I move—

I feel that the House will not require me to keep it long. The Bill has been before the House since the commencement of the session, has passed through a select committee, and is well understood now by hon. members. The Wesleyan Methodist Church was founded by the Rev. John Wesley in 1739. In 1784 it had grown to such dimensions that it became necessary to govern the church by what is known as a yearly conference, which had authority over the properties and other assets which belong to the denomination. In due course branches of this great church were established in the dominions, and in time in South Africa. The church in South Africa was also governed by a conference, but under delegation of the conference in Great Britain. All the properties are now vested in the name of the yearly conference in England. In simple words, this Bill is merely designed to give legal status to the agreement between the yearly conference in Great Britain and the South African conference, that these properties and assets should be vested in and under the title of the South African Conference. I think that is about all that is required of me to say.

Having served on the select committee which dealt with this Bill, I may be permitted to say a few words on the Bill, and at the same time to congratulate the Wesleyan Methodist Church on having obtained its majority. It was long overdue, and it was certainly an anomaly that the Wesleyan Church which has grown to such a size and has done so much good in this country should be looked upon as a mere delegation from England. Everybody recognizes that the church in South Africa should be looked upon as one standing on its own legs. Coming after the discussion we had yesterday, it looks like a sign of the times “ to provide for the independence of the South African conference of the people called Methodists ”—and I am almost afraid to congratulate these people for fear somebody would say that I am gloating over another break with England; but I know that the introducer of the motion and the people of the Wesleyan Church do not look upon it in that light. I welcome the Bill as a sign of what is going on in the Wesleyan Church, and that that church is becoming more and more thoroughly South African. I am glad to say that I see this tendency in other English churches, and in giving vent to these views, I am not expressing anti-English feelings, but I am expressing my pleasure that the people of South Africa are becoming more thoroughly South African. I hope the time will come when all the English churches of South Africa will have all their ordained men fully trained in this country. The Wesleyan Church is doing a tremendous work amongst the coloured people of this country, and it is necessary that in a big mission like the Wesleyan Church, men should be trained in South Africa who know the conditions there. Much of our troubles in the past has been duo to the fact that men have come to South Africa who are not fully acquainted with the special conditions there: and the more we have men trained in South Africa, the more the church will be able to become a bigger power for good, and help in dealing with the difficult problems we have in South Africa. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

I just wish to say that in committee it will be necessary to move a few amendments in Clause 5 to protect the interests of the revenue, and to authorize the Registrar of Deeds to make certain endorsements on the title deeds in terms of the Bill which is to be passed.

I move—

I move—

Is it the intention of the Minister that transfer duties shall be paid on the formal transfer of this property from what is practically one set of trustees to another set of trustees? It is not as if the properties were being transferred from one church to another.

By the amendment I have proposed we are not deciding the question, but leaving it open to be determined by the revenue authorities. Our transfer laws are very strict in regard to what constitutes ownership. I do not want this section to have the effect of laying it down that Parliament is now waiving any fees that may be payable.

It would be a very serious injustice to make a formal transfer of this kind subject to transfer duty, seeing that it is nothing but a formal transaction. The intention of the select committee was not to leave the matter open, but that no transfer fees should be paid.

If that was the intention of the select committee, then it was their duty to obtain the consent of the Governor-General. I do not think Parliament can give away the revenue of the State in this way without the consent of his Excellency.

It was not considered necessary to obtain formal consent because this was a condition on which the transfer was being made, whereas in all other cases a property transaction is not complete without the payment of transfer fees. This is not a waiving of transfer duty, but permission to pass transfer without the payment of transfer duty. Transfer fees were originally paid on the properties. This was not considered to be a waiving of money already due, but a giving of permission to transfer property without paying transfer fees which would otherwise be due.

In cases like this, where it is not necessary to come to Parliament for relief, but the parties can go to the Supreme Court, that court has always allowed transfer to be made without payment of transfer fees where there has simply been a change of trustees.

This is rather unfortunate, that the promoters of this Bill have not discussed this matter with me. I have just taken it over from the Minister of Lands. It is really a deeds office measure, and I have not considered it. It may surrender revenue which is really required by the State. I do not know which officials it is whose duty it is to see the transfer duty is paid in such cases, and I have not had time to give the matter proper consideration. I do not know whether my colleague has had the matter before him.

May I suggest to the Minister that he allows his amendment to stand over until the report stage of the Bill, and then he can discuss the question. What the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has said is extremely serious. If you put anything into the Bill with regard to the paying of lawful duties the deeds office in the Cape will have to ask for them. I believe the transfers affect them in my constituency also, and it would be unfair if we insisted on the payment of transfers where properties have been transferred from one board of trustees to another to carry on the same duties. I suggest he does not move the amendment until the report stage.

We might do that to enable the department to go into the matter. I can only say I have no intention of trying to get something for the State, but the Government has to be very careful not to surrender anything in the transfer duty. If Parliament thinks fit not to exact the legal dues in this case, it is a matter I do not wish to contest seriously.

Let it stand over now.

Yes, I withdraw the first amendment for the time being.

With leave of the Committee, amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance withdrawn.

I move—

I move—

I may mention, and I think I am right in saying it, that the Minister of Justice has no objection to the introduction of this Bill. I understood him to say he rather welcomed it. By our present Act, No. 8 of 1914, any person found guilty of cruelty to an animal can be fined any sum not exceeding £25, or in default of payment may be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a period of three months, or he may be fined and imprisoned. The position is, and experience has shown us, more particularly of late, that it is next to impossible to check cruelty with the existing penalties. Magistrates have found it difficult to impose the full sentence, as they often wished to do, because they feel that by imposing the full sentence of three months they are not so much punishing the man who is guilty, as his family, and depriving them of their means of livelihood. Lately we have been faced with a very serious position. We have had some most revolting cases of cruelty, and I shall endeavour to show later on that every magistrate, certainly in the Western Province, has complained that he is not in a position to impose such a penalty as will assist in preventing the continual cruelty taking place to-day. Let me give hon. members a few cases. I suppose members from country districts will not appreciate what is happening in Cape Town and other towns, because in country districts we know that the farmer knows that his animal is his asset, and he looks after it accordingly. He also sees that boys in his employ treat his animals as they should be treated, so as to get the best use out of them. But there is a class of employee, particularly in the Peninsula, a man who is naturally brutish, who is callous about everything that does not belong to him, and if he can damage what belongs to his master he often is particularly pleased to do so. I would like to give a few cases which have come before the magistrates during the last few months. One is the case of a man who soaked a cat in petrol and then set it alight. That is a case of cruelty which is inexcusable. Another case is that of a man who placed certain cats in a sack and then he killed them by banging the sack against a post. Another case—a cat’s eyes were gouged out, the cat was put in a sack and abandoned. Another case—a man kicked a cat, broke its spine, and left it on the pavement to die. Here is a particularly brutal and cruel case— a horse, tied in a stable, was flogged unmercifully with a bridle and bit and was afterwards found to be suffering from twenty open wounds and in a terrible condition. Another case—an emaciated horse was flogged with a wire whip and so lacerated that it had to be destroyed. Another case—a dog was picked up by its hind legs and dashed to pieces on a cement stoep. Another case tried about a week ago, was one where a dog was tied to the back of a motor-lorry travelling at 20 miles an hour. The police had difficulty in stopping this man. When rescued, the dog was found to be bleeding from all four paws, and in a really terrible condition. Another case—horses, thoroughly exhausted, were tied to the back of a wagon drawn by four horses. One horse dropped down and was dragged along for 30 yards, when the man could have stopped earlier quite easily. I received two letters this morning drawing my attention to other cases of cruelty. In one of these it was stated that the accused was seen dragging an Airedale dog by a belt, which was fastened to its neck. The dog appeared to be choking. The accused kicked the dog several times. He was asked to remove the belt, but refused. The witness states that the dog’s leg was broken. Here is another case—a horse jibbed, a man took a pick handle and struck the animal over the head, and the fourth blow killed it. I am not going to quote all the cases which have been brought under my notice, because I think I have mentioned a sufficient number to make hon. members appreciate that there must be some change in the law if we are going to stop these cases. The men who were guilty of these offences are mostly of the very lowest type.

