly sure not alone on behalf of myself and those who are associated with me, but on behalf of every member of this House, our sincere and cordial felicitations to the Prime Minister on the occasion of his 62nd birthday. We hope that no matter how great our differences of opinion politically may be, the Prime Minister may live to pass through many birthdays and receive the same friendship and cordial consideration which, I think, he has received, not alone from his own supporters, but from his political opponents and from all classes of people in the country. In wishing the Prime Minister our sincere and cordial congratulations on his birthday, might I also be allowed to associate in those good wishes out good wishes to Mrs. Hertzog, and to express the hope that the Prime Minister will live for many years to render assistance to this country and live to pass through many happy birthdays in the future which will be as much appreciated as this is to-day. I may, perhaps, say to the Prime Minister that probably he would be more happy and, perhaps, be better placed if he were sitting in my place than where he is now, but when that happy day comes about, I feel perfectly certain that the same felicitations that are going out from this side to him now will go out from that side of the House to him then. I have, therefore, great pleasure in expressing, I believe not alone on my own behalf, but for every member to whatever political party he belongs, our sincere and cordial congratulations to the Prime Minister, and to wish him not alone many happy returns of the day, but that he himself and his family for the many years I hope they will live, will find they have associated with all time to come the same happy feelings that are associated with to-day.

May I, in a few words, express my very deep appreciation of the surprise which it has been my happy lot this afternoon to experience in this House. Let me say I feel that everybody in the House appreciates those words that have just fallen from my right hon. friend opposite. In the first place, as far as I am concerned, I wish to say that I appreciate very deeply his good wishes, but I think what I appreciate more, and what everybody in this House appreciates, is that it is the clearest proof of the tremendous change that has come over the spirit of the people of South Africa. We feel to-day what I have always said we should strive for, and I feel it has come, the day when in politics we may, as the right hon. gentleman has said, fight one another and sometimes even hit hard, but without any bitterness and without any enmity. Unless we are allowed to fight one another politically: well, we will very soon find ourselves extinct. No parties could exist, and I think it would be most regrettable if the day arrives when there are no political parties, especially in a country like South Africa. But I do feel this is something we have all been longing for. This is the first time, as far as I can remember—perhaps it was due to our fault when we were sitting here at the time—but this is the first occasion upon which a member of the Opposition has risen to congratulate even the Prime Minister on an occasion like this. Well, I think we can all be grateful, because I do feel that is the best proof we can possibly have of our becoming—and being already—one South African people. Once more I wish to thank my right hon. friend and all my hon. friends on the other side very heartily for the words that have fallen from the right hon. member.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and with special leave—

seconded.

I may say it is very unusual. I leave it entirely in the hands of the House. Is there any bjection?

I rise only to say that this is a departure from our practice; as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is a very special case. The rules are very imperative that notice shall be given. I understand that by adopting the resolution, by inference, we shall suspend the standing order.

That is so. I take it, if no objection is made, this is special leave to the Minister to move the motion he has stated.

Can we first have the notice read?

Perhaps it would be advisable. I understand that the Bill is not long; if the Minister will read the Bill hon. members will know what they are granting leave for.

The amending Bill is to delete the words in subsection (2) of Section 2 of the main Act, at the end of the clause, “as food or drink for human consumption”. It means that the Act, as it stands to-day, exempts farmers provided they produce food or drink for human consumption. This amendment exempts them for any purpose whatever, and gives them a clear-cut general exemption.

Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in moving an amendment? My reason is, I gathered from the hon. gentleman in the course of the debate some time yesterday, that it was the intention of the Minister to exempt all farming operations from the operation of the Factories Act. It will be much simpler to obtain leave to introduce a Bill to exempt farming operations from the Factories Act of 1918. It would then read “for leave to introduce a Bill to exempt farming operations from the operations of the Factories Act of 1918.”

It would not be correct.

I think it would. Then farming representatives would know exactly what the Bill is going to do. I move, as an amendment—

Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the main Act reads—

I propose to delete the words “as food or drink for human consumption.” This would remove the restriction and make the exemption general.

The understanding that we came to last night was that the Minister would Introduce a measure which would make it perfectly clear that it would run pari passu with the Factories Act Amendment, and Control of Factory Machinery Bill, and that farming operations would be exempt from the provisions of the Factories Act. Let the Minister ask for leave to introduce a Bill to exempt farming operations from the provisions of the Factories Act of 1918. I would be in order in moving an amendment accordingly. We have a Bill which went through the committee stage yesterday, and I want to be sure that the legislation which the Minister is now introducing will clearly exempt the farming operations from the operations of the Factories Act.

It does now.

It does not. My amendment carries out exactly what was said last night.

I am doing that.

I don’t think you are. Will you accept my amendment? If you intend to carry out the assurance you gave to the House last night you can have no objections to accepting my amendment.

The motion is for leave to introduce a Bill to amend further the Factories Act, 1918, and the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) wishes to add the words “by exempting farming operations from the provisions of that Act.”

That exactly meets my views. I take it that it will be competent to defer the debate on the third reading of the Factories Act Amendment Bill, and when this new Bill has gone through its second reading, to incorporate the two measures in one, thereby removing the objection of having two Bills dealing with the same subject running through the House concurrently.

