I would like to ask the Minister of Finance when he is going to lay the Estimates on the Table.

Probably next week.

I move—

I beg to second my hon. friend. There are two Acts concerned in this Bill, namely, the Pass Registration Act of 1884 and the Act of 1901, together with the Amending Act of 1904. Under the Act of 1884 a native from beyond the borders of the province, who has obtained an inward pass, and who loses it or does away with it, can apply to the nearest magistrate for renewal. In other words, a native who deserts his employer can apply for a renewal and enter into the service of another employer on his renewal pass. It is now proposed to amend this Act so that where an identification pass is issued to a native to work, that native, on entering upon his work in Natal, would have the terms of his employment endorsed on his pass at the nearest magistracy to where he is employed. The terms of the contract would be noted also at the office where the pass had been originally issued. In that way there would be some control over the passes of native employees. A native, after receiving an advance from an employer, destroys his identification pass, and then applies for a renewal, and enters into the employ of some other employer. The next amendment is under Clause 2, which provides for the appointment of inspectors. I do not think this provision is acceptable, and at the committee stage can be deleted. It will mean that all natives under contract of service will be subject to inspection by an inspector, who will see that they are properly housed, that they receive proper food and live under sanitary conditions. The next clause deals with the amendment of the Act of 1901, and it provides for any person who engages a native as a servant having the terms of the engagement registered by an endorsement being made on the identification pass. Here, I think, an amendment will be necessary whereby the endorsement of the terms of the contract should be notified to