as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the University Schools Transfer Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report to be printed, House to go into committee on the Bill on 29th April.

as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as follows—

Report to be considered on 3rd May.

May I ask permission to move the third motion which stands in my name? It is a formal matter, and I have the consent of the mover of a previous motion. I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

No one who has not made a study of this subject can form the faintest idea of the enormous toll which as farmers we are called upon to pay in consequence of the ravages of the jackal in this country. I would specially claim the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, because he has not been brought face to face with this question as we farmers have been in the Cape Province. Conditions are different in this part of the country, though I feel he is as keen as anybody to promote the farming interests of the country. I have a return here showing the number of jackals that have been destroyed in the Cape Province since 1918, and for which rewards have been paid out by the provincial council. In 1918 the number destroyed was 21,637. This number has gradually grown from year to year, until in 1924 it had reached the alarming total of 61,371. In spite of efforts made to exterminate jackals the number has been steadily increasing. In 1925 there was a drop of about 900, and rewards paid out for that year were £39,572. That is exclusive of what the various clubs contribute towards it. In my district the Provincial Council pays 10s. a head, and we contribute a further 10s. for jackals. I notice, according to the last census return, that the number of sheep destroyed by jackals in the Cape Province for 1924 was 270,188. That does not represent anything like the total loss which the farmers sustain ; it is only a fraction of it. When sheep are allowed to graze free in paddocks the growth of wool is very greatly improved. I mentioned at a public meeting my experience had been that if sheep were allowed to graze freely in paddocks the extra growth of wool was 1lb. per sheep, but Mr. Fred Southey, in a letter to me, said that I had been too modest altogether in my estimate, and that his experience was that sheep which had been allowed to graze free and undisturbed in paddocks gained l½lbs. per head. The improvement is not only noticeable in the increased quantities of wool but the quality of the wool is improved. I was told of a farmer who sold wool about 18 months ago, some of which was from sheep which had been running free in paddocks and the difference in price obtained was no less than 5d. per lb. I have endeavoured, with the information at my disposal, to find out approximately the amount the jackal is responsible for in the Cape Province. The figures are for 1924, and are the latest available. The number of woolled sheep was 13,987,961. In my district the normal death rate is 10 per cent., but let me take it at 7½ per cent. and that shows 1,049,097, the half of which could be saved by using vermin-proof fencing and getting rid of jackals. That would reduce the number to 524,548. The value of these sheep, at 10s. each—and I am sure no one will cavil at that moderate value—is £262,274. Then we have the wool of these sheep and I again take a very low average of 7lb. per sheep valued at 1s. per lb., which gives £193,591. Then there is the increased value of the wool at 1d. per lb.—I am sure that does not represent the true amount, but I am taking it very moderately—that makes £528,831, and brings the total to £1,386,598. This is in regard to merino sheep, but in regard to the other sheep I have allowed 2½ per cent. loss due to jackal and that brings us £140,768, total £1,509,366. Then I have also found that by allowing sheep to run free and unherded one can farm 25 per cent. more on a given bit of land than if you had to herd them. That brings the total sum which I have arrived at to £5,407,995. That is what we are paving in the Cape Province according to this calculation of mine, and I do not think any of the farmers will consider the figures extravagant. But a higher authority than myself, viz., the Drought Commission appointed 5 years ago in their report more than bears out my contentions. According to that report, from figures furnished by the Census Department, it has been estimated, on prices obtained prior to 1914, that the direct losses to farmers during the 1919 drought amounted to not less than £16,000,000. The report also says that the experience of a small number of South African farmers who have the jackal under control and have abandoned the kraaling system shows that their stock losses can be reduced greatly or entirely prevented by adopting the system of allowing the stock to run free night and day. The commission recommended the organization of the farming community, the extermination of the jackal, and the provision of cheap fencing material. They emphasized that the jackal is a dangerous menace to the State, and recommend an effective campaign of extermination, and to this end suggest certain measures in connection with jackal-proof fencing, which they detail. They show that if all the areas at present given over to sheep farming were properly paddocked they would be able to carry 54 per cent, more woolled sheep than at present. For some years farmers had been striving to induce the Government to give further facilities for the construction of vermin-proof fencing. The Stock Theft Committee and the select committee on the spread of scab urged the necessity for adequate fencing, particularly along the Government and native reserves, but nothing appears to have been done. It only requires a word from the Government to the Basutoland authorities to get the latter to bear half the cost of fencing the Basutoland border. The Vermin Proof Fencing Act has been in operation in my district, but before that the farmers along the border, feeling the necessity of improved fencing, erected fences themselves, and sent the accounts to the late Government, and even though there was no provision in the law for the Government to pay the expense, still, on the recommendation of the local magistrates of Herschel, the Government defrayed half the cost of the fences. The new Government, however, does not feel itself bound by what its predecessors did, and though it claims to be a farmers’ Government, refuses to meet these obligations. If the Government’s sympathies could be enlisted, it would see that the matter was adjusted. It is wrong that the border farmers should be penalized in this way. They form the first line of defence, and should be encouraged, and not, as I have said, penalized. I am sure that if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture were to go up there and acquaint themselves at first hand with the conditions existing something would be done to ameliorate the position of the farmers there.

I second the motion. I agree with every word that the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has said, because, as a farmer, I can understand what it means to those who live along the borders of native territories. Fortunately, my constituency is so situated that we do not experience the same trouble, but I have often spoken to farmers who are so situated, not only in the Aliwal North district, but in the Free State and Transvaal districts, where they adjoin native territories. There the difficulties are terribly great. It is the duty of the Government to contribute its share, and to see that there is proper fencing. That is necessary on account of stock theft and stock diseases. It seems as if the Government thinks that it is not responsible for the fencing, and that it is not necessary to make a contribution. When one remembers that the Fencing Act was imposed upon the farmers by this House, then the Government ought to do its duty. The Act on jackal-proof-fencing was also passed by Parliament, and it has been made obligatory on landowners, and therefore I think that it is unfair, where the Government is the neighbour, that it is not responsible for and will not do the fencing. The Government is practically the neighbour when the farms adjoin native territories, or otherwise one can say that the Government has so much influence with the persons who are responsible for it, the Department of Native Affairs or the High Commissioner, that if it will take the trouble the department will undertake the responsibility. The matter goes further and concerns other Government ground as well. We know that the Railway Department takes transfer of the land where the line goes over private property, and when it has once taken transfer I regard the Department as an owner according to the definition given in the Act. I know of a case where the railway superintendent was asked whether the grazing rights of the part of the farm the railway went over belonged to him. The answer was, “Yes.” It is the same with regard to minerals and water rights, and I can show the answer in black and white. I know of a case where a ganger kept goats and said the ground belonged to the Department, and that he had the right to run his goats there. I am sorry that the Minister of Railways and Harbours is not here. The Department in this case occupies the place of a neighbour, because it takes transfer of the ground and claims the grazing and mineral and water rights. When, however, called upon as a neighbour to contribute to the conversion of the ordinary fencing into jackal-proof fencing, the Department denies liability. When the Government or a Government department denies liability, the other party can go to court, but unfortunately landowners have to pay the costs out of their own pockets, while the Government pays out of the pockets of others. There is a case in my constituency where the land of a private owner adjoins the railway, but on the other side of the railway the land belongs to another owner. The first owner said to me that he wanted to summon the Administration to fulfil its duty in connection with the fencing. I dissuaded him from doing so because the costs would be too high. He said that the amount he wanted to litigate about was so small, that he could take proceedings in the magistrate’s court. I nevertheless told him that he had better abandon it as if he won before the magistrate the Administration would appeal to the High Court, or even to the Appeal Court, so that the costs would be too high. The result is that a man has to bear all the costs alone, and he is placed in this difficult position because his ground adjoins the railway. In my constituency there are five cases of owners in that position, and the Railway Department refuses to admit responsibility for fencing. I do not know what the people can do because it is difficult for them to go to court. Even if they obtain justice there, then the costs in the matter are more than the amount the Railway Administration would have to pay for the fencing. The people are therefore obliged to fence the ground themselves, and to be satisfied with the undesirable position. When the Government considers the matter of the native territories and of Crown land, I hope the Minister of Agriculture will also have the matter of the railways enquired into, to see whether the Government cannot be induced to make the native territories, the Crown lands and the railway lands contribute whenever the neighbouring owner is obliged to fence his ground or to put up jackal proof fencing instead of ordinary fencing.