I second the amendment. I think from the wording of it we shall have the power, when we get into committee, to add the conditions of exclusion, which do not now exist. I was talking, for instance, last night about the farmers’ co-operative societies. As the Bill now reads, these societies are not excluded, and I want the House to have the power to debate the exclusion of farmer co-operative societies. If we adopt the motion of the Minister of Labour I fear that we shall only debate the Minister’s amendment, and not the exclusion of co-operative societies from the Factories Act.

I sincerely trust my hon. friends will not accept this amendment. I have sat in this House for many years, and I think this is the first occasion on which, when a Minister has introduced a Bill, an amendment has been introduced on the other side to alter the terms of that motion.

The Minister says it does not alter the terms of the Bill.

Alter the terms of the motion in introducing the Bill. Really you are altering the title of the Bill, and if for no other reason, I hope my hon. friend will not accept this amendment. The substance of the matter is in the Bill itself. What we are going to legislate is not the title of the Bill, but the Bill itself. If hon. members are dissatisfied with the terms of the Bill they can deal with it if they like. Hon. members on this side of the House are satisfied with the terms of the Bill, and certainly we are not going to help in a little bit of window-dressing. This motion for leave to introduce a Bill further to amend the Factories Act is a perfectly clear motion, and if it does not amend the Factories Act satisfactorily to hon. members opposite they can, in the discussion of it, expose where it does not.

But they cannot move amendments.

You can note move an amendment to the clause being amended?

No.

Of course you can.

I rise to a point of order. I believe the Minister of Defence does not follow the procedure you have laid down. I would like you to explain to the House, if the proposed Bill, as proposed by the Minister, is adopted, and the motion is carried unamended, as proposed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), whether in committee we would be able to propose further exemptions. There is a desire to exempt co-operative societies from the factory law. Would we then be able to move that amendment in addition to the amendment of the hon. member? That would be tantamount to introducing a new principle, and that is the reason why the hon. member for Fort Beaufort asks leave to extend the scope of the title to enable us in committee to discuss that question.

Of course, the hon. member will remember that the ruling that I gave was that no new principle can be introduced after the second reading has been adopted, which is in conflict with the principles adopted at the second reading, but I may point out that in this case the proposed amendment of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) really limits the leave that the Minister proposes. The Minister proposes for leave to introduce a Bill to amend further the Factories Act of 1918. That means that any provision of the principal act might be amended therein. But now the amendment which has been moved by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort limits the Bill to exempting farming operations from the provisions of the Act. If this leave is granted, as moved by the Minister, then any amendment to the Factories Act may be embodied in the Bill that he brings up. If the amendment of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort is accepted, then no amendment of the principal Act can be incorporated in the Bill other than exempting farming operations from the provisions of the Act. I think that is the position, and if the second reading is adopted then the committee stage will be entirely confined to principles adopted at the second reading

Am I to understand that if leave is given to the Minister to introduce a Bill to amend further the Factories Act of 1918 and if in fact his Bill is limited to one particular clause, will it then be open for any member after the second reading of that Bill has been taken, to propose amendments to other clauses?

No.

If the House gives leave to the Minister to introduce the Bill just proposed to us, then the House will be limited in fact to amendments arising on that particular amendment which is contained in the Minister’s Bill?

Yes, that is the position.

I would submit that the amendment moved by my right hon. friend widens the scope of the House in consideration of the Bill, because that amendment proposes to give the Minister leave not merely to introduce a Bill amending this particular section, but to introduce a Bill exempting farmers from the operation of the Factories Act of 1918, so that any provision of the Factories Act affecting farmers could be amended in Committee on a Bill introduced under the title proposed by my right hon. friend.

Looked at in that way that is the position in one respect. One does not know what the contents of the Bill will be, and if the Bill proposed by the Minister only deals with one section, and if there are other sections which can be dealt with that exempt farming operations from the provision of that Act, then it is widened in that respect. But what I wished to make clear was that any section of the Act dealing with any other matters could be incorporated in the Bill to be submitted to the House if the leave stood as proposed by the Minister.

I thought by moving this if it was adopted by the House it would exempt all farming operations from the provisions of the Act of 1918, not with regard to any particular clause of that Act, but with regard to every clause. It was because I thought the Minister had promised that I moved it.

I would like to draw attention to the present Bill which is now before the House. The title says, “A Bill to amend the Factories Act 1918,” and to make provision for the supervision and control of certain machinery. Under this title you are debarred from moving the amendment which the Minister proposes to bring in by way of another Bill. That is the reason the hon. member seeks rather an extension of the scope in order to allow him to bring in any point pertaining to farmers.

I think hon. members are rather confusing the motion asking for leave and the first reading. At present we are only dealing with the question of leave to be granted, and if leave is granted generally as proposed by the Minister, he can bring in a Bill dealing with all the sections of the Factories Act. We are dealing only with the question of leave now. We do not know what is in the Bill until the first reading. When once the Bill has been read a first time and dealt with at the second reading, that determines the principles of the Bill. When once the second reading is passed, then no new matter may be introduced, but until the second reading has been passed, it is always open to the House, by referring to select committee before second reading, to bring in any new matter it pleases.

Would the House then be able to move any amendment to the title?

The title as proposed by the Minister is as wide as it possibly can be.

On a point of order, is not the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort in order? The Minister has now moved for leave to introduce the Bill at once. Is it not competent for this House to amend that motion?

Yes, certainly.

I understood from you that you ruled the amendment out of order.

No, the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is entirely in order.