Are they coloured?

I don’t care whether they are coloured or white, they deserve to be punished. They are men whose morals have sunk so low that nothing will prevent them from continuing in this manner unless we use some method to make them suffer also. To lock up these men means nothing to them. To fine them does not help in any way, because mostly when a fine is imposed it is paid by the master, so as to get the man back into his employ. Magistrates have been advocating for a long time past that we should introduce whipping for offences of this nature. They hold that ordinary punishment is no deterrent, and more particularly are they against imprisoning these men for a length of time, because that mostly is used as an excuse for not providing for the wife and family. I would like to give a few opinions of magistrates. After stating the facts of the case and the maximum punishment that he could inflict for what he described as gross brutality, one magistrate said—

These are the remarks of the chief criminal magistrate in Cape Town. Another magistrate, also in Cape Town, said that the shocking cruelty that still continued in the Peninsula was becoming intolerable, and that the sentences allowed by law were wholly inadequate to act as a deterrent for such crimes. Others have expressed similar opinions. One says that the penalty provided is altogether inadequate. Another says—

We have also this position that visitors come to our shores and are astounded at what they see happening here. We had a case a very short while ago when a very eminent man from England expressed himself in no uncertain terms. I think it would be well if I read to the House some of the views of those who come from outside. One visitor, after speaking of various things with which he had been struck in this country, said—

We have had innumerable letters in our papers of late advocating something more drastic than the punishment magistrates are able to impose at present. It is very pleasing to me to find that at the Cape provincial conference of the Labour party held in Cape Town in August last a resolution was passed in regard to this matter, in which it was stated that something must be done to check this crime, and that in view of the ever-increasing number of cases of cruelty to animals and the obvious ineffectiveness of the present law to deal adequately with the offender, the Minister of Justice be requested to introduce legislation providing for the tightening up of the law in this respect. I wish to thank hon. members for bringing to my notice their difficulties, because it has given me an opportunity of going into the law rather more fully that I originally intended on this point. Our Supreme Court at present has the right to whip in certain cases. It can impose whipping in regard to practically any offence. To-day every youth under sixteen years of age may be whipped even for cruelty to animals, and they are so whipped by magistrates here. The moment they are past the age of sixteen years, however, you can no longer whip them for an offence under this Act. Yet for offences under the Stock Theft Act and offences under the Girls and Mentally Defective Women’s Protection Act they can be so whipped. There whipping is specially provided for by the Acts. Under the Cruelty to Animals Act no power is given to magistrates to sentence to whipping. They may order whipping in cases of assault with intent, robbery, and any statutory offence for which whipping may be imposed. They may also, for certain statutory offences, whip on the second or subsequent conviction within three years. In the case of females, of course, whipping is not allowed. The position to-day is, therefore, that whereas a male under sixteen may be whipped for cruelty to animals, when he is over sixteen and presumed to know better he may be as brutal as he likes, and he is free from corporal punishment. Magistrates are men of discretion. We have, I suppose, as fine a body of men on the magisterial bench of this country as you will find anywhere. Magistrates are not prone to impose the maximum penalty; they very seldom do. There is no fear that a magistrate will abuse a power such as we propose to give him. He will impose a sentence of whipping only in the very worst cases. Those are the cases in which we ask that the magistrate be given power to use his discretion. Let me quote Gardiner and Lansdowne. In their book, “ Criminal Law and Procedure in South Africa,” we have this passage—

This book is taken as a text book by all magistrates in this country, and is closely followed by them—

Supposing magistrates want to be harsh in their sentences, they have not the power to enforce whipping, for, after imposing such a sentence, they still remain bound by the rules of the Magistrates Court Act No. 32 of 1917, where their powers are restricted, and in the case of a sentence of whipping it automatically goes for review to the Supreme Court. If hon. members would read Clause 93 of Act 32 of 1917, they will find the following—

And so on. Then in Clause 99—

The position, then, is this—that, although we are asking that powers be given to the magistrate to enable him to impose a sentence of whipping, such whipping is not carried out until the Supreme Court or a judge of the Supreme Court confirms the sentence. So you have an absolute safeguard there. Most of these brutally cruel cases are those of men brought up for the first time. I do not say it is their first offence, but it is the first time they have been caught. I do not care whether a man has been up once, twice or three times; I say that if a man can be guilty of such deliberate cruelty as in the cases quoted by me, then he deserves no mercy of any kind. If hon. members think that whipping is something which should not be indulged in on sentence by magistrates, then I say they are absolutely safeguarded by automatic revision by the Supreme Court. I hope hon. members will consider that with the class of men we have to deal with, nothing will stop this wanton cruelty until we can make some of them realize what the punishment that they are so fond of giving to animals feels like. Hon. members should support me in this matter, so that we can secure that in future our poor, dumb friends shall receive better treatment.

I have not the least doubt that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has introduced this Bill with the best intentions. I have myself seen animals frightfully ill-treated in the Cape Peninsula, but I have also seen that an unfortunate owner of a horse is not put into prison by the police, but forced to go to the charge office, although the horse was hurt at a spot in respect of which the man could not possibly be responsible, and where the horse could not possibly chafe, and the poor man was obliged to use the horse. I should very much like the hon. member to go to the farms a little and see what has sometimes to be done to train a few yoke of oxen. It is necessary for a man to drive heavily loaded wagons on an ascending road and to use the double whip to train the oxen. I know of a case where a very poor man was riding transport. The load was heavy and the wagon got stuck, and he had to use the donkey whip to get over a difficult place. A minister of religion, who had no experience of such matters, or possibly knew just as little as the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), had the man prosecuted, and he was fined £5. Possibly he was paid £3 for the load. I have looked into the 1914 Act, and, in my opinion, the provisions of it are stringent enough, and the penalties sufficiently severe. With all respect to judges and magistrates, I think they sometimes regard as cruelty what is not so. I know, e.g., of a case where a shepherd was obliged in consequence of drought to carry a lot of kids to the house, and he put the kids over his shoulder and tied the legs. Another clergyman saw this, who knew nothing about the practice, and he interfered. That is the usual way of dealing with kids, and it is not ill-treatment. I am prepared to do anything to stop cruelty to animals, but I am obliged to vote against the motion. I move, as an amendment—