It was quite interesting to hear all the data of the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton), but there is no longer any doubt about the value of jackal-proof fencing. Anyone worthy of the name of farmer understands the advantage of it, and one who has not yet done so to-day will certainly remain behindhand with his farming and fail. Everyone understands the benefits, but the difficulty is to get the Government to see the necessity of it, and to induce it to fulfil its duty to assist the farmers in this way. It was customary—I think it was under the old Cape Government—to pay a reward for the extermination of vermin, but, unfortunately, that later on cost so much, that the payment was stopped, and all the money already paid was wasted. Subsequently, some years later the Provincial Administration resumed the practice, and for a long time it has been paying out annually a sum from £25,000 to £30,000 for the eradication of this plague. If the Provincial Administration sees the necessity of it, we can surely also expect the Government to do the same. Many people thought that the money was wasted, but we find that in certain parts of the country the farmers can to-day allow the stock to run without jackal-proof fencing. I think there are such areas in the south-west of this Province, and also in the north-east. There are however, other parts where farmers cannot allow their stock to run and where there is no other remedy but fencing. Under the Extermination Ordinance of the Cape Province, the Province is divided into a certain number of areas. I think there are 17 or 18, and each one is under a Circle Committee. I had the honour for five years to be a member of one of them, and I frankly state, and without fear of contradiction, that the greatest danger to the stock farmers was the Crown lands at Alexandria and the district of Uitenhage. There is a natural boundary formed by the Zunrberg. On our side in Somerset East, one finds stock farming, and as soon as you go over the Zuurberg you get into Crown land, where there is a reserve containing elephants, and we find the Government is doing nothing there. The Government contributes nothing towards jackal-proof fencing. It is the easiest thing in the world to erect a good fence to cut off Crown land from the parts where stock farming is carried on. The Government can then keep the jackals on its own property It is perhaps not possible to exterminate them. It is very difficult, but I think the least the Government can do is to fulfil its duty. The only answer we as a Provincial Council, always got from the Government was that the Government was not bound by an Ordinance of the Provincial Council. I agree, but I make an earnest appeal to the Government to assist the farmers.

If there is a thing which is of great importance to the population of South Africa, not only to the rural population, but to the urban as well, it is jackal-proof fencing. Upon the introduction of the Bill in 1922, I was the only one on my side in this House who voted in favour of it, and I am bold enough to say that the fencing has saved millions and millions of stock, especially during great droughts, and that it is due to jackal-proof fencing that South Africa has become famous for its wool in the markets of the world. Hardly 10 or 12 years ago I had the opportunity of visiting the wool market in London, and, to my shame, I saw what kind of wool South Africa was selling on the London market. From the reports we receive now, not only about the London market, but with reference to all the world markets, it appears that South African wool is equal to that of any other country, and to the best wool produced in Australia. That is exclusively due to the fact that, in consequence of the Act on jackal-proof fencing, we were able to let our sheep run free. That Act was not quite perfect, no Act is perfect from the very start. In England Acts are daily being amended that have been in existence for hundreds of years. I tried by introducing an amending Bill to improve the 1922 Act and to remedy a defect in it, but the Bill never got through Parliament, and the defect still exists, viz., not giving sufficient protection to the farmer who cannot get a loan from the Government through the Land Bank. Two farmers go to the Land Bank for a loan. The one succeeds, but not the other, simply because the bondholder refuses to agree to such a loan, because he thinks that he will not then have enough, security. The result is that the farmer with this mortgage suffers. The Minister of Finance has indeed provided that loans of this nature shall in future be regarded as quit rent, but the defect is not yet remedied and the objections of the bondholders to the loan not removed. Their security always remains less safe than before the loan. I heartily support the motion. We can easily ask the Government to carry out its obligations with regard to the railway as well. As for the railways, the general manager decides in some cases to pay his half, but in other cases he refuses, ft is very unfair. Now the hon. member for Aliwal asks the Government to pay its half for fencing ground adjoining Crown land. Under the Provincial Council Ordinance, thousands and thousands of pounds are spent and the best steps taken to exterminate jackals I say that the organizing of farmers is the most difficult thing in the world. It is just as impossible as to touch the heavens with your hand. I am a farmer, and I say that I would rather try to organize any section of the people than the farmers. With reference to the Ordinance, it was impossible to organize the farmers, and the only solution was jackal-proof fencing. In this respect, the Government must fulfil its obligations on Crown lands. I do not live in a district which adjoins Crown land, but I heartily sympathize with people who do. The fencing does not only keep out the jackals and native dogs, but also the natives. Our wool industry is becoming more and more important. We do not now only look to the London market, but we have acquired such a reputation that all countries of the world are competing to buy our wool. It is amusing to learn that Russia now wants to buy £4,000,000 worth of wool. I cannot understand who can be opposed to it, even if Russia wanted to buy £40,000,000 worth and we could produce it. Last year Russia bought 65 lbs. and this year 112 lbs. It is interesting to see that it now wants to buy £4,000,000 worth. I am surprised at the crocodile tears of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) when this Government wants to bless Mr. Schlesinger on his visit to Russia. The wool market was a great gamble in the past, and the price rose and feil, and I shall be glad if other countries compete and stability is brought about. Does the hon. member know that the average price of wool is 22d. per lb. in one year, and the following year 7d. per lb.? Now I am surprised that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort sheds crocodile tears because the Government is giving its blessing to Mr. Schlesinger’s undertaking. I am willing to give him my blessing, because he has a business policy, and even if our wool is sold to a Boshevistic Government, we need the money. The facilities and the banks exist. There are many wool buyers in South Africa who buy on credit, and have to get facilities from the bank. A buyer possibly requires a sum of £500000. and he therefore needs the assistance of the bank. In connection with Mr. Schlesinger’s undertaking I have no objection to the Government giving its blessing.

I am opposed to Mr. Schlesinger being sent.

He is not being sent by the Government, but the Government is only blessing the venture. Where the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) can sell a pound of wool, Mr. Schlesinger can sell hundreds of thousands, because he is a capable business man. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort sheds crocodile tears in vain because we are going to try to sell wool to Russia. We try to sell wool to Germany. Do hon. members know why the attempt did not succeed? The reason was that the deputation sent to Germany was an undesirable one. The deputation went to Germany to see if an exchange in trade could not be commenced with Germany. Everything looked bright until the German Government said that it was ready to agree to it if South Africa would buy railway material from Germany at prices 20 per cent. below those of British manufacturer. The members of the deputation, however, regarded that proposal as a calamity.

Get finished, so that other members can talk about the motion.

What have these remarks to do with the motion

I am glad to see the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) understands my language.

What have your remarks to do with fencing?