In connection with this amendment which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has moved I want to say a few words. He proposes to add to the Minister’s motion: “To exclude farming operations”. It seems to me that this motion has a narrower meaning than the amendment the Minister moves.

No.

Then read the motion. The Minister moves the exclusion from the English text of the Act of 1918, section 2 (2), the words after “sale” then it will read [motion, as amended, read]. That then leaves the whole question untouched. If “farming operations” are included then the question will arise, what are farming operations. One man will say this or the other is a farming operation, and another will say that it is not so. If we leave the motion as it is there is no question about what farming operations are. I therefore prefer the Minister’s motion, because if we adopt the amendment it only leads to trouble.

My amendment applies to every clause of the Factories Act of 1918, while the Minister’s amendment applies to only one clause.

I would like to ask for your ruling on one point. If this motion is accepted by the House in the way the Minister has phrased it and bearing in mind the information which he has given us as to what he intends to delete at the end of the clause, would it be competent in this House to amend this clause so as to include co-operative societies when we come to committee stage? The point is, would it be something foreign to the amendment which the Minister wishes to introduce, and contrary to the meaning of this clause to introduce the words “co-operative societies.”

I am afraid that is rather a hypothetical question. I think I have tried to make it clear that once the second reading has been adopted no new principle which was not agreed to on the second reading can be introduced. I do not think I can go any further than that.

I do not want to intrude in the discussion between the two sets of farmers, although I may say that we are also out to assist the farmers. I must say on the face of the discussion I have listened to this afternoon, I am rather inclined to agree with the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort, and inclined to congratulate him on the fact that he does not allow his anxiety for the interests of the farmers to over-ride his practical mind, and makes a definite distinction between farming operations and anything which might be construed as manufacturing. It seems to me that under the amendment of the right hon. gentleman the position will be restricted, at any rate, we will know definitely that only what are in fact farming operations will be exempt from the operation of the Factories Act. I am afraid that under the Bill proposed by the Minister, it may be so wide that quite a number of operations will be regarded as being exempt from the Factories Act, and the farmers will be enabled to become manufacturers in a small way competing with manufacturers in the urban areas. Personally, I hope the Minister will accept the right hon. gentleman’s amendment.

The House will remember that I argued the point originally on the amendment to the Magistrates’ Court Act. The ruling of Mr. Speaker there was—

The ruling is not under discussion. The hon. member must discuss the motion and the amendment.

Then I would submit that, provided the amendment is germane to the subject matter which is being dealt with in the clause, you can amend it when it comes to committee stage. That is the view according to the ruling that was given, that it would be possible to amend the clause provided that the amendment was germane to the subject matter of that clause.

I know that the object of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is to help the farmers. That, of course, I want to do also, and I only fear that the hon. member in his precaution goes too far and proposes something which will subsequently get the farmers into trouble. The Minister’s motion removes all restrictions on farmers. It is the widest possible form that could be proposed. As the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has rightly pointed out, the difficulty in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort as to what “farming operations” are, will again arise. I hope the hon. member, in the interests of the farmers, will see that the Minister’s proposal is as wide as possible.

My amendment simply makes it clear that no farming operations come under the provisions of the Factories Act of 1918.

What are farming operations?

Everything that you do on a farm.

But what are farming operations? Then we must define them again. The Minister’s motion seeks to exclude everything that has reference to farmers. We cannot make it any wider. I think the hon. member is acting in good faith, but he is wrong.

Might I just bring the House back to the original point which raised this controversy? The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), I think, pointed out that under the Act, as it stands, farmers were exempted, but only if they produced their own products as food or drink for human consumption, and he went on to say that as regards other produce, teff, fodder or other things for animal consumption, he would like the Minister to get the law advisers’ opinion as to whether they are exempt or not. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) took up that point and the whole question at issue was whether the farmer had a complete exemption, no matter what he produced and sold, or whether he had a restricted exemption. If it was restricted, then it was suggested, and urged from all sides, that it should not be restricted and should be made general so that whether he grew stuff for animals as fodder or anything else, and whatever he did, he should be exempt because he was a farmer and it was a farming operation. Well, I met that point. I have removed the only restriction in order to meet the representations which have been made. Now the one clause in the Act which deals with farmers being exempt will have no restriction whatever attached to it, and the farmers under that clause will be completely exempt. What more you can want than that I cannot understand.

Why be afraid to accept my amendment, making it perfectly clear?

It is perfectly clear as it is. When the right hon. member talks in his amendment about exempting farming operations, what are farming operations?

The ordinary operations on a farm, which are very extensive.

As the Act stands, there is a restrictive exemption. I am removing that restriction, and I am making it general so that farmers will not come under the provisions of the Act.

Will the Minister tell us he is excluding co-operative societies?

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—30.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

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

Noes—52.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, D.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading to-morrow.

I move—

seconded.