I second the amendment because I feel as the mover does about the matter. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is possibly not a farmer, but we in the maize districts use oxen a great deal, and we have to train the oxen when they are wild. We farmers have to train oxen that are possibly four or five years old, and not yet trained, and our natives or servants have to catch them. If a person like the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) or a clergyman, such as the one spoken of by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet saw such a thing he would say that it was terrible cruelty to animals, because the oxen are caught with riems, pulled to the ground, coupled together, fastened to a sledge, and then they run away. That is the only method used to tame oxen, and when people, who know nothing about it are present, they would say that it was terrible cruelty. When a farmer gets stuck with a heavy load of maize, then the double whip has often to be used, and anybody who is inexperienced and has not to do with animals every day, will consider it cruelty. As a result of this Bill, many first-class farmers would have to appear before the court and receive lashes. I think our existing law is quite stringent enough, and I hardly know of a single case where a magistrate has inflicted the extreme penalty. The penalties are nearly always kept to the minimum. Why then should the law be made more stringent? At ploughing time, e.g., the shoulders of the oxen often get hurt, but farming conditions demand that they should do their work. It would then be called cruelty to animals if blood were seen, but we put on some ointment and if the oxen are kept long enough in the yoke, then their shoulders become inured and hard. We know that that is the case with young oxen. We have enough laws, but day after day new Bills are introduced. Here we have another Bill to amend one of the Acts about which there have never been any complaints. I admit that cases of which the hon. member has spoken, as, e.g., where a cat’s eyes are put out, should be punished, but the penalties under the existing Act are severe enough. Moreover, it is usually young boys who are guilty of such cruelty, and in the existing law provision is made that boys under sixteen years can be caned. Why should the law be made more severe and the people on the countryside be brought into trouble for things of which they know nothing? The farmers sometimes appreciate that animals are not well treated, but often they can do nothing else in the circumstances. They possibly wait a long time for rain, and when it comes they must use every endeavour to get the seed into the ground. I admit that some farmers at such a time ill-treat their animals, but the existing law is severe enough.

I do not think I can support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I think it is quite unnecessary to make the present Act more stringent and severe. The penalties provided are a fine of £25 or three months’ imprisonment with or without hard labour, and in certain cases the judge is entitled to inflict three months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine. That is according to the Act of 1914, which is a consolidating Act embodying the old laws in the four provinces. I think it would be a good thing just to see what the old laws in the four provinces were. We must bear in mind who made these old laws in the Cape Province, Transvaal, Natal and the Free State. In the days when the laws against cruelty to animals were made most of the legislators were farmers and owners of animals. Animals were their chief helpers in farming operations; the dog as watchdog on the homestead and in hunting, the oxen to do certain work when the railways had not yet arrived, and the horses and mules for transport before motors came into use. Therefore, I can certainly say without fear of contradiction that the legislators in those days in the provinces were friends of the animals, so let us see what the laws in the various provinces were. A law was made in the Transvaal in 1888, and the penalty for cruelty was three months’ imprisonment or £25 fine, but in certain cases of the use of oxen, horses and mules, the fine was only £10 or one month’s imprisonment. In the Orange Free State, particularly where in those days the representatives of the people were farmers, there was the Act of 1876, and Article 145 of the statute book provided a fine of £10 or three months for cruelty to animals. In the Cape Province an Act was passed in 1888, and the fine provided was £10 or three months, while in Natal, according to the Act of 1874, the fine laid down was £10 without any imprisonment. We have here to do with four laws made in the four provinces by farmers themselves and friends of animals. In each Act the penalty was less than now proposed in the Bill. From those days up to the present it has been the law that a fine of £25 or imprisonment of three months could be inflicted. It seems to me a strange thing that in these times where millions and millions of human lives are lost in war and so many accidents caused by motor-cars, etc., in ordinary life are reported in the newspapers, and according to which the value of human life is practically dwindling steadily, the value of the life of animals appears to be increasing. This seems strange, and yet it appears to be so. Take some cases of cruelty to human beings. We repeatedly read of cases where people are stabbed with knives, and the fine is £1. In brawls in canteens people are mishandled and the usual fine is £1 or a week, or £2 or fourteen days. Those are cases where people are maliciously assaulted. It seems to me, therefore, that we are gradually losing sight in certain respects at least of the proper relation between the value of human life and that of an animal. Now I want to emphasize that anyone who opposes the motion is not a cruel man on that account. That is not the case at all. If I am not in favour of mission work among the natives it does not mean that I am a heathen, and if I am not in favour of prohibition or local option it does not mean that I am a drunkard. And if I say that it is unnecessary to increase the punishment for cruelty to animals then that is no proof that I am a cruel man. I further want to point out how it might happen that animals might appear to be ill-treated while in reality that was not a fact. I think all farmers in the House will agree with me that if one takes a long ride on horseback it may happen that in warm weather the horse’s back will become chafed under the saddle, and if the police happen upon a man coming home in those circumstances he may be punished for cruelty to animals. In rainy weather it happens that the shoulders of oxen or the harness of a donkey or mule chafes in pulling, but that is no proof of cruelty to animals. I think the existing law is severe enough. Then the question arises what is cruelty to animals. Take polling, that is the removal of horns. It is a general practice on the farms nowadays. The Natal Act of 1874, however, declared it cruelty to animals. Are the taking away in young dogs of the thread under the tongue, the removal of a comb of a cock, the cutting off of the tail of a horse or of the ears of sheep and goats cruelty to animals? With all respect for our judges and magistrates, it may well be that there is a difference of opinion about the point among the magistrates, although I wish to add that in most country districts the magistrates, by their experience and knowledge of animals, can properly adjudicate on cruelty. Now take the small punishments which are often inflicted for cruelty to human beings, and compare the punishment which, according to a newspaper report, someone recently got for ill-treating a cat. The individual was walking in the street when a cat crossed his path. He gave it two kicks. Which of us on the farms has not at some time kicked at a cat? But the misfortune was that the man happened to kick the cat in such a way as to break its back. He was fined £15 or I do not know how many months’ imprisonment. With a view to such cases it seems to me that we ought not to lose sight of the true relation between the values of life in a human being and in an animal. I might have supported the Bill if it were provided that it should only apply to the Cape Peninsula, but I know that when once such an Act is passed it would be put into force over the whole country from east to west and north to south. I think the existing legislation is severe enough, and that the provisions with regard to cruelty to animals are quite adequate, for which reason I will support the amendment.