We want to keep the name we have gained, and we do not only want to get the sympathy of the Government, but also that of the hon. member for Rondebosch, so that he should not, along with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, shed crocodile tears because we are busy finding markets for our wool. The position is to-day Such that the demand for wool is much greater than the available supply. Therefore, I shall be glad if the Government will fulfil its obligation, not only with regard to finding markets, but also with regard to the fencing of farms. The hon. member for Rondebosch has tried to put me off my point. The reason why we did not succeed in establishing trade relations with Germany is the fact that the deputation sent to Germany was imbued with too much imperialistic sentiment. Another case I can mention to show the same tendency is the establishment of Bawra, the British and Australian Wool Realization Association. When the British Government, in its keenness to get as much wool as possible to see the war through had bought too much wool, it had a surplus after the war. It was impossible to put all of it on the world market, because that would reduce the prices too much. The Bawra organization was then established to put the wool on the world market over a long period, according to the demand. Bawra made profits at the expense of the unfortunate wool growers to an amount of £50,000,000. The South African wool growers almost accepted the same offer that the British Government made to Australia, and if it had done so, it would have made a loss of £15,000,000. Fortunately the South African Government in the first instance decided not to accept the British offer, but in 1918, when the British Government so strongly urged it, the South African Government decided to urge the wool farmers to accept the offer. We find however, from the correspondence between the two Governments, that the British Government expressly says that the prevailing market price for wool is 5d. higher per lb. than the sum offered by the British Government. Notwithstanding that fact, the South African Government urged the wool farmers to accept the British offer.

The hon. member is now wandering from the point.

I am sorry. I want to bring the necessity of jackal-proof fencing to the notice of the Government. It is necessary to see that the farmers are assisted, so as to prevent their losing thousands of head of stock. From the returns of the Minister of Agriculture we have seen that the losses due to stock theft last year exceeded £300,000. I cannot speak about jackal-proof fencing if I cannot also refer to the good wool of South Africa as a result of that fencing. Good wool and jackal-proof fencing go hand in hand. I hope, therefore, that you will not say that I am wandering from the point.

The hon. member may proceed.

Then I want to come back to Bawra. That organization was a very good thing, but it was not established in the interests of the wool growers, but in that of the British Government. The more we consider conditions the stronger one can insist that the electors must be careful to send people to Parliament who fully appreciate the requirements of the farmers. When the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) proposed that the farmers should be exempted from income tax, there was much in it, because it is very difficult to keep people on the land. It is difficult to induce the farmers to go in for jackal-proof fencing, because they have not the oportunity of making a good living. The poor people leave for the towns and we must try and stop that. Under the Water Conservation Act, the Irrigation Act of 1912, facilities are given to people who want to build irrigation works, and they have forty years in which to refund the amount advanced them. In the case of advances for jackal proof fencing, the farmers only get twelve years. It is necessary for the Government to fulfil its obligations, and if it does so we shall be ready to pay taxes. We want to pay as much as possible, and that those people who are least able to do so should not be forced to pay taxes. It is impossible for people in the present conditions on the countryside to fulfil their obligations. I am not speaking of those parts of the country where there is a sufficient rainfall, but where the rainfall is very small. During the last six months the rainfall in the Midlands was ony 1.10 inches, but at the Oog the condition is such that if the cattle are not fed they die.

Where is that?

In the Midlands. More facilities ought to be given to the wool farmers, in order to make their position easier, and to obviate the removal of their stock to the native territories. If it is necessary to make the jackal-proof fencing 10-foot high, the Government also must fulfil its obligations. The Minister is a practical farmer, and will know that the farmers must be met. There is a special difficulty on the borders of Basutoland. A few years ago I was a member of a select committee that recommended that the boundary there should be fenced with barbed wire for 70 miles. If this had been done the losses amounting to over £300,000 would not have taken place. It is unfair to ask the farmers alone to bear the cost of fencing the boundary. The native territories ought to be taxed to pay their portion, and should also meet their obligations. As the British Government is responsible for the government of Basutoland, it ought to meet its obligations in this respect. The laws operating in the Union should also apply to all our neighbours. The Government need only make representations to the British Government, and they will meet us. I always heard that our Government would never have influence with the British Government, but it seems to me that it has more influence than the previous Government. Only a few days ago the Opposition were insisting on the Government using its influence with regard to the building of the Lobito Bay railway. The Opposition believe in this Government’s influence. I think I can easily urge the Government to accept the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal. As for Mr. Schlesinger, I think he will do good work in Russia.

I do not understand what the motion has to do with Mr. Schlesinger and Russia, If the hon. member will read the motion he will see that he cannot discuss those matters.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you allowed me to connect up wool and fencing. My view is that we are tired of the conditions of getting 7d. one year, and 20d. the following year for our wool, and if by competition between other countries the wool market can be stabilized, it will be a blessing. If we, e.g., can establish our own factories in South Africa—

The hon. member knows nothing about factories. If this Government gives support to any factory he makes the most noise in the world, because he is opposed to the Government. The best measures that are here proposed he will oppose, because he is against the Government. The hon. member an Afrikaans-speaking member, is filled with the utmost bitterness against the Government. The sooner we get good jackal-proof fencing the better for the future of our country.

I should like to say a few words, but I do not know what the motion has to do with Russia and Lobito Bay. I was surprised to hear from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) that the welfare of the whole country depended on jackal-proof fencing. I agree that it is true with reference to the wool industry, but was not the hon. member, the other day, in favour of the Government putting an import duty on sieving wire? On the one hand he says that our salvation depends on wire, on the other he wants to increase the price of wire.

You know I did not say that.

You said here the other night—

The hon. member must address the Chair.

You said the other day—

The hon. member cannot discuss what was said in a previous debate.

I should like to heartily support the motion, but I do not think it goes far enough. The discretion of the Minister has been referred to, also the desirability of the Government, if the Crown elects to do so, paying half. I should like to see the motion made obligatory on the Government. The Minister of Agriculture smiles. I think the farmers are being very heavily taxed as regards fencing. It is unfortunately, just those parts which adjoin the native areas which are excellent sheep countries. It is particularly difficult and unfair that farmers adjoining them should bear all the expenses of the big boundaries, especially when one considers that they have heavy losses through stock thefts. I should like the Minister, not only to take the mation into consideration, but to visit the areas which it will affect. He will then see how great the difficulties of the farmers there are. The Fencing Act provides that where a farmer puts up a fence he can go to his neighbour, and the neighbour has to pay half. The Government said that it did not apply to them. I should like the Government to give the matter a push forward, that it should set an example. The hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo) has plainly shown what difficulties they had in connection with Crown land, while he was still a member of the Provincial Council, how the Government then said that the Provincial Ordinance did not find the Government. I feel the Government will improve the position a great deal if it would agree to bear only the expenses, so doing nothing more than ordinary citizens are compelled to do. I feel that if this country is to progress, the only way is for us to develop agriculturally. We must have a forward policy in agriculture. I should like to know what increase in our yield of wool has been brought about by jackal-proof fencing. Undoubtedly, it is true that if the sheep run free the wool grows much better, and the farmers get a better price. As I have already told the Minister of Finance, it will much advance the fencing of farms if the farmers are allowed to deduct from their income tax what they pay for fencing. I now come to another point. We have to do with the fencing of Crown lands, native areas and railways. Some time ago I asked the Minister of Railways a question in connection with the fencing of the railway, and his reply was they would try to find a means whereby the object could be reached without it being necessary to fence the entire lines. It will be very desirable if such a scheme can be applied. It will not cost much if fencing could take place with a kind of trapdoor or some similar thing to stop jackals. I hope the Minister will still consider it. It is necessary to assist the farmers and especially those adjoining Crown land or native areas. I will not say that the Government should pay itself for fencing along the borders of native territories. The native territories can themselves contribute their part, because the native territories can jointly pay the expenses. I feel that it is absolutely necessary, and I want to urge the Minister not to shunt this matter, but to consider it properly. I can assure him that if the Act is altered in that direction it will be a great aid to us.