I am sorry that the Minister of the Interior, who administers the Electoral Act, is not in his place. I would very much have liked to ask him a few questions; they are not difficult to answer, and with his usual courtesy he would have answered them. It must have been in the mind of the Minister not for the last week, but for some time past, to introduce a Bill amending the Electoral Act. Surely, although the law does not lay it down, courtesy demands that the country should have an opportunity of studying such a Bill before leave is asked to introduce it. We have just gone through an extraordinary spectacle, to which I may not refer, but if the Bill had been published we could have had an opportunity of studying it, which would assist the work in formulating a measure which would be of use to the country. We are not here to consider parties, but we are sent here to do the best we can, in the interests of this country, to the best of our knowledge and ability. How can we exercise that unless a Bill is published a reasonable time before it is introduced? Here we have a Bill of which we do not know its extent, and it is very wide. I know all I can say will not prevent leave being given. We have been steam rollered so often, and this is another occasion. I have frequently protested, when Bills are introduced without previous publication, that the country has had no opportunity of reading them, they cannot make their wishes known to their representatives here. Surely that is conceded from all sides. I ask the Minister of Defence whether he would use his undoubted influence on the Cabinet to see that, when notice of motion to introduce a Bill is given, the Bill will have been previously published.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 16th April.

I move—

The object of this little Bill is to cancel a certain original Crown grant, and to enable the Governor-General to issue a new grant in respect of certain land lying at the mouth of the Breede River in the district of Swellendam. The history of this piece of land, in short, is: About 100 years ago, in 1831 to be exact, there were living at the mouth of the Breede River three very optimistic gentlemen, Ewan Christian, Joseph Barry and Francis Collison. I say they were optimistic, because they proposed to carry on a large import and export trade with the rest of the world, apparently without having had the necessary capital. They must have been gentlemen, because they had the ear of the Government of those days. I see that hon. gentlemen agree that if they had the ear of the Government they must be gentlemen. They had the ear of the Government to such an extent that the Governor of the Cape Colony granted them 1,400 morgen of land at the mouth of the Breede River, and not only so, but Parliament passed a private Act—No. 7 of 1836—forming them into a kind of mercantile company. I call it a kind of a company because in those days companies, as we understand them, did not exist. The first real company law was passed in 1861. A company in those days could not hold land, and it had to be registered in the name of trustees for the company. This Act of 1836 is very interesting, and is really the forerunner of our Companies Act. They were still making mistakes and groping in the dark. Several of these mistakes they made have been put right, but this land lying forgotten at the mouth of the Breede River is still held under one of those antiquated titles; and to put this right this Bill is put forward. Like many of our modern companies, they proposed to do very great things, and like most of our modern companies, they did not do anything at all. The company itself never really operated. But, and in this they differed from many of our modern companies—they kept their asset, their only asset, that land, and it is still registered in their name.

They were clever fellows.

I think they were wise in not carrying on this trading concern. What they did was to make over their trading rights to Barry Nephews who really did carry on business on a large scale. They had a fleet of ships which they sent trading to England, Australia, South America and other countries. They also had branches all over the colony, but whether it was that the ships were not fleet enough or that their creditors were in too much of a hurry, the fact remains that in 1882 the firm failed. “Failed” seems to have been a polite word in those days for insolvency. After Barry and Nephews, followed a gentleman called Carlson who acquired their rights. Evidently he was also an optimist, for he—in turn—also failed, and he made over his rights to Mr. Ohlsson who did not believe very much in the mercantile possibilities of Port Beaufort, because he turned the whole concern into a farm. Each shareholder was entitled to a piece of ground. It does not appear whether Mr. Ohlsson made a success of his farming operations, but in 1914 he sold the farm to Mr. Alfred Barry who is the promoter of this Bill.

The estate of the late Mr. Ohlsson sold it.

Mr. Barry still uses this ground as a farm. He paid between £5,000 and £7,000 for the ground, and he acquired all the shares in the company, in fact, he is the only man who is interested in it, but this old Act still casts its shadow over the land. The farm being still registered in the name of this mercantile company, the only way to pass transfer of the land or of any portion of it is by means of a certificate signed by one or more of the trustees. But there are no trustees, and the only way to elect trustees is to call a general meeting. A meeting can only be called either by ten shareholders or by a trustee, but there is no trustee and there is only one shareholder, Mr. Barry, so that no meeting can be called, and without a general meeting no trustee can be elected, and without a trustee no transfer can be given. So although Mr. Barry has bought the farm and has all the shares, yet he cannot exercise the ordinary rights of a farm owner. It is to cure this technicality that this little Bill is brought forward. The select committee went very carefully into the matter and decided there was a necessity for this legislation. We had to look at the matter from three points of view, from that of Mr. Barry, the Deeds Office and the general public. Mr. Barry told us that it was essential that he should have a clear title. Mr. Denoon, registrar of deeds of the Cape Province, assured us that from the deeds office point of view the Bill was essential and that the public would suffer no hurt whatever. In answer to questions he stated that from the point of view of registration, the present position is an impossible one, and it is necessary to pass the Bill, there being no other way out of it if the land is to be made of any use whatever. As far as he could see no rights are being taken away from the public, but he did not quite know how the unyoking of cattle would be regarded. If, however, that conditions were reinserted, the public will be in exactly the same position as they are at present and this matter of the unyoking of cattle has been put right. I hope the Minister of Lands will give this little Bill his departmental blessing, and as he is the guardian of the interests of the public—as regards rights in land—I submit that if he is satisfied hon. members need have no further fear.