I think we are all more or less in agreement with the hon. member for Gape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in the very honest attempt to check cruelty to animals, hut the only point where I join issue is on the question of a whipping for a first offence. Where we inflict a whipping on a human being, except in a very grave crime, there should be a warning. It is essentially a case where if a whipping is necessary, it should only be after one conviction. The hon. member has dealt very fully with the punishments and safeguards which surround this proposed amendment. It is not in this Bill the higher court which will inflict a whipping, but a sentence which can be imposed by a magistrate. In the case of an assault on a human being, a magistrate has not the power to impose whipping except in cases of indecent assault or assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. I do not agree with going to the length this Bill proposes without giving a person a warning. Probably one of the worst offences in the way of assault is one on a woman, and yet under the law of to-day a woman can he struck and assaulted, and the magistrate cannot inflict a whipping if it is not an assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm or an indecent assault. When the Act was passed in 1917, the House felt that a magistrate should not be entrusted with the power to inflict a whipping for a first offence, except under extraordinary circumstances. I hope we shall give the Bill a very sympathetic hearing, and pass it, but I also hope the House will accept an amendment that such a punishment as whipping shall apply only to a second conviction. That is very reasonable, and I hope my hon. friends opposite will see their way to accept it. As a countryman, I say when you are discussing cruelty to animals, put your own house in the towns in order first. Any farmer will tell you that if there is one thing that strikes terror into an animal of the bovine tribe, it is the sight of blood. In your towns you take cattle to the slaughterhouse, where they are roped and dragged through a sea of blood; they are thrown down, tied, and their throats cut while lying in this blood, and I make bold to say that the mental agony and suffering these animals undergo is greater than many of the instances of cruelty which the hon. member adduced.

I agree with what the farmers on this side of the House have said. I think every farmer should be a friend of animals, because they assist us in making our living. I concur with the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) that if the Bill were only applicable to Cape Town, there will be nothing to say against it, because it is shocking to see the awful cases of cruelty to animals. I, however, would like to tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who said that one of the reasons why the Bill should be passed was the comments of certain foreigners, about a missionary who came here from Europe and heard of the cruelty of the farmers. When he landed in Cape Town, he saw a wagon pass with 14 oxen and a little leader, and in this connection he wrote home—

I must say that I am considerably surprised and disappointed this afternoon, because I thought the amendment of the law of cruelty to animals would be welcomed, and especially by the farmers. As the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) said, the farmers love their animals, and there is no danger of cruelty, but members representing farmers have said that if the shoulders of their oxen are so hurt that the blood runs, then the ox must continue to work until the shoulders become hard. I cannot agree with those views. It does not follow that if one has important work to do that you must use animals when it will cause great pain. I have often worked with oxen, and noticed that the shoulders become sore. Then I rub on grease, and if there is no improvement the oxen are put out of use. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) also disappointed me, because I thought that he was a man who would be in favour of animals being protected as much as possible. His argument is that if one man assaults another with the intention of doing bodily harm, then he cannot receive corporal punishment in the magistrate’s court, although it can be given in the high court, but the magistrate does have the right in such cases of inflicting corporal punishment. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) wishes corporal punishment only to be inflicted on the second conviction, but, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said, the first time that a man is convicted of committing such great cruelty as the magistrate would consider deserved corporal punishment is not at all the first time that he has made himself guilty thereof. I speak of my own case. If I have hurt an animal and the same punishment is given to me, then I should better appreciate the matter, because I myself would feel the pain. While I do not think that laws should be made too severe, we must consider the circumstances about giving powers of corporal punishment to magistrates. Hon. members have said that the law is being made too severe, and that the existing Act is stringent enough, but I do not think that they are correctly regarding the Bill. Only where the magistrate considers it necessary should he have the right to inflict corporal punishment. We must not forget that the penalties will not be inflicted until the sentence has been reviewed and confirmed by a higher court. The danger, therefore, is not great. I can understand that if a magistrate had cases before him such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), there is not a more fitting punishment than the same pain as was caused to the animal. I hope the hon. member will remember that, and will also consider that we, as reasonable beings, should do everything in our power to counteract cruelty. I go further; the hon. member for Harrismith told the hon. mover that if the Bill could only be confined to the Cape Peninsula, his objections would disappear, but if he wants that, then he must allow the second reading to pass and move it in committee. If he moves it then, however, I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) will not accept it. I understand he is inclined to do so, but I hope he will not do so, because we require the Bill throughout the whole country. I have an article in my drawer which recently appeared in the newspapers—

Now I may be told that the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) said last night that the donkey had served its purpose on the diamond fields, but he admitted that much of the transport to the diggings is still done with donkeys. I do not know if there is any animal which has been treated so cruelly as the poor donkey. I recently met a man with a donkey, and he had a whip consisting of a fairly thick stick, and to the other end was fastened a motor tyre as thick as my thumb. He was indifferent whether he hit the animal on the head or on the body. I immediately stopped him and said that I would report the matter to the police if he did not stop. I was once at a place in the interior, and was told that a man’s reputation was that he could best hit a donkey with a “ plak.” With one stroke of the “ plak ” he could knock the donkey to the ground. I am sure that to-day there is much cruelty on the diggings towards the poor donkeys, and I quote the article to bring it to the notice of the Minister of Justice, and to ask him if he could not give special instructions to the police to look into the matter. I hope he will instruct the police, if they know that there is a depression in the road where there is a heavy up-grade or a heavy stretch of sand, that they will take notice of the very cruel way the donkeys are treated. I do not think that it is right, because the animals have feelings just like human beings, and we must stop it as much as we can. I have the greatest sympathy with the people who form an association and do everything in their power to prevent cruelty to animals. We here, in Parliament, and the outside public must do all we can to help the association, and when it makes a request like the one to-day, we must not carelessly reject it, but give our serious attention to it. I think the Bill will have a good effect, and I hope we shall put it on the statute book.

I also am a little disappointed at the farmers on the Government side. I agree with them, and with the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) that the existing Act is stringent enough, but, on the other hand, our friends must surely admit that it is a scandal the way animals are sometimes ill-treated. Some hon. members propose that the Bill should be made applicable solely to the Cape Peninsula. I agree with the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw). that the introducer of the Bill ought not to accept an amendment of that sort. As regards cruelty to donkeys, it is not only on the diggings, but almost throughout the country that they are the most ill-used, because they are merely donkeys. The poor donkeys do the hardest work, and in many cases are not even fed. Let us be honest. I am very sorry that some of my friends object to the Bill, but I feel that one of the reasons why our country has so often to be visited by plagues and punishments is that the poor innocent speechless animals are often ill-treated in such a deplorable way. I admit that corporal punishment is very stringent, but the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) made a good suggestion. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) will possibly agree to provide that corporal punishment shall only be inflicted on a second conviction, so that the person shall first be warned. I feel, however, that we cannot reject the Bill, and I shall vote for the second reading without any hesitation. With the hon. member for Colesberg, I am thankful that we still have associations in our country like the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. I hope hon. members who have opposed the Bill will change their opinion before the second reading and withdraw the amendment. We rely on the experience and common-sense of judges and magistrates who will not lightly inflict corporal punishment. Surely they are people who can judge when cruelty to animals has taken place whether the offenders deserve to be flogged.