It is advisable for me to reply at once. [No quorum.] I have listened attentively to the mover of the resolution. It seems to me as if his supporters think that if the motion is accepted we shall at once be in the Promised Land. It is very clear from the arguments of hon. members that they appear to think that if the farms are fenced with jackal-proof fencing there will be no fear of stock thefts, and the thieves will find no place to break through, and the farmers will be able to let their sheep run safely. My experience is that conditions are different, because farmers become careless after the farm is enclosed with jackal-proof fencing, and then they subsequently find that many of their sheep are gone. I am not opposed to the system, but I say this only as a warning, because it was said this afternoon that the loss of £300,000 from stock theft will not be suffered after the farms have jackal-proof fencing. Hon. members also seem to think that there will be a regular rainfall if the farms are once enclosed in that way, and that there will be 30 inches of rain. Not only that, but it is alleged that jackal-proof fencing has given our wool its good name in Europe. What about the poor Free State? Is the Free State wool then so bad that it has no name? What about the Transvaal and Natal where the farmers also do not go in for jackal-proof fencing? What about the part of the Cape Province where it is not used? I noticed that in the Malmesbury district one of the sheep farmers got the best prices in the country for his wool. When I say this. I do not disapprove of jackal-proof fencing. It is decidedly good for the sheep and for the wool if they can run free owing to the fencing. I do not say that I disapprove of it, but I am mentioning the arguments used by hon. members. If the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) was serious in his motion, then he never would have introduced it as it stands. The hon. member asks that the Government, if it sees fit, should assist in paying the expenses connected with jackal-proof fencing. What prevents the Government if it wishes to pay a part of the cost doing so? Legislation is not necessary to attain to the object of the hon. member’s motion. If the Government thinks it desirable to pay a part of the cost, then the required amount can just be put on the estimates. The hon. member goes further and says that the Government wants to make the people fence their ground, but that it runs away from its own responsibility. Where is the Government running away? On the border of Basutoland? How can the hon. member expect the Government and the general taxpayers to be held responsible for certain boundaries which someone would like to see fenced? The Government compels nobody in this case. You are compelling yourselves. The Act is not compulsory. If the farmers of a division ask for the Act to be made compulsory in their area, then in the Free State and Transvaal the magistrate convenes a meeting of farmers and, if the meeting so decides, then the Act is proclaimed compulsory for that division. In the Cape Province it is the divisional councils who act in the matter. If a divisional council asks that the Act should be made compulsory in a certain part—say, for instance, Cradock—then I have no choice, but have to do so. The decision lies in the hands of the local body, and it is not the Government that makes the Act compulsory, but the members of the divisional council who are elected for the district. Now hon. members want the Government to go much further than what private persons are compelled to do. It is provided in the Act that any person outside the proclaimed area can only be compelled to contribute to the cost of jackal-proof fencing if he makes a beneficial use of it. Where Government ground adjoins private property hon. members expect the Government to go further than a private individual.

You are quoting from the old Act.

The provision is taken over in the new Act as the hon. member will see, if he refers to it. Hon. members opposite have said that this Government makes tremendous claims to looking after the farmers’ interests. I agree with that because we are doing everything we can to assist the farming industry. It is not, however, fair to ask the Government to only assist certain landowners. If the Government is to assist those people it must assist all. The Government cannot only assist in fencing one man’s farm and not the other’s. I think the hon. member is unfair in his motion, and I think the object is to catch a few votes and to show his constituents that he is still in Parliament. I think that is the only reason the hon. member has for his motion. He has himself quoted from a select committee report as early as 1921, recommendations to the former Government, about certain fencing which ought to be done. He was in the House then. Why did not that Government, which he then supported, and which, according to him, looked well after the interests of the farmers, not comply with the recommendations? This Government will never draw back where the interests of the farmers are concerned. If we think that it is in the interests of the farmers, then the Minister of Finance will not hesitate to place a sum on the estimates for fencing. Basutoland was mentioned in the debate. We cannot compel the Imperial Government to fence the border. The hon. member for Aliwal knows that an attempt was previously made but that the Imperial Government, on account of the financial condition of Basutoland, was not prepared to go into the matter. Now the hon. member expects this Government to do it, and to bear the costs. According to my information—and the hon. member knows it himself—there are parts where it is impossible to fence. I do not know whether the hon. member thinks there is a possibility of erecting jackal-proof fencing there. I do not think the House can be expected to pass the motion. I am sorry that, however willingly I should like to assist the hon. member, it is impossible for me to accept the motion on behalf of the Government. I may say that, even if the motion is adopted, as it now reads, the Government has, in any case, the right at any time to grant money for the purpose, whether the motion is adopted now or not. As I said before, the motion is absolutely futile as it is here, and I do not think that the hon. member is serious about it. I am sorry that I cannot accept it.

I should like to move, as an amendment, which may possibly be approved by the Minister—

It seems that Act No. 11 of 1922 actually supplements Act 17 of 1912—the Fencing Act. The tatter provides in section 5 in what circumstances fencing can be made compulsory. It provides for the Transvaal where there are no divisional councils that, on the petition of at least twelve landowners in a certain area, ward or field cornetcy, the magistrate of the district is obliged to call a meeting after proper notice in the newspapers or otherwise of land-owners in the area with the object of explaining to them the circumstances in which compulsory fencing can be enforced, and if the majority of the meeting are in favour of it, then that area shall be regarded as a zone where fencing is compulsory. To a certain extent I admit what the Minister has said, viz.: That compulsory fencing is for the most part voluntary, because the majority demand it. It is in reality only a hardship on the minority in the area where the majority are in favour of compulsory fencing, but this does not minimize the principle, and the fact that every farm in that area must be fenced. Of course that obligation causes large expenditure for the farmers concerned. The provisions about the required capital for fencing are laid down in Act 17 of 1912 ; that the Land Bank shall lend the money to the farmers concerned, viz.: Those compelled to fence their farms, but the amount of the loan is registered against the title deed of the land, and the Act further provides that such a transfer deed cannot be made over to another owner before the money advanced for fencing has been repaid to the Land Bank, in other words, unless the owner of the ground is rich enough to pay the costs of fencing out of his own pocket, he undertakes a heavy debt. Therefore, I submit this amendment because if the Government supplies the money for the purchase price it will considerably lighten the burdens. The price will come down from 10 to 15 per cent. and the material last longer. That is the experience of the Transvaal up to 1912, and the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) will be able to say more about it, because he was controller of fencing in the Transvaal. As I say, it worked well in the old days. I believe that at that time there was approximately half a million pounds’ worth of wire and other fencing material imported into the Transvaal by the Government for the farmers. To-day the position is such that the farmers are now only properly appreciating what benefits that gave them, because it appears that the material then supplied was very good, and is, to-day, still in first-class condition, and better than the material which, in many cases, is supplied by private firms.

Did the Government suffer damage in connection with it?

I believe not. At any rate, I do not know of it, but, in any case, under existing circumstances, there should be no necessity for a loss, because the whole matter can be left in the hands of the Land Bank, which can take measures to prevent a penny’s damages being suffered in any circumstances. Even if 50 per cent. damage had been suffered at that time, then it is still no reason for not accepting my amendment. Further, I want to point out that the matter is of importance ; because, as I understand, about the whole of the Cape Province, the whole of the Free State, the whole of Natal, and a large part of the Transvaal to-day falls under Act 17 of 1912. A short while ago a large part of my constituency decided to come under the Fencing Act, and I am, therefore, making my request not on my own personal behalf only, but on behalf of my electors. I know that objections can be taken to the purchase of material by the Government. People, who are a little old-fashioned, can say that it is socialistic, that the Government is interfering in private undertakings, and that the Government should not do private business. I will only say that I am not at all afraid of that kind of socialism. If that is socialistic, then it is also socialistic for the Government to buy materials for the railways, and I think just recently orders amounting to three-quarters of a million pounds sterling have been placed for engines. The Government is further buying material for telephones. That, accordingly, is also socialistic. Where the fencing is compulsory, it is just as little socialistic for the Government itself to buy material for fencing. I hope that my amendment will be favourably received by the Minister and hon. members. I admit that the motion will not bring us into the Promised Land, but the Minister of Agriculture knows better than anyone that the farmers in general are anything but in the Promised Land, but are rather in the desert of misery and trouble.