I have very much pleasure in seconding the motion. In 1831 the then Governor granted to the trustees the land at Port Beaufort covered by the Bill. The ground could not be granted to a company for our notions of a company were not evolved at that time. In 1831 an Ordinance was passed defining the rights and powers of the trustees and the rights of the shareholders. In our time this would have been covered by articles and memorandum of association and the general provisions of the Companies Act. Both the original grant, set out verbatim in the Bill, and the Ordinance make it perfectly clear that the purpose of the grant was to make a concession to what would now be a company in order to develop—the port at Port Beaufort and to trade in the South Western districts. There were certain conditions—the right of access by the public and the right to unyoke cattle. The object of the grant was carried out until about 1881 or 1882, when the company transferred its rights to the firm of Barry and Nephews who traded on a very extensive scale and rendered a very essential public service. However, the trade became too big, and the firm failed. Thereafter a certain Mr. Carlson acquired the rights over the farm, and for a time carried on a purely local business. He had no capital to develop the port, and he failed. After he failed the late Mr. Anders Ohlsson acquired the rights and closed the place to the public. After his death Mr. Barry, the promoter of this Bill, acquired the interests of every person concerned. The select committee was unanimously of opinion that the promoter had proved the allegations contained in the preamble. Mr. Barry also proved his title to the ground. The documents put in and the evidence of the registrar of deeds proved clearly that Mr. Barry is sole successor to the title in the original grant, acquiring those rights for a very substantial sum, to my mind paying probably more than their market value. It is also perfectly clear that for a very long time the original purpose of the grant has lapsed. The original conditions and the provisions of the Ordinance have also become obsolete, but we must admit that the public are also concerned. Mr. Barry is willing to allow all the old conditions to be embodied in the Bill, save the right to build or cultivate the land on the river bank in front of the old store, but this is of no practical value to the public. Mr. Barry has allowed to be embodied in the Bill a right of access from Port Beaufort to an adjoining seaside resort called Whitesands. If the Bill does not become law the public rights of way to Whitesands may be uncertain but it must be borne in mind that Whitesands has only been in existence since 1900 when Mr. Ohlsson closed the way to Port Beaufort and now it is very doubtful whether the public could establish a prescriptive right. With the exception of the purpose of the grant and the small condition already mentioned every condition is repeated verbatim in this Bill before the House, and still further one important condition in favour of the public, namely, the access across the farm to Whitesands. From the comparison of the enacting clauses of the Bill with the grant and also the evidence of the registrar of deeds it is clear that no public rights are being taken away. On the contrary, to my mind, the public will be much better off. Mr. Barry is asking nothing which was not given in the original grant. From the evidence of the registrar of deeds it is also clear that it is expedient that the Bill should be passed. The present title is anomalous and hinders development and creates an impossible position in the deeds registry. If the Bill is passed Mr. Barry will be able to give a simple title and sell parts of the farm to various people in small lots which, to my mind, was contemplated in the original grant of 1831. I submit it is also simple justice that Mr. Barry should have the ordinary free title which every farmer has. The Bill was properly advertised and no one appeared to oppose.

The Government has no objection whatsoever to the passing of this little Bill. All the interest in the land is now held by Mr. Barry. It is true there are certain restrictions, but these will be removed and there is no reason why this Bill should not pass. The Government divested itself of all interest many years ago when the grant was made. From another point of view I would be glad if the Bill could be passed. Ordinarily land is transferred by means of transfer with a diagram. But by this Ordinance a new kind of registration was introduced as far as the Cape is concerned, that is that each shareholder of the company could have the shares which gave him an interest in the land transferred by means of an endorsement, and that introduced quite a new system of registration. It is foreign to this country. My department would be glad if that could be removed. As Mr. Barry is the only owner of this land now there is no reason why the Bill should not be allowed to go through so that in future transfer of the land can be passed in the ordinary way. I give this little Bill my blessing and I hope it will pass through the House without difficulty.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

On the motion of Mr. Nathan, the Chairman put the new paragraph (a) proposed by select committee.

I am not opposed to the Bill, and I think it is quite right for Mr. Barry to get the ground, but there is something very doubtful in the English and the Afrikaans texts. It is in Clause 2 (a) which says—

That does not mean, however, that grazing is allowed for the animals. When the animals are unyoked they must have grazing, or otherwise be fastened to the waggon. The wording of the clause is therefore inadequate. In that part of the world they use many trek oxen and horses because it is sandy. The people therefore need grazing veld. This can, if necessary, be beaconed off. An outspan with grazing is necessary for the people who travel there.

I intended raising this very same point. I am glad the hon. member and I are in agreement. You will find in line 55 the point raised by my hon. friend opposite. It simply says “as well as unyoking cattle.” Does that include the right to graze and water?

No.

It does not. I think it should be perfectly clear, after the words “unyoking cattle, including the right to graze, and of watering the cattle,” I therefore move—

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) is quite right that the English and Afrikaans texts do not agree. The hon. member prefers the Afrikaans text. That says “As well as the right to outspan draught animals.” This does not mean only cattle, but also horses and donkeys. We have not the right to give away private rights to the public.

The public had the right.

No, if the hon. member looks at the preamble he will see that the old Act merely spoke of “unyoking” which does not mean grazing. If therefore we add “and grazing” we give the public something which it did not have before.

† That, I think, will also answer the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). We do not see our way to give the public any further rights than they had before, but every right they did have before they are being assured.

Does the hon. member mean to say that they must only have the right of unyoking cattle and tying them up to the waggon? What use will they then be making of the right of outspan? In that case it means nothing. I do not mind its being laid down where the people may outspan. Let a place be indicated where they can outspan and graze and water the animals. If the word “outspan” is used, then surely it must include the right of outspan. I hope the hon. member will not insist on it, otherwise I shall vote against the Bill. It is a pebble on the beach, and the people must surely have some facilities for outspanning, and a place where they can graze their animals. Outspan only gives the right of outspanning for 24 or 48 hours, and no longer.