I think that there is surely no reason for accusing the country members of cruelty if they vote against the Bill. The farmers are sympathetic towards the animals, but hon. members now want to make out as if there is no legislation to punish cruelty to animals. The law is there, and if it is carried out it is adequate. It is only necessary to instruct the police to ascertain where donkeys are so treated as was described by the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw), and then to apply the existing law. I have myself often in our villages seen animals being cruelly treated. We know it, and we want the people punished. We are not, however, always certain that we shall have the right magistrate who will be able always to properly adjudicate on cruelty to animals. There are some of them who do not know much about the matter, just as little as I know about their business. The other day a man with a horse was arrested. The police forced the man to take off the harness, and when it appeared that there were a few drops of blood at the place of chafing, he was fined £2. Such persons will be running a danger of being flogged. Only last year Parliament altered the provisions of the law with regard to flogging as a punishment, and here we want to go and provide for chafing in the case of horses to bring a man into danger of being flogged. There was another horse the other day who had been chafed below his chest, a very small chafing, and the owner was fined £2. I think the sooner we get this Bill out of the House, the better. The Bill has been introduced by people from the Cape who do not know conditions on the countryside. There are coloured people who keep dogs that are nothing else but skeletons, and nearly dead from hunger. The man who keeps a dog, although he is not able to feed it, is not punished for cruelty to animals, but if a horse has a small chafe from which a little blood flows, he is punished and runs a risk of being flogged. We farmers treat our animals fairly well, and if cases occur, then the existing punishments sufficiently protect the animals.

There is evidently a great deal of confusion as to what is being asked for. We are not creating a new crime, but asking for additional punishment. The crime already exists, but I feel strongly that something very stringent is necessary to stop the rank, dreadful brutality one sees—not ordinary cruelty. The members on that side seem to think a lot of the farmers are going to be whipped if this Bill passes. We know that you cannot train animals by patting their heads, you often have to beat them. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) spoke about the use of the “ double whip ”; we have to do it ourselves at times, but I would stop them using the double whip when it becomes brutal. We must attempt to stop the rank, callous, inhuman brutality which is going on. I am not afraid that the farmers are going to be “ had ” in this. We see native servants with a span of oxen using the whip far too severely when a wagon is stuck. I would rather see these lazy men get down and off-load part of the wagon. That would get over the difficulty. I have seen wagons stuck, in the Transvaal and other parts, and the oxen brutally treated, when, if the natives would get out and off-load a part of it, the matter would solve itself. Reference was made to certain recognized farming practices, and I do not think magistrates would use the power to order a whipping for actions of those kinds. I have seen more cases of rank callousness with horses and mules in the Western Province than I have ever seen on the farms inland, and I have seen more cruelty in the Cape Peninsula than one can describe. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. vail Zyl) has quoted many cases of gross cruelty, and hon. members surely are not wanting to prevent the most stringent measures to stop that kind of thing. There is a certain type of man who can only be got at by what I call homaeopathic methods. If he is a brute, treat him with brutality. Let him feel the whip he unduly uses, and let him feel what it is like. It is the only thing he will Understand. If more of the public of South Africa would take notice of acts of cruelty, it is much in our own hands to stop it. I agree with the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) when he spoke of the cruelty of allowing—

to go roaming about with life in it still. I agree that such is gross cruelty, and not comparable to the case of a horse with “ a little mark on the shoulder.” He spoke of the liability of a farmer being prosecuted and whipped for driving a horse with a “ small sore place ” on its shoulder, produced when on a journey. Such a case would not come under this Bill. You can go along the roads here, or drive in the country, and you are lucky if you see less than two animals that ought to be put out of their misery. If I could catch the man capable of allowing that, I would like to give him a thrashing, but I would be taking the law into my own hands, and get fined by the magistrate. I want to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). It is giving the magistrate power to inflict the only penalty that will be felt by certain men. Magistrates will not use that power except in dreadful cases like those quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). Why do these prosecutions of farmers and others which members opposite seem to fear not take place now? Under the Act these crimes are defined, and penalties are provided, and yet we do not hear of farmers being run in for straining their span of oxen, or whipping them, or for ear marking their sheep, or for docking their tails. I wish I had as many pounds as tails I have docked in my life! But even in these operations, if you find a man who wants to be a fiend, let us flog him. I think the provision is fully justified in view of the extreme cases met with from time to time, not very common, but sufficient to warrant the putting of this power in the hands of the magistrates.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) said that we thought that a new crime was being created by the Bill. No, that is not the case, but we feel that a new principle is being introduced, viz., the principle of corporal punishment. I want to assure hon. members that we who are opposing the Bill are not doing so from want of sympathy with animals. There are certain exceptional cases which ought to be severely punished, but we are afraid of this Bill having such far-reaching consequences if it is passed, that there will be very few, if any, farmers who may not at one time or other render themselves liable to punishment.

I doubt that.

I want to remind the hon. member that we are to-day dealing with a Bill for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and with me it is not quite a foregone conclusion that the Bill, if it is properly administered, would not also have to be applied to all his (the hon. gentleman’s) constituents who have recently so suffered from the severe drought, that they would be punishable for having allowed their animals to die from drought. A test case has never been made of the matter, but the Act contemplates owners being compelled to see that their animals are properly looked after, and there is no exemption for drought. I remember that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and practically all the hon. members supporting him to-day, when we wanted to introduce corporal punishment two years ago in the Stock Theft Bill, fought it step by step. To-day, however, they want to inflict corporal punishment for cruelty to animals. Let me assure the House that none of us supports cruelty to animals, because the farmers try to suitably punish their servants when they illtreat animals. I Therefore want to assure the supporters of the Bill that we are in agreement with them when they say that animals should be protected against cruelty. I admit that outstanding cases of a far-reaching nature, such as those mentioned by the mover, should be severely punished, but the existing law makes provision for that, and if the police and the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals takes action in such cases to bring them to the notice of the authorities, then I have not the least doubt that the magistrates will adequately punish those persons. We must, however, be careful, because if the Bill is passed, no one can foresee the consequences. I go so far as to say that there are few farmers in the country, myself included, who would not be liable for cruelty to animals if the Bill were enforced. I will mention one case, and experienced farmers will know that it is correct. When a farmer catches young oxen to train, and the oxen are wild, then they are punished with a double whip. There are hon. members who will ask what good beating does, but my experience is that there are some oxen who pull when they are beaten, and others again if they are pulled by a chain. It sometimes occurs that oxen are lacerated by flogging, but that is not cruelty to animals. Imagine, e.g., that I were travelling with my cart and horses on a warm day, and on outspanning I found that one horse’s chest was chafed, but I nevertheless drove home. If there were a policeman at my house, I should be prosecuted under the cruelty to animals Act, and I am certain that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has also offended in a similar way.

Never.

Then you are the exception. We agree with the supporters of the Bill that animals should be protected against cruelty, but I want to tell them, and especially the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw), who is a practical farmer, that they must not be too hasty in passing legislation which will eventually result in our being beaten by our own whip. If the Bill is passed, then many farmers, and possibly also hon. members, will be flogged.