I want to second the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). I feel that the original motion asks a little too much of the Government, and that it will give the Government much trouble, tc carry it out therefore, I want to support the amendment which asks that the Government should confine itself to supplying cheap and good material to the farmers. That will be a great concession. There is much to be said for it, because, if we buy material from the merchants, we have to accept the quality and grade that is supplied, but when the Government limits itself to the purchase of material, then it can specifically be laid down how the material is to be made, and we shall gel a uniform kind. The system had a large measure of success in the Transvaal, and it was stopped because the Government in 1912 felt that it had contributed enough for fencing the boundaries of farms, and that the farming population would have to make all the subsidiary fences, for which, if loans were required, they could go to the Land Bank. Undoubtedly, much has been and is being done by the Government for the farmers. I see there is an amount of £287,000, e.g., in these estimates, that for veterinary science, under which conies the eradication of scab and other stock diseases. We appreciate this, and we feel that much is being done by the Government to combat stock diseases. In the Cape Province the fencing question is particularly serious. In the north-west, the State owns much ground, and we feel that we are asking a great deal of the Government if we expect it to pay half the cost of fencing. There is another point which I feel in this connection. We must surely hope that some day an end will come to the jackal plague in our country, just as in the north we have put an end to the contagious stock diseases, and when the day comes that the jackals are exterminated, then the wire fencing will still remain in possession of the landowners. It is, therefore, only fair to expect them, as the eventual owners of the wire, to also pay for it. Now we however, expect the Government, if a loan is granted to make the conditions of repayment easier than hitherto. Especially farmers with large farms require easy terms for the loan, and the supply of cheap and good wire by the joint, centralized purchase of it. I therefore feel that there is a better chance of the amendment being passed, and I hope the House will do so.

I should like to put in a good word with the Minister for the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton). who introduced the motion. The hon. member was so startled at the speech of the Minister, that he left the House. He is now, however, regaining courage, because I see he is just entering. I should like to say something for him, and to make it plain to the Minister why be introduced the motion, although the party to which he belongs, and who had so many years to take action, did nothing in the matter. It has now become clear to members opposite that if they want anything done, they must come to this Government.

The previous Government did not have enough money.

I know the position of the previous Government. The previous Government was like some poor people that are now chicken farming where the pour hen has hatched three or four settings and is so thik and bloodless that none of the eggs under her come out. Of the eggs that the previous Government put under tile hen, no chickens have hatched out, but now hon. members opposite find out that there is a young, lively, strong and warm hen who does not sit very long before the chickens commence to crack the shells. But, however good a hen may be, she can only hatch a certain number of eggs, and if more than that number are put under her, then the surplus eggs are kicked out of the nest. Now that the hon. member for Aliwal brings along a good egg, he must not object to it being kicked aside. The question of fencing is undoubtedly very important, and I agree with the motion in so far that I think it desirable that an amendment should be made in the Fencing Act. The first part of the motion speaks about the amendment. I lived for a long time on the borders of Basutoland, in the Wepener district, and I know the difficulties farmers on the border have. I think the greatest burden is the two-legged and not the four-legged jackals. It will evoke too much discussion if I elaborate this, and then I shall, moreover, be compelled to say a few more words about police dogs. Police dogs will help the farmers a lot, and it will make a great difference if the farmers get these dogs and know how to use them when sheep disappear. As I said yesterday, we have considerable trouble to get them, and there are not yet enough of Afrik blood. I do not know whether I shall have the right to call in the help of the hon. leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) to assist us, under his immigration scheme, to get dogs that can assist in exterminating jackals. There is one matter in connection with the extermination of jackals to which I want to call the Minister’s attention. There is a certain kind of farm, fortunately there are not too many in the Free State, which causes great trouble. In my constituency there is one. It was, however, sold fourteen days ago, and possibly conditions will now improve. I am, however, explaining the details so that the Minister can understand the difficulty which arises on other similar farms. This is a farm which has been lying idle for years, and it is about 6,000 morgen in extent.

The farm gets bigger every year.

The farm of which I speak is not the one the hon. member is thinking of. He has never yet heard of this farm. Formerly there was a diamond mine on the farm, but, for some reason or other, it was closed down, and the farm entrusted to the care of a man who had to look after the game on it. The game multiplied greatly, but unfortunately, the jackals as well. I have great sympathy with the protection of game, and I like to go to hunt, and shall be sorry when such places where game is preserved are put an end to. Yet I must point out that this kind of farm has the effect that the farmers in the neighbourhood have much trouble, because, although they may by law attempt to exterminate jackals, the farm is so large that, as the owner is not obliged to erect jackal-proof fencing around his farm, it is impossible for the farmers to keep the jackals away from their farms. Besides wild buck, jackals are also bred, and however hard the farmers try to exterminate jackals on their own farms, they cannot get quit of the nuisance of the jackals from the farm of the magnates. If the Minister had more power to compel people, and to say that if they do not exterminate jackals that they will have to enclose their farms with jackal-proof fencing, then the neighbouring farmers would be protected. That is the position we have right in the middle of the Free State, and I think it ought to be prevented. It is certainly necessary for the Fencing Act to be amended here and there. We find that the progressive farmers, living next to owners who do not bother themselves as to how their farms look, find a great difficulty in getting their neighhours to take a fair share in the fencing improvements. As the law stands to-day, if the farmer wishes to enclose his farm with jackal-proof fencing, he can go to his neighbour, and if the alteration will be beneficial for the latter he can contribute to the cost, but otherwise not. The feeling exists among many farmers that there should be more obligation to compel the negligent neighbour, the class of man in the town you can call a cheque-book farmer, who keeps the ground for purposes of speculation, and who does not put his fence in order, to do so. If we can fix a standard fence in the Act, that will also assist to compel that class of man to do his duty. I know of a large number of farmers in the Free State who would be in favour of compelling a man to put up a certain standard fencing on his land. There is something else I want to call attention to, and that is, the fencing along the main road. It is very inconvenient and injurious in itself for the farmers to have a main road over their farms, and even if it is true that the Government meets the farmers to a certain extent by advancing money for fencing the road on both sides, I think that more could be done for the people. It is of great interest for us to have an end put not only to the nuisance of gates, but that the farmers should suffer no more damage. Many people urge that the Act should be made more severe for not closing gates, because a great deal of loss is suffered in consequence of the negligence of travellers. There are farmers who say that the offenders should be punished by a fine of £40 for the first conviction, and with imprisonment for subsequent offences. I can understand that people have much inconvenience and loss because, besides the inconvenience I have mentioned, the farmers further lose a great deal of their ground by the road going over their farms. I think the Government, in view of the sacrifice these people make for the benefit of the travelling public, should still further come to the assistance of the farmers, so that we can put an end to the mass of gates along the main road. It is not my wish that the roads should be fenced on both sides by jackal-proof fencing. Fortunately, it is not necessary in the Free State. There it is not so impossible to organize the farmers as we have heard this afternoon is the case in the Cape Province. There are jackals there as well, but they have been got under to a great extent, and if the Free State farmers are properly assisted, they will also put an end to the two-legged jackals. Even if the Minister cannot accept the motion as it is, then I think he should seriously consider the matter during the recess to see if he cannot further assist the farmers about main roads, and to protect them against the mining magnates, who hold farms and go there once a year to shoot game. Then he will be able, next year, to suggest something which will be of assistance to the farming population.