Originally the right was clearly described as “unyoking”, but the people have had the right all these years of outspanning and grazing at the mouth of the Breede River. The term “outspan” is known all over the Cape Province. The animals are unyoked and drink as much water as they want, but, if the owner possibly noticed later that only “unyoking” was mentioned, the court might possibly say that the animals could only be taken out of the yoke and tied up. They could therefore be given no freedom at all. The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) on the other hand goes a little too far, and it could be abused. Someone might stay there and allow the stock to graze. How would it be if the introducer of the Bill simply included in the Dutch text “as well as the right of outspan,” and in the English “the right of outspan.” Although it has possibly never been defined what outspan is, the court will well know what it is if decision is necessary.

It is quite evident that the two hon. gentlemen on the opposite side have not read the report of the select committee, nor the original title.

That has nothing to do with it.

I merely wish to say that it has a lot to do with it. You now want to disturb a man’s rights, you want to take away from him what you are not entitled to do. I know the position very well. There is no water there, absolutely no water.

But there is grazing.

And there is no grazing where they originally unyoked. The position where they unyoked was just as you go in what you call the bay there. They unyoked on ground which is sand, nothing else. So there is nothing to be gained by insisting upon grazing rights or watering, because there is none.

The hon. member is not entitled to say that “unyoking” means “outspan.”

The people call the place an outspan place.

The people often say many things that are untrue. In the original Act it says “unyoking,” and I want to point out that in the new sub-clause (c) the Governor-General still has the further right to take a piece of ground for public purposes if he thinks it necessary. If, therefore, the public can prove to the Governor-General that it needs a piece of ground, then he can take it on payment of compensation.

Ah!

The hon. members want it for nothing. What right has the public to it? We might just as well say that we are going to take away a piece of ground. It will be very nice if the public receive a present of 40 or 50 morgen of ground.

† As I understand it, it would mean the out-spanning of oxen. The Dutch is wider. Steps will be taken to try and get his Excellency to sign an Afrikaans copy. As hon. members know, if an Afrikaans copy is signed, that will be law.

The hon. member is wrong. If “unyoking” only means to unyoke or outspan animals and immediately tie them up, then it is quite superfluous to include such a provision, because anybody has the right to stop a waggon on the public road and tie up the animals to it, whether there is an outspan or not. Where there is the right of “unyoking” therefore it means that the animals may also walk about, and drink water if there is any. I do not see the hon. member’s difficulty.

My sense of equity is rather outraged by the pressing of this point by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). If this amendment is accepted it is going to give the public something more than they get under the old grant.

It only makes it clear.

Whatever may be the interpretation of “unyoking”, that is the word used. If it has been used in the original grant, it might be used in the Bill. It does not matter what it means; that is a question of interpretation. Meanwhile we are going to tamper with the actual phraseology of the original grant. Why should we do that, in fact, how can we do it? This Bill is not to give the public greater rights than they have had in the past, or lesser rights, but to legalize the position that has arisen. I submit we should use the same phraseology, so that the public may have exactly the same rights, whatever those rights are.

I cannot quite follow the reasoning of my hon. friend who has just spoken. Here is a word used, “unyoking”, which was used in the ordinance. It is not clear at all what it means. We have had it admitted that there is a disparity between the Dutch version and the English version. My hon. friend says he will get over that difficulty by getting the Governor-General to sign the Afrikaans. But why should we not make it perfectly clear? Here is the opportunity, and here is the occasion. In order to avoid litigation and save people expense, why should we not make it perfectly clear and have the English accord with the Dutch?

I should like to explain that the title deed which Mr. Barry got in 1836 was an English document and the man who drew it up did not know what “outspan” meant, and thought that “unyoking” meant “outspan.” The documents were drawn up too badly, and in Afrikaans “unyoking” would be called taking out of the yoke. Now we have the owner of the title coming to Parliament for title, to take away a right from the public, the right of outspan which they have not possibly had under the law, but certainly have had in practice. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) said that the people outspanned there. It is clear to me now that the supporters of this Bill do not want an outspan there. We want the people who go over the farm to get to the sea to have the right of outspan. I can understand that the hon. members for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) and for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) who introduced the Bill, and are both lawyers, are out to make the Act as vague as possible, because they can fish very well in troubled waters. I ask those hon. members whether they want a clean title without outspan, or whether they want the old title? I want the travelling public to have an outspan. Does the hon. member not want an outspan there? The man who goes over the farm should have that right. The hon. member may say that the right of outspan does not exist, but the people have availed themselves of it all these years. Let us therefore put a provision in the Bill that there shall be an outspan place of 15 morgen, with use of the water, and if there is no water, the outspan must be larger. I should like to satisfy Mr. Barry, but the public must also be satisfied. If Mr. Barry and the public concede a little then everyone will be satisfied.

I am surprised at the hon. member, who is a farmer and landowner himself. How long would he talk if anyone proposed to put a servitude on his land? Every right the public have to-day they keep—not a single right is taken away. The hon. member wants to give them extra rights—grazing and water they never had before. I challenge the hon. member to point out one place where the rights of the public are being lessened. They have the right to unyoke cattle. The right of outspanning is, in my opinion, a larger right than unyoking cattle. With regard to water, the hon. member for Swellendam has answered that—there is no water, and there is practically no grazing.

The opposition of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) to altering the words, just makes us suspicious that there possibly is something which the public are being deprived of. At such seaside resorts it is an old practice in the Cape, as for instance at Groot or Little Brak River, that there is always an outspan for the people who go to the beach. There they can graze and water their stock, and if the water is salt, then there is generally an opportunity of letting the animals drink at the river. If the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr H. Reitz) will get away from the Bill and send a telegram to the Divisional Council of Swellendam asking whether the place is not used as an outspan, then we are willing to withdraw our opposition. If the Divisional Council states that no outspan exists, then we are willing to withdraw all our opposition, but if an outspan in the ordinary meaning of the word exists, then we want it also to be mentioned in this Bill.

There was no outspan as indicated by the hon. member. There was one on the same farm which was sold two years ago, and it was duly advertised; so there is no outspan at the present moment. I can give the committee that assurance.

I cannot understand why the Bill should contain much better conditions for the owner than the original title deed. The English text speaks of “unyoking,” but I want to point out to hon. members and they know just as well as I do, that I may “unyoke” my animals on the way from Cape Town to Belville at any place I wish. That does not mean however that I may “outspan” them. It seems to me that the two lawyers want to rob the public of a right. The right of “unyoking” is possessed on any road, even between Cape Town and Muizenberg. I need ask for no permission from any owner and do not need to have that of the municipality of Cape Town. Why then is the right of “unyoking” mentioned, if I have it everywhere, and it is not a special right at all? It seems to me those hon. members just want to rob the public of their right. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) said that there used to be an outspan, but that it was sold a few years ago, and that the people who come to Witsand now cannot use it any longer. The hon. members say that the people who trek through there may “unyoke,” but if they think that is the same as “outspan” let us say that there is, e.g., an outspan of ten morgen allowed. If it is not said then it is a right which I have on any farm. I may “unyoke” on any farm along the road, as long as I do not allow the cattle to graze. The man who drew up the original title deed was of the same calibre as hon. members opposite; he did his work badly and we now want to rectify it, and not take away a right which the public have had for years.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) keeps on making assertions, and assertions are not arguments, so it is hopeless to argue with him. He keeps on saying there is an outspanning on this ground; there is no outspanning—there never was.

Why should they have a servitude for unyoking, which everybody has?

What right have we to take away more rights from this ground and give the public more than they had originally?

What rights have you taken away but rights from the public?

It is not correct to say that this is not the right translation. Is this committee prepared to take rights away? If it is, I have nothing further to say; but if the committee is of opinion that all the rights the public had before they should keep—but that they should get no greater rights—this Bill should go through as it stands.

I move—

I move the adjournment of the debate in order to get more information. It seems to me that the committee which made the enquiry has not done its work fully. The hon. member opposite said that the House did not exist in order to take away private rights, but the House is not there either to take away the rights of the public, and as we cannot come to agreement I think it best for us to consult the Divisional Council of Swellendam first. Then the hon. member can come next year with a fresh Bill, and we shall know what the position there is, and what in that case is meant by “unyoking.” As stated it is my opinion that “unyoking” is the right that everybody has and it is not the right of grazing and watering animals.

I hope the House will not accept the motion.

Upon which the committee divided—

Ayes—10.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Brits, G. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Mostert, J. P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Tellers: Conradie, J. H.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—60.

Allen, J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, E. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Jager, A. L.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Ta Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Reitz, H.; Robinson, C. P.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I want to point out to the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) that the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) gives no new rights to the public, but only sets out what right the public has and no more. My hon. friend will admit that the use of the expression “unyoking” in the document of 1836 was intended to convey what we mean to-day by the Afrikaans “outspan.” If that were not the meaning, why then was the public given the special right of “unyoking.” There is no doubt that if “unyoking” does not mean “out-spanning” the rights of the public are being infringed. The intention is of course “out-spanning,” and if there had been Dutch statutes in 1835, then the word used would certainly have been outspanning. If “unyoking” only means taking the oxen out of the yoke and tying them to the wagon then we need no provision about it. The right exists everywhere. “Unyoking” means “outspan” and that includes the right of grazing and watering oxen. It was of course the original intention for the public to have the right of outspan and we all know what that means. It was also the meaning of the Act of 1836. We do not want to give the public more rights than they had before, but we only want the matter to be properly cleared up. The hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) will not give any explanation of the word “unyoking.” In my opinion it means out-spanning, and I think that it would be a good thing for the Governor-General to sign the Dutch version of the Bill because then it will contain the word “outspanning.” My hon. friend can safely accept the amendment.

Much has been said about the meaning of those who passed the law when they used the word “unyoking.” It does not matter what the intention was, the question is what the court will say about the meaning of the word. If the court decides that it means outspan with the right of grazing and watering stock, well and good. We must leave it to the court to say.

What do you think it means?

If hon. members will accept my opinion about the meaning of the word, if the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) will accept it, I will give it.

No.

If he will not accept it then I shall not give it.

I think reference should be made to Ordinance No. 7 of 1836, referred to in this Bill. I will not quote the whole of it, but let us see what the original grant was made for—[extract read]. The original grant was merely for trading purposes at a particular spot on the Breede River—not farming purposes. I maintain that the word which appears here of “unyoking” cattle meant, as is said in the Dutch, “trekvee uit te span,” which included the right of watering and grazing, I do not say on the whole of the farm, but on such portions as were not occupied for the purpose of carrying on mercantile trading. I do not wish to take away any rights to which Mr. Barry is entitled under the original Ordinance. I want to be fair to everybody. A lawsuit about this might mean anything up to £1,000 costs and now, while we are dealing with the matter, why should we not make it clear? It was said by the hon. member for Namaqualand, and it has been admitted, that the words “trekvee uit te span,” did not indicate exactly the meaning of the word “unyoking.” What was intended to convey by the word “unyoking” in 1836, we do not know. If it meant uitspan, with the right of grazing. I suppose the uitspan would be fenced in.

No, there was no fencing in those days.

I do not want to give the public more right than they have, and I do not want to give Mr. Barry more than was intended, but you cannot get away from it, the interpretation is in the preamble of the Ordinance, that this grant was given for the purpose of carrying on a mercantile warehouse and nothing more.

It seems necessary now to go back a little to the history of English literature. We know that in 1812 Lord Charles Somerset was the Governor. Before that time all documents were allowed to be in the Dutch language. All servitudes and deeds of transfer, etc., were drawn up in Dutch. In 1824, I think, it was said that the English language would be the sole official language for official documents. This law was passed in 1836. Now servitudes had apparently existed, or it was the intention of granting the servitude of an outspan on the ground, and that always meant (it is a new word which was introduced in our history owing to circumstances) certain restricted grazing and watering rights. Then the word “uitspanning” had to be translated for the English documents. The word “outspan” did not then exist in the English language, which only borrowed it from the Afrikaans word about 20 years ago. At that time the translator as finally advised rendered it by “unyoking,” but that has not got the same meaning as “uitspanning.” For that reason the English language thought it necessary to take over the word “outspan.” The word here was therefore clearly intended to include also the restricted right of grazing and watering. The right of “unyoking” is possessed by the public along any public road and it was not necessary to impose such a servitude. When you pass Stellenbosch at night you see numbers of wagons that have drawn to the side of the road, fruit and vegetable wagons with the animals tied up. That is a right which has always existed. We are not out to deprive Mr. Barry of rights, but let the hon. members wait and first send a telegram to the divisional council there to find out if an outspan actually existed. If the reply is in the negative we shall be satisfied.

The word “outspan” has occurred in the Natal statutes since 1860. It is therefore not a new word in the English language. I do not know what the position was in the Cape Province, but in Natal it has long been in use. I have an Act of 1870 here on “outspans.” In any case the word has existed for 60 or 70 years.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) says that the right of outspan includes watering and grazing. Will the hon. member be satisfied if we say “the right to outspan draught cattle?”

“The right of outspan,” yes.

And in the English text, “the right of outspan for draught animals.” I therefore move—

I just want to point out that the same words occur in the preamble which are now being deleted. Ought they not to be taken out there as well?

Amendment, proposed by Dr. H. Reitz, put and agreed to.

Does the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) withdraw his amendment?

I take it my amendment falls away now.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Preamble,

On the motion of Dr. H. Reitz, the Chairman put the amendment in lines 29 and 30 proposed by select committee.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Preamble, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

This being private members’ day, and I see even hon. members opposite are rather exhausted, and there are very few on the Ministerial benches, perhaps in the circumstances the Minister would agree to the adjournment of the House. It is not unusually expected that we should take important Government work on the only day private members have. The Minister will see that the house is not so constituted, at any rate on the other side, as to deal with such an important measure as the Conciliation Bill. I might say to the Minister we have been extremely kind and courteous to him this afternoon. I think the Minister should recognize that favours should not come alone from one side of the House, and that he should try and repay us for the great kindness we showed him this afternoon by agreeing to the adjournment of the House.

I am afraid the right hon. member is rather out of order, there is nothing before the House.

I only wanted to formally ask the Minister.

Perhaps the right hon. member will allow me first to submit some messages.

I would like to appeal to the hon. Minister to give a later date. There are difficult and important amendments which have been made and I have been trying to go through them.

If there is any objection, and on the opposite side hon. members want more time to consider the amendments, I do not think they will come on to-morrow or on Thursday, and the next day will be the 16th. Put down the consideration for the 16th of April. I am now informed that the Senate are very anxious to get the Bill back. Is there any objection to taking the amendments now? [Objections raised.] Well, it will have to go down for to-morrow.

Would it not be better to wait until the Minister consults his colleague, who may be really studying these amendments? Would it not be better for the Minister to move the adjournment of the House now?

I would like to continue my appeal to the Minister. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), who is not here, has taken a keen interest in this Bill. There is an amendment in Clause 35 in which he takes a very keen interest—the penalty for practising as a dentist if unregistered. There are amendments which nobody has had an opportunity of studying. On first consideration the Minister said tomorrow, and on second consideration the 16th April. On third consideration to-morrow, and on fourth consideration let him make it the 16th.

The Senate wants to get the Bill soon.

The public is affected very materially, too, by the alterations in this Bill. I would point out to the Minister of Public Health, who I am glad to see is now in his place, that in Clause 35 a most important amendment has been introduced, which we debated at the second reading and also in committee. We have ten new lines in Clause 35, and the Minister says it is only a word.

The same intention.

I am told on all sides this Bill will not be reached to-morrow, but the danger is that it may be reached to-morrow. The Bill has been before the country for several years, and why this hurry now?

Motion put and agreed to.