I intend to support this Bill, although there are certain doubts in my mind which I would like to express. On principle I object to flogging in any shape or form being imposed for any offence, but I also realize that there are other things we have to consider as well. We have to consider that in this matter we are dealing with the animals of the country that cannot speak for themselves. That is an important point to keep in mind. I cannot understand why certain of the farming members of this House object to the law being tightened up. I think this class of hon. member would vote against a Bill to provide for kindness to animals. Here we have a Bill to provide additional penalties in order to prevent cruelty to animals. Cruelty to animals does not mean cruelty that may be due to conditions of drought, or to the treatment that may be necessary in dealing with a stubborn animal. Cruelty to animals in the cases we are discussing means something quite different from that. I quite agree with the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that in the Cape Peninsula there appears to be more cruelty than you will find in any other part of the country. There are various forms of cruelty. One of the worst forms is the systematic underfeeding that goes on. Many of the dairy cows and draught animals are also subjected to the severest form of cruelty by reason of underfeeding. I would like to see people compelled by law to treat their animals properly and feed them properly. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) rather conveyed the impression that the persons who ill-treat animals here were mainly coloured. That seemed to be the impression conveyed to me and other members, and I say that the question of colour or class should not enter into consideration in connection with this Bill at all. It should not be made a question of class or colour. Then I understand from the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), that although provision is made in this Bill for whipping to be administered, in all cases where a magistrate orders whipping, the sentence must be confirmed by a judge before it is carried out. My objection to whipping, of course, is fundamental. I object to the principle, but, if it is true that there are human beings, of any colour or class, who do practice gross cruelty to animals, then I say it has to be stopped, whatever penalty is imposed. Although I agree that it is necessary that the law should be tightened up, there is this protection that in all cases where whipping is ordered, the sentence must be confirmed by a judge. That, to a certain extent, removes my objection. I would not agree to a law being passed in this country which would give power to magistrates to order whipping without any check. On these grounds, I am prepared to waive my objection. If there are people who practise these things, and commit such brutal offences, I say let them be given a taste of their own medicine. I believe that we, as a House, should assist the magistrates and the societies that exist for the prevention of cruelty to animals, as far as possible. They, with their experience and wisdom, have told us that the only way to prevent cases of gross cruelty to dumb animals is to tighten up the law. I am prepared to support them in their efforts, but at the same time I think a great deal remains to be done by education in the way of treating dumb animals with kindness. When people are properly civilized, it will not be necessary to pass acts of Parliament to prevent cruelty to animals or children, or anything of that kind, but until they are properly civilized. I agree that it is necessary to tighten up the law to prevent what is going on at the present time.

I rise to support the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I do so on the ground that the law which we have has been found inadequate to deal with one particular phase of cruelty to animals, and that is the particularly brutal kind of case which has been coming forward lately. One of the hon. members opposite said that if the law were adequately carried out, there would be no necessity for this Bill. He seems to forget that it is in carrying out the law to the best of their ability that magistrates have had to comment on the great degree of brutality which has been shown in some of the cases brought before them, and it is in the administration of the law that the magistrates have discovered the necessity of having some drastic power of this kind. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) most unjustly read into the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) a suggestion that these crimes were mostly committed by coloured people. That is sheer nonsense; at all events, it is absolutely untrue as far as the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is concerned, because we know perfectly well that in connection with the cruelty we see going on round about here, there are certain classes of white people who are just as degraded in their treatment of animals as any coloured person. No one for a moment who knows anything about the facts would dream of suggesting that this kind of thing is confined to one section of the community. I am sorry the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) ventured to bring such a suggestion in.

On a point of personal explanation, although the hon. member may not have heard it, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) stated distinctly that this applied mainly to coloured men.

It was a passage which the hon. member was quoting. In the administration of the law lately we have seen three or four particularly brutal cases, one from Cape Town, one from Johannesburg of a very similar character, and one from Port Elizabeth. It does not help the question to discuss whether there is more or less cruelty in one part than in another. Whether in the Cape Peninsula we have more or less cruelty to animals. I think every member in the Cape Peninsula ought to be ashamed of the degree of cruelty to animals that does go on here, without making comparisons. We have heard a good deal about the question of lashes. The punishment suggested here is not lashes, but whipping; lashes, of course, means with the cat, but whipping is with the cane. But I am not concerned with the technical difference between these two things. I bear this in mind, that when you are dealing with a brute you must deal with a brute as a brute. We have heard about educating the people. I agree with the hon. member for Salt River that what we require is the better understanding of the people at large. Education takes different forms, and I am one of those who think that the education of a brute is by something that makes him feel. If you cannot appeal to his mental and moral qualities you have to educate him physically. I cannot help thinking of about 20 years ago when there was an epidemic of crime of a particularly brutal nature committed as between men and young women in this Peninsula, The court let it be known at a certain stage that they were going to inflict lashes, and they inflicted lashes once or twice, and the epidemic stopped pretty quickly. It is the fear of that kind of thing which is going to act as a check. I do not advocate unlimited whipping, but whipping as such for the brute is the one thing that will really appeal to him. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) mentioned one or two matters which caused him to object. He said the punishment for offences against human beings was less stringent than when it is a crime against animals. The very fact that a human being is able to enlist the services of the law on his own behalf is itself a very great distinction. I do not agree that the argument carries any weight, because you are dealing here with the case of the brutal treatment of animals. He drew a distinction between town and country. I refuse entirely to believe that there is a different standard of humanity between our farmer friends and our people in the towns. If the cases do arise whether in town or country where the law is justly applied by the magistrate, I do not care whether it is town or country. Then the hon. member said: “ Put your own house in order.” We are trying to put our house in order by this very Bill. When he speaks about the treatment of animals, in abattoirs, he knows that is an entirely different subject. I do not say that the treatment at abattoirs is such as to conform to all the best ideas of the treatment of animals. Certainly the treatment at abattoirs could not be altered by refusing to pass this Bill. I support the Bill, therefore, entirely on these grounds. No one, who has been overseas and has seen the treatment of animals, whether in England or elsewhere, and has noticed the friendship between the owner and the animal itself, can fail to be impressed. There is no doubt that the treatment of animals here, as compared with towns overseas, is a disgrace to ourselves. If we have had this law in operation and education in operation and these things have not been successful we want to give the magistrates the power which they will use at their discretion in rare cases of applying that punishment which is the only way of checking certain classes of cruelty that bring disgrace upon us.

I welcome this Bill, and, judging by the cruelty in the working of animals in the. Western Province, the education of people is very deficient in regard to their treatment of animals. I have never seen so many emaciated horses and half-starved dairy cows as I have seen in the Western Province. I have travelled all over South Africa, and I say it is wicked. It is impossible to walk in the streets of. Cape Town without seeing horses in an emaciated condition. The coloured races here seem to have a vein of cruelty in their nature. We have in Natal the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and we have an officer on duty in all the large centres.

We have exactly the same thing here.

Yes, but here the police should be instructed to be more active, and to make an examination of these unfortunate horses walking about—mere bags of bones. It revolts one to see this cruelty. I would like to see the word “ whipping ” altered to “ lashes. ” I say that any man who is guilty of cruelty to dumb animals is entitled to the lash. He is not a human being, but a fiend. We owe prosperity to animals, and why should they be abused? I would like to read a wire I received from a friend—

What about little Indian children who have to tread on hot ashes?

These animals, to which the wire refers, should be removed to somewhere where they can get food and drink.

I acknowledge that we must be careful with this kind of legislation. We must not give the impression outside that those who are opposed to the Bill are not sympathetic towards animals, and want to allow them to be ill-treated. I should support the mover of the Bill if I were convinced that animals were not sufficiently protected under the existing law. The hon. member for Lydenburg has very clearly explained the position. I want to say that I do not know of an hon. member who does not disapprove of the illtreatment of animals, but we must be careful that we do not so make the law so as to cause difficulties to ourselves. I am certain that there are hon. members who do not understand the position on the countryside. In Cape Town, e.g., there are people who do not know the value of animals, nor understand how to look after them, and in such cases the law may be made more severe, but if anyone unacquainted with the position goes to the countryside he will in some cases think that animals are being ill-treated when that is not at all the case. Hon. members who say that a farmer must release an ox when its shoulder is hurt until it is well again, do not know the position. There are young oxen whose wounds bleed, and we are all sorry for them, but the circumstances are such that the work has to be gone on with. People do the same with their own body, because it happens that they sometimes have pain and yet continue working. It is not a case of cruelty to animals. The Bill will be very difficult to apply to farmers and, therefore, I cannot support it. Outlanders must not come and tell us what cruelty to animals is because, when Johannesburg was laid out, I saw how they ill-treated animals, inspanned donkeys and drove them to death. It did not only happen then, but also in after years, the uitlanders showed how cruelly they could treat animals. They are the last people to tell us—I am speaking of the Afrikaans-speaking part of the population—what we should do. I support the motion of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), because I am convinced that the animals are sufficiently protected under the existing law. If that were not the case, I would certainly support the Bill.

I am not so sure that this Bill is, if it is passed, going to prevent further cruelty in South Africa.

It will tend in that direction.

I am not so sure. The hon. member who introduced this Bill would have put up a stronger case if he had given us a list of offenders who are frequently brought before the courts. He has not done so, or stated that the fines or the action taken under the present law have been ineffective.

What do the magistrates say?

There may have been cases of gross cruelty, I admit, but the object of a whipping is to prevent repeated acts of brutality. I have a fear that this is another colour bar. There are numerous colour bars in the Cape Province—very carefully disguised —and the hon. member who introduced this Bill and the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) both referred to the coloured community and to the native population, and I think that in the hearts of every hon. member of this Assembly they are convinced that these whippings will not be inflicted on white men, but mostly on native and coloured men, who have received orders from their employers to work different animals which are half starved or unfit to work, and, in many cases, the employer is himself to blame, although he may go into court and say he had given instructions that the animals were not to be used. Of course, the word of a white man is always taken. It strikes one that the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) waxed very eloquent about the poor, suffering animals in the Cape Province, and what he would do. He became very vindictive in his attitude as to what he would do to the people responsible for this cruelty to animals. But if he cares to walk about the town he would find half-starved human animals. Does he get indignant about these?

Yes.

We have enough cruelty in South Africa and other parts of the world to human beings to rouse indignation in this House, and instead of the hon. member for Umvoti supporting Acts like the Wage Act and other similar Acts which are brought in, he opposes them. No hon. member, who has opposed this Bill, favours cruelty to animals or anything of that sort. I am not sure, but you will tend to brutalize people by such legislation, instead of achieving the object you have in view. The hon. member for Albany tried to define degrees of cruelty, but many people give different definitions of cruelty, and a great deal depends on the witnesses concerned. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) said if a man is a brute treat him as a brute, his idea apparently being that the way to prevent a man being a brute is further to brutalize him. Hon. members who have been protesting against cruelty to animals will some of them during the recess no doubt go out shooting and wounding inoffensive animals; some of those animals will not be fatally wounded, but will escape in an injured state and, after living a few miserable days, will die a lingering death. According to the hon. members that is not cruelty, but sport.

Political meetings are also a cruelty.

Especially in Natal, where they have so many politicians who inflict cruelty on their audiences. We, as members of Parliament, are very largely to blame because we allow conditions to continue which create brutes. Men and women grow up in this country under circumstances which deaden their finer instincts and impulses. Those who are responsible for paying low wages and for compelling people to live in slums and herd together under worse conditions than those under which animals live, are largely responsible for brutalizing that low type of humanity which they are now attempting to create by the infliction of lashes. We allow drink to brutalize people all, of course, in the name of profits. The same thing applies to illicit liquor drinking in the Cape, which brutalizes a large section of the population. This is permitted because a profit is made out of it. If hon. members wish to remove a great deal of brutality let them do something to improve the economic conditions of the people, but they are in favour of keeping wages down to the lowest possible level, and are largely responsible for creating brutes. Let hon. members tackle the necessary cruelty that is created by the conveyance by railway of cattle, some of the animals having to travel long distances when in a chafed and bleeding state.

Have you seen that?

Yes.

What action did you take?

What action can one take?

You’re a member of Parliament.

This is a case of necessary cruelty. How can you avoid it?

Don’t overload.

A farmer tells me that the more cattle there are in a truck the less chance there is of their being knocked about. Whilst I am entirely in favour of doing everything possible to prevent cruelty to four or two-legged animals, I am not convinced that this Bill is going to achieve its object, and I am not convinced that it has been justified by the case put up by its introducer, because he has not shown that persons guilty of repeated acts of cruelty have been fined without any effect on their conduct. Imprisonment largely tends to bring out the brute in a man and to make him an enemy of society. I have been in prisons in this country, and I say everything is done by our prison system to brutalize instead of appealing to a man’s better nature and leading him up to a higher standard. The idea of that is not to punish a man, but to try to prevent crime. Are we succeeding by these methods? There is something radically wrong in our idea of punishment in connection with offences. We are not really preventing crime, we are simply punishing people after the committal of these offences. We are on the wrong track, and instead of doing our utmost to eliminate social evils, economic evils which are responsible for crime, we are simply trying to deal with the effect. Every man who is cast into gaol comes out a greater enemy of society than he was when he went in. We are responsible for the system.

I want to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I just want to say that the attitude of certain hon. members representing farming districts looks as if the hon. member intended by the Bill to hit the farmers, and to make out that the farmers ill-treated animals. I also represent a farming district, and I feel that what is proposed here is not to create a new crime, but to give the magistrate the right to impose more severe punishment in extreme cases. Mention has been made by hon. members that farmers often have to train oxen and horses, etc., and then have to act rather severely towards the animals. I think everyone in the House knows that, and I do not think that there is a magistrate in the country who will flog a farmer for such a thing. The punishments are laid down under the existing legislation.

Why, then, is the Bill necessary?

Corporal punishment is required to be given to a man who ties a dog behind a cart and then drives 25 hours. Hon. members will admit that for such a man a fine of £25 is not enough. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) provides for that type of man. The speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg made me feel much more strongly in favour of the Bill than before. He mentioned a case of a man who wilfully kicked a cat in the street and was fined £15. That is too little for it. A person who does that maliciously ought to be flogged. Because it is a cat, it is made out that a man has the right of breaking its back. It ought to be punished very severely. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) said that the mover had not proved the necessity for the Bill, because he did not have proof that the crime of cruelty to animals had increased. There I differ from the hon. member. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) did prove it. He did not bring us facts that the crime had become less, but he quoted what people who are best able to judge, viz., the magistrates, who have to do with these cases all day long, had to say on the subject. They say that the Bill is necessary. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) said that there was an Act protecting animals, and that cruelty could be punished under it. There I differ from him. There is an Act, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) does not say that as regards prosecutions the Act should be made more stringent, but that when a punishment is given a proper punishment may be authorized in extreme cases. To come back to the farmers, however, I want to say that I grew up as a farmer’s son in my district, and know that if cruelty to animals takes place, it is not the farmers who are the offenders, and the law will not press heavily on the farmers, as some hon. members want to make out. I believe that it is a fact that the farmers punish their employees when they are guilty of cruelty to animals, but the fanners themselves do not commit that offence. The farmer loves his animals, and I do not think there is one farmer in my constituency who will be angry about the attitude I am taking up. The farmers want the animals to be protected. Moreover, it is clear that the magistrate will not for a mere bagatelle inflict the cat, but only in extreme cases will he do so. The farmers will not in the least suffer under the Bill, and I am glad that it has been introduced. If we cannot place sufficient confidence in the magistrates of this country to properly administer the law, it would be deplorable. It has been hinted that they will misapply the law; they will not do it intentionally.

As a farmer and the representative of farmers, I want to support the Bill enthusiastically. I welcome it. I am much surprised that some farmers in the House are so frightened and concerned about the Bill, and think that it will press heavily on the farmers. Do they wish to suggest that the farmers are cruel to animals? I agree with the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) that it happens rarely, and that when it does happen they should be severely punished. It happens, however, that persons who are not owners of animals are cruel to them. They are employees of the farmers. The farmers of the countryside are, however, in favour of the protection of animals. A case has been quoted of a farmer having his wagon stuck in the road having to use the double whip. I am convinced that a farmer will not use the double whip if his wagon gets stuck in the road. It will not assist him when the animals get stuck. The result of the Bill will be that it will make the people afraid of being cruel to animals, and that is a desirable effect. I hope, however, that the impression is not going abroad that the farmers ill-treat animals. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) spoke about the application of the cruelty to animals Act in the district of Cradock, which has been tried by drought, and that the farmers had been guilty of cruelty because there was drought there. That is a ridiculous statement, because the farmers have no control over that, and cannot make rain. Does the hon. member think that the farmers like losing their animals? No, they do their best to save them. It is sad to see the animals dying, but the farmers are helpless. It is ridiculous to think that the law is applicable in that case. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said, the Bill does not contemplate any change of principle, but only an increase in the penalties. I have by the wayside seen cases of cruelty which ought to have been severely punished. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) said that you also find people hungry. That is quite a different matter, and cannot be compared with this. The people surely have an opportunity of going out and struggling to get food, but where animals are tied up they have not that opportunity. One often sees horses or mules drawing much heavier loads than ought to be loaded on the vehicle. Then the hon. member for Brakpan spoke of cattle being sent to the slaughter poles, and that they were so crowded in the railway trucks that the blood ran from coming into contact with the sides. I think the hon. member is exaggerating, and he cannot state that the farmers crush the stock in the trucks so that they are charged less carriage. It is an unworthy accusation against the farmers, and it is not to their advantage to do so, because then they will not receive a satisfactory price when the animals reach the slaughter poles. If the hon. member would first go into a matter before expressing his opinion, it would be much better. I hope the Bill will receive the full support of the House.

I shall be sorry if the idea gains ground that we who are opposed to the amendment of the existing law are opposed to the proper protection of animals.

You must not say that the farmers are afraid of the Bill.

There are no more tender hearts for animals than among the farming population, but if the Bill is placed on the statute book, then we do not know who will remain guiltless. If we were certain that all our magistrates were people who had grown up with animals, so that they could understand the position and differentiate between unavoidable and malicious cruelty, then we could possibly support the Bill, because I have myself seen cases of cruelty to animals, and also ill-treatment of them, in the Cape Town streets which has made my hood boil, and made me wish that I could lay my hands on the brutes. I have already interfered in such cases many times, because I cannot tolerate it. It is the case with all of us, and we should all like to see such persons punished, so as to prevent them offending again. We cannot, however, lay down a penalty just for one class so that innocent people shall not be included in it. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) says that he is a farmer, but when one hon. member said that it happened that the breast of a horse unavoidably got chafed on a warm day, he said that it never yet occurred to him. Then I must take it that he has never yet had horses to work with because otherwise it would be impossible for him to say such a thing. We know that one has to be careful in warm, thundery weather to prevent the chafing of a horse’s chest, and you must constantly give them air at that spot. If a horse has not worked for a long time, and he is then put before the plough, then his chest will chafe on warm days. We know that a horse in such a case suffers pain, but when the bruise once gets warm it is not so bad. It is the same with the shoulders of oxen. If a policeman sees it and brings the farmer before a magistrate who cannot differentiate, then the farmer will be flogged. It is a dangerous matter. We should like very much to assist, but we cannot go that length. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) spoke of the kicking-in of cats’ backs, but I have heard cats in Cape Town to whom I’d like to do more than break their backs. As the law reads to-day, the punishments are sufficiently severe, and all that is required is that magistrates should give more severe punishments under the existing law. I only hope we are not giving the impression to the country that we favour cruelty to animals, because we are sympathetic towards them. We are, however, afraid that the provisions of the Bill may inflict hardship on innocent people if it is not judicially applied by the magistrate.

I am rather afraid that some of the opposition this afternoon has been due to a desire to defeat the next order on the paper, but I hope that some of the speeches made were not merely made with the object of “ talking out ” this Bill. Not one single case made out in opposition is affected by this Bill. Let us take, for example, cropping. The courts have decided that this is permissible, and is not cruelty. Docking—we have decisions there; it has been held not to be cruel. Then we come to saddle sores. I know of no magistrate who will impose a penalty of whipping for that, nor for chafed shoulders. There has not been a single case mentioned for which a magistrate would impose a sentence of whipping. Let me repeat to the hon. member who spoke last (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that a magistrate is not able to impose whipping and have it carried out without confirmation by the Supreme Court. Surely the hon. member does not wish to tell us that the magistrates in this country are so incompetent that they do not know when to impose a suitable sentence. Magistrates who study these matters know when their sentences are likely to be confirmed, and when they will not. The courts have laid down very clearly how far they will allow magistrates to go. So there is every possible safeguard with regard to the matter. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) spoke of necessary cruelty. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing. One can appreciate excusable cruelty, but there can be no necessary cruelty. What we are out to do is to stop the brutal cruelty which is going on. When a man is cruel when in extreme anger, no magistrate will go beyond fining him. When there is brutal cruelty, we want to get at the brute. It is no use saying that you are going to brutalize a man by whipping him; a man who is guilty of wilful and brutal cruelty is already a brute. I want to remind hon. members that they are confusing whipping with lashing. The penalty asked for is whipping with a cane; the cat is not used in this connection at all. The hon. member for Brakpan also said it would have been better if I had brought the records of crimes committed by persons previously sentenced. Better than that is the decisions of the magistrates and the expressions given by them as to the necessity of changing our law. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) must have misunderstood me. Of the cases I quoted, three of the guilty parties were Europeans, and that must dispose of the suggestion that I am trying to make out that coloured people alone are responsible. I hope the House will now agree to the second reading, and reject the amendment proposed by the hon. member opposite.

Question put: That the word “ now ”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—35.

Alexander, M.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Harris. D.

Hay, G. A.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

McMenamiti, J. J.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford. R.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, O. T.

Van Heerden. G. O.

Van Zyl, G. B.

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

Noes—32.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh. P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A I. E.

De Wet. S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.