I must say that I have much sympathy for the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal, and differ here a little from the Minister of Agriculture, who accused the hon. member of only introducing it in order to let his constituents know that he was still in the House. I am convinced that the hon. member is in earnest about it. I have for many years sat with him on a commission about stock thefts, and I know that he looks upon it as a very serious matter. Now I must admit that the Minister has said here that the Government is opposed to accepting the motion, and I will honestly acknowledge that I appreciate the difficulty of the Government to a certain extent. When the Bill with regard to compulsory jackal-proof fencing was introduced, I was one of the persons who was opposed to making it compulsory, because at that time I thought there was something that would work out unjustly. If the motion is adopted, then other classes also will have the right to claim assistance from the Government. If district A, e.g., decides to make jackal-proof fencing compulsory while that is not the case in the adjoining district B, then the occupiers of the boundary of district A are also obliged to be solely responsible for the fencing of the boundary between the two districts, as is now the case where the farms border on native territories. If the motion is adopted in its present form, the Government will experience the difficulty of people saying: The Government is assisting those other people and should therefore also help us. That will cause trouble. Although the motion will possibly not be passed. I still think that this discussion will not be useless. I can speak from experience of what it is to farm on the border of native reserves, and in general it is not sufficiently known in the country what sacrifice those farmers have to make. The Free State farmers are the border-guards for the back parts of Harrismith up to where the Orange River enters Basutoland. I know that we have not there to do with ground belonging to the Union Government, but I want, on this occasion, to ask the Government to continue negotiating with the Basutoland Government, so that they shall get them to assume their responsibility in connection with the border. Not only do the border farmers have thefts of stock night and day, but the natives do not respect any fencing, and it is a pleasure to him to climb through it and to break it down, and if he has a chance he cuts it in pieces and goes through. Therefore, it would be a good thing if the Government could induce the Basutoland Government to assume its responsibilities in connection with the border. I hope, when we discuss the segregation policy, it will be laid down that the natives have obligations regarding the boundaries. To-day the boundary farmers are suffering all the damage. One of the border farmers at the top end of Basutoland intended to fence his ground. We were all glad for him to do so, because it protected those of us who lay behind. The Basutoland Government was then prepared to bear its share of the cost, but whatever the man did he could not induce the Government to begin the work. He then went and erected an eight wire fence, which cost a lot of money. He had the promise that the Basutoland Government would pay half. After he had erected the fence, they were unwilling to pay their share. I have called the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to it, but the difficulty is that the Government cannot compel Basutoland to contribute its share. I hope, however, that the Government will continue negotiations and succeed in getting the Basutoland Government to do so. It will be a good thing for both sides. It is very necessary, too, for the fighting of scab. If the wire is kept in good order, it assists splendidly. It can, of course, be cut, but that is something which can always happen. Perhaps the motion cannot be accepted in its present form, but I still hope that something will be done for the border farmers.

I would appeal to hon. members on the other side to allow us to come to a vote, as it appears to me that those who are supporting the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) will kill it with kindness. I think the matter has been discussed to such an extent that everyone knows how he is going to vote, and I am sure the mover of the motion would like the House to come to the vote, and would also like to give the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) a chance to bring on his motion, as this is his only chance this session, there being no more private days. To me it seems as if either they want to keep this motion from coming to a vote, or to hold up the debate so that the hon. member for Hanover Street cannot come on with his motion.

Order!

That is the party which is always shouting that it looks after the farmers’ interests, and then, when we discuss a matter which is of great importance to the farmers, the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) makes a speech like that. There are very few farmers on that side of the House. The hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw), Aliwal (Mr. Sephton), and Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), are possibly the only farmers visible. The hon. member for Worcester is frightened that the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) will not be reached. Are the farmers’ interests of so little importance to him that he does not want to permit us to discuss them? What the few farmers opposite should do is to join up with this side. They would be quite welcome. As a farmer, I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal, and I know that he is serious with it. I think hon. members are wrong if they say that he introduced it merely to show that he was still here. He is in earnest about farming matters. I have known him for a long time, and I know the difficulties in his district, inasmuch as I represented it in the Provincial Council. What, however, I want to bring to his notice is that the previous Government did nothing in this direction, but he said—and quite rightly—that our Government was now a farmers’ party, and that he therefore had the temerity to approach it. I sympathize with the hon. member.

Why did you vote against the Fencing Act, or at least the Nationalist party?

It was not a party matter. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) said here this afternoon that he voted for it. If the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) had then been in the House, I doubt whether he would have voted for it. At that time, we had not yet had experience of these matters, but if I had been in the House then, I should have voted for it. It was no party matter. The party said that everyone could vote as he thought best. The Free State and Transvaal did not have a similar difficulty. They did not require the Act, and make no use of it to-day, but we in the Cane Province require it, and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet quite rightly voted in favour of it. As for the motion, I think that it is difficult for the Government to take the responsibility for the fencing on the borders of Basutoland, which does not belong to us. I want to urge the Minister of Agriculture and the Government to induce Basutoland to contribute its share, or otherwise to approach the Imperial Government to do its part. This is a farming matter, and for this reason we are supporting the hon. member for Aliwal. I hope the Government, will also assist the hon. member. If the motion is accented, the burdens of the farmers will become lighter. If the farmers are flourishing, then the country also flourishes, because the farmers are the backbone of the country and must serve to enrich the parasites. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) will not dare to deny this, because even he knows that the farmers in his constituency agree with what I say. It seems to me as if he attaches more importance to the increase of civil servants’ salaries than to this motion. I want to tell the hon. member for Worcester that I am not afraid of the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I am not afraid of the public servants, because I am a farmer, and I have to take count of the interests of the taxpayers. I shall not vote in favour of increasing the taxes to be able to pay higher salaries to the public servants.

The hon. member cannot now discuss the next motion.

It was said that we farmers are afraid of the next motion. To return to the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal. I know that the question of fencing Crown land causes trouble. Our farmers in the House will be fair. I do not say that the Government must fence all the Crown land. Where the Government can assist the farmers, it must be done, but we must admit our responsibility as representatives of the people, and we cannot insist on something before we know how much it will cost. Before the motion is accepted, the Government must go into the matter, and find out how much it will cost. Then I want to say a few words about fencing between farms and the railway. I received a letter some time ago from the Minister of Railways and Harbours, saying that the Administration would pay half the expense. I am very much obliged for the letter, and thank the Minister heartily. In the parts of the Cape Province crossed by the railway, I want to urge upon the Minister that when the farmers fence their ground along the railway, the railway administration should pay half the cost. That is no more than fair, and the farmers are entitled to demand it. I am certain that if the Government seriously considers the matter, the reasonableness of the request will be admitted. Something has been said this afternoon in connection with wire netting. That has a close connection with fencing of farms, because one cannot fence a farm if you have no wire netting. I want to repeat what I said the other night, viz., that I am opposed to an import duty on wire netting. The farmers in my constituency are not prepared to pay a duty on that at this stage until the wire netting industry is firmly established.

Then you do not agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden)?

I do not often differ from him, but do here. After five or six years, when we have the raw material and the wire netting industry has a right to exist in South Africa, then I will agree with the hon. member and support protection. I agree with the protection policy of the Government, because I know it has already done much good.

The hon. member may not now discuss protection.

I was only speaking about wire netting, as we were discussing jackal-proof fencing. I want again to urge upon the Minister of Finance to allow the farmers to deduct wear and tear from their incomes for the purposes of the income tax.

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

I thought I could touch upon that. I submit to your ruling, and, as I am afraid if I continue that you will rule me entirely out of order, I shall sit down by merely saying that I heartily support the motion.

From the speeches this afternoon it has been shown that the farmers take a very great interest in this matter. I am not at all surprised that all the wool farmers and representatives of wool farmers in this House are advocating the matter. In my constituency there are not yet many wool sheep and especially in the districts that border on South-West Africa and the British Bechuanaland Protectorate one finds few wool sheep. If I am to-day advocating the adoption of the motion, I am asking for an expenditure that will not be of much value in my constituency. It will be many years before we shall have jackal-proof fencing there with its widely-separated farms. I do not, however, want to play the part of the dog in the manger by saying that, because my constituency will not be much benefited I shall oppose it, I want to add, however, that I will do so on one condition, viz.: That all the members, who have advocated this expenditure of the Government paying half where Crown lands and native territories, etc., border on farms, bind themselves that if I next year introduce a motion in connection with the destruction of locusts to the effect that the whole country should bear the expense, they will support the motion. It has been said we must remember that the border farmers are a buffer state protecting the whole country and, therefore, the Government should pay its share. We, who live on the borders of the desert, have to do with locusts, and their extermination is useful to other districts in the interior, hence the whole country ought to contribute towards the expense. If all hon. members are prepared to support my motion next year, then I will also support this motion for jackal-proof fencing. I can, however, understand the position of the Minister. I do not know whether jackal-proof fencing will ever be a success in those parts. There are some jackals who already know how to burrow under the wire. All are not so clever, but if a horse can learn to dig out a fountain to drink water, and if a zebra can learn to dig up roots, then the jackal will know night after night to go under the wire just where he pleases. The jackals will manage this especially where they see ant-bear holes going under the wire. Consequently, I doubt whether such great expense will be justified in the areas where there is much sand and the earth is soft. As the wool farmers expect the people to be ready to spend money when they live on the boundaries, it is also their duty to assist where the farmers on the borders of the desert stop a plague, and so benefit the whole Union.

Looked at from the farmers’ standpoint, we shall all admit that this is an important motion. I am concerned with it not only as a farmer, but also from the angle of the taxpayers. I ask where the matter will end if we adopt the motion, because it may mean higher taxation. Now my hon. friends opposite want to frighten us by saying that we fear the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I shall take up the same attitude when that motion is before the House. We must consider the taxpayers and not only the interests of the farmers. We must also consider what burden this motion will throw on the shoulders of the Government. Hon. members opposite now adopt other tactics because, while they formerly stated that we should speak, they now want us to remain quiet. I support the interests of the farmers, but I do not forget the taxpayers. When we discuss this motion then there is something else besides the boundaries of Crown lands and native territories that I want to bring to the notice of the Government. I want to ask the Government if it will not see that the boundary line between the Cape Province and the Free State, which is in such a neglected condition, is repaired. It causes great inconvenience to the farmers with regard to the extermination of vermin. There is a great difference between the laws of the provinces. If the Government does not do something to replace the boundary fence between the two provinces, great inconvenience will be caused to the farmers in the Free State. We have some of De Beers’ ground there which is used for breeding jackals and the farmers are powerless to do anything, because they do not know where the boundary is and the provincial laws with regard to the extermination of vermin are very different, and this causes much inconvenience. I hope that the Government will give its attention to the matter, so that we may know where the boundary is.

I am very pleased that the Minister of Agriculture has refused to accept this motion. When the original Bill, dealing with this subject, came before this House, there was a good deal of opposition from the opposite side of the House, as it was then, and the objection we put forward was that, if the Bill was placed on the statute book, a large number of the farming population would be eventually driven off their holdings. If the hon. member will refer to the debate that took place he will find that the then Minister of Agriculture, largely as a result of this measure, has found transference from this side of the House to the opposite side, and I would not like to see the present Minister following the same dubious course on a measure of this description. The measure then brought up was criticized by us on the ground that, in carrying out the compulsory stage of it, a large number of the poor farming population were going to be driven off their land. I think that has largely been verified. I may point to the position in the Colesberg district. There you have large cheque-book farming and in the vicinity where this jackal-proof fencing has been brought into existence, unfortunate small holders have been driven off the land. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) now asks, after the unfortunate experience we have suffered through the carrying out of this Act, that the Government shall go further and burden the country with further taxation for the construction of this jackal-proof fencing. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) has pointed out what a tremendous expense it is going to be to the country, and yet the hon. member for Aliwal comes forward and asks us to incur this additional expense in order to eradicate the jackal. I did not hear one word from the hon. member in which he gave us any figures as to what the ultimate cost of this would be to the Government. He simply comes forward with this motion and says that the Government must incur this additional expense. He does not tell us where the necessity of this jackal-proof fencing comes in on the borders of these locations. My experience of a native location is that where you have it bordering on any territory there is no vermin. The hon. member wishes to prevent jackals from moving out from territories where they are likely to be killed. The hon. member would find that there are two things that the native is particularly destructive in, and one of them is jackals. Therefore, if it is necessary to eradicate jackals, all we have to do is to extend the native locations. The hon. member tells us that the cheap and effective way to go to work is to put up jackal-proof fencing. Large numbers of hunting clubs have been instituted for the eradication of jackals, and I believe the eradication has been very successful. Why saddle the State with the further cost of putting up jackal-proof fencing? They are not all sheep farmers; everybody does not want this fencing, and why should a man farming horses and cattle put it up? If the hon. member had put a reasonable proposal forward, he would have had wholehearted support. Therefore, when the Minister told us he could not support this, I was particularly pleased. I remember the debate in 1922 when the Minister of Agriculture at that time told us that the permissive clauses in the 1912 Fencing Act were simply being extended in this Act. All the hon. member desires to obtain he could have achieved by moving for an extension of the Fencing Act of 1912. At that time the Minister of Agriculture was very insistent that at all events there was one farmer on that side of the House then who was willing to support the Government in this measure. The measure was voted upon and since then we have gone through all these vicissitudes in regard to jackals. A good many of us are farmers ; a good many have got fencing, but a good many of us have got no jackals. Why we should compel the Government to put up fences I cannot see. Under this Act, in terms of this motion, every settlement farmer could be compelled to fence his farm with jackal-proof fencing when it was entirely unnecessary. The hon. member says “Crown lands.” If any settlement farmer asked the Government to do so the Government would be compelled to carry this out in terms of this resolution. I do not think the hon. member is really serious when he puts this resolution forward. I feel convinced that in the light of past experience the House will accept the Minister’s assurance that the Government is not prepared to accept this motion. If the hon. member were serious, he would have brought a petition to this House through a number of influential farmers in his district, but he comes forward with an unsubstantiated resolution that the district wants this legislation foisted upon it. If there had been a petition from the hon. member or a word from the district he represents or from any other constituency, then the House would have been able to pay some attention to a resolution of this nature, but the unsubstantiated statement that such a thing is necessary is entirely out of place this afternoon. I think if he had added to the amendment something to an effect which would repeal the obnoxious clauses in the original Bill, that press so heavily upon unfortunate small farmers, he would have been more in place and would have had the sympathy of this House, which he certainly has not got at the present time.

I was unfortunately not here when the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) spoke, but, from his interjections, it appears as if he attaches more importance to the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) than to this motion about the farmers’ interests. I cannot, however, believe that. I see on the Order Paper that the first matter to be discussed after the motions are completed is the defence vote on the Estimates. I know hon. members opposite are great militarists, and I think the hon. member is only anxious to get on to the first Order. I do not, however, know what benefit it would be to pass the motion now before us. The mover is an earnest farmer, but if he will read the motion once more, he will see that it is quite indefinite. I trust that he is not so indefinite in his farming as in his motions. I am certain he is not, because otherwise he would not have been such a successful farmer. I think the time has come to reconsider the Fencing Act. I would suggest to the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) that instead of asking the Government to consider his motion, he considered how to amend it in a practical way. The hon. member was careful when he introduced his motion, because he gave no clear explanation. Just as in the case of a private person one can expect that when the Government is asked to spend money, he might prefer not to do it. I do not believe the hon. member has given sufficient consideration to his motion. The Minister assured the hon. member, and he therefore knows, that the Government has the same obligation with regard to jackal-proof fencing as a private person. If the Government then does not wish the neighbouring farmer has not the right to compel it to undertake the obligation. The hon. member is trying in a futile way to attain his end. In 1922, when the Bill with regard to jackal-proof fencing was introduced, we heard about all that jackal-proof fencing was good for, and we have had a repetition of it this afternoon. It is probably good for blue tongue and wire-worm, and it seems that when this kind of sheep are bad, then the farmer need not improve the stock, but can just enclose his farm with jackal-proof fencing. In the Free State the farmers have tried to get better rams. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) said that the wool farmers got 22d. one year, and the following 7d. per lb. One must therefore conclude that when the farmer gets 22d., it is attributable to jackal-proof fencing, but that is not so when he gets 7d. The fluctuation is only caused by the operations of the wool market. I should like to have my farm enclosed by jackal-proof fencing, but I am not able to spend so much money. The Free State farmers are much attached to their land, and in the Cape Province many farmers are surely driven from their land in consequence of the high costs of fencing. I now move—

seconded.

I hope that this motion, that the debate be adjourned, will not be agreed to. It is quite obvious what is taking place, and a great injustice is being done. The Minister replied to this debate early in the afternoon, and it is evident that a determined effort was made that the second motion on the paper should not come on. Those of us who want to see that every section has a fair chance of laying their case before the House should vote against the adjournment.

I can hardly agree with my hon. friend that we can start a debate now, and I think the country will have noticed that the South African party put on a resolution before the House this afternoon which they knew would block this debate. They knew the farmers would have to speak on it. Hon. members went to the S.A.P., but they refused to withdraw this motion. I am sorry for my friend, but we cannot go on to-night and discuss his motion.

Why not?

I am prepared to go on, but the whole of the S.A.P. will vanish as soon as we start the debate on the civil service.

No!

Well, we will hold them to it.

The other day I remarked that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) always seemed to change his ground, and it was always an idea to us that when he did this, and came to the assistance of the Government or opposed the Government, that there were certain things? being weighed in the balance. I hope, when these things are weighed in the balance, that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) will not be found wanting. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has been much fairer than he, and I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) must have known that everybody in this House must have recognized that the statements he made were entirely incorrect, and were not justified. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has had this resolution on the paper for months—long before the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) put his resolution on the paper, and anybody would have realized that the resolution of the hon. member for Aliwal North was one which the Government would reply to, and that practically then the question would have been decided one way or the other. The debate has gone on the whole afternoon.

Who debated?

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Herden) introduced the question of the purchase by the Imperial Government of the wool of this country, and other things which I do not think had much to do with the motion. I understood the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) to say that he disagrees with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), and that this is a much more important motion than the second motion on the paper, and that, so far as he was concerned, if the second motion came on, it was his determination to vote against it. I do not suppose it would be a parliamentary expression to say that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) was trying to play the jackal to the Government, but I think, under the circumstances, he must see that he had no justification for the attitude he took up in trying to throw a false impression on the reasons why the hon. member for Aliwal moved the resolution. This is not the first time the hon. member for Aliwal has brought this matter forward, and I think it is rather unkind of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) to draw a red herring across the track and blame my hon. friend for being responsible for the work of his co-associates this afternoon.

I agree to a considerable extent with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) because I think it was the duty of the hon. member who introduced the motion in regard to fencing to withdraw it, especially as he was approached to do so, and he not having done so early in the afternoon, should have done so immediately after the refusal by the Minister of Agriculture to accept it. It was surely the duty of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to have gone to one of his subordinate members and used his undoubted influence to get him to withdraw it. The hon. member must have known that it was not much use going on, and should have got up and withdrawn it in order to give the second one an opportunity. In my opinion my friends on the other side cannot altogether escape the responsibility for the position that has arisen, because after the Minister said the resolution would not be accepted, I think my friends on the other side should have kept silent. It certainly led one to infer that they were as anxious as the members of the South African party to avoid a discussion. There is only one inference to be drawn, and that is that the citizens who are affected by the resolution which has not been reached this afternoon, will remember the futile discussion this afternoon, and see that they should depend a little more on industrial organization and co-operation with the working classes, and depend less on the politicians of the country.

I resent the imputation made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). I think the order in which these motions are placed rests with the Prime Minister, who is responsible, if anybody is. I did not do it. I had no choice in this matter, and my motion was weeks older than the other. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I understand that he is no more in favour of the next motion than hon. members over there. This savours of cant, and nothing but cant. We hear a lot of undertone talk, and I am entitled to come to my conclusions, when I hear a member taking an attitude contradicting the line of thought he had been discussing in an undertone.

If the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) succeeds in getting his motion debated, he will have more supporters from this side of the House than the whole of the Labour party put together. The debate was practically finished when the Minister made his reply, and the motion should then have gone to the vote. It is not necessary to wear the label “Labour” to be sympathetic towards the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street). The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) pleaded with hon. members opposite to finish the debate, so that the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) could be reached. I have pledged myself to support a motion similar to that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street).

I want to protest against the accusation. It is strange that as soon as we discuss farmers’ interests we are asked to stop speaking. When anything else is being discussed, we are told to keep quiet and wait patiently until they are finished. But as soon as farmers’ interests are on the Order Paper we must remain absolutely quiet, and allow other matters precedence. I protest. After the Minister’s statement I think both I and others mentioned very important points for his consideration. I hope hon. members will stop urging silence on us with regard to farmers’ interests.

I intend to vote against the adjournment of the debate as, apparently there has been a concerted attempt to prevent the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) being reached, but I must remind hon. members that the House is not bound to rise to-day at 6 p.m. and, seeing that the subject of the present motion is of such vast importance to all hon. members, I hope the House will proceed with it and come to a vote upon it, and that we shall go on to discuss the motion of the hon. member for Hanover Street, which is also of vast importance to the public servants of this country, and which the Labour party is going to support.

Motion put, and Mr. Alexander called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—53.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

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.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham. A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (T.)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorios, J. S. F.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

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

Noes—40.

Alexander. M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow. A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards. G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton. C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Kentridge, M. ; Nicholls, G. H.

Motion for adjournment of debate accordingly agreed to ; to be resumed on 4th May.

I move—

seconded.

May I point out to the Minister and the Government that this is the last private members’ day, the last opportunity during this session for private members to bring forward any motions. I voted against the adjournment, so as to give those members who wished to do so an opportunity of continuing the debate. They have refused to take that opportunity, and have voted in favour of the adjournment of the debate. That leaves the way open for the next motion. The mover and seconder of that next motion could finish in a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes’ time at the outside, and I, therefore, ask the Minister not to press his motion that the House do now adjourn. If he does press it, I shall have to call for a division.

Motion put and Mr. Alexander called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—49.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

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.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux. S. P.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin. J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Stals. A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water. C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk,

P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

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

Noes—41.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow. A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Brown. G.

Buirski, E.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Geldenhuys, L. Giovanetti, O. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox. F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Nicholls, G. H. Motion accordingly agreed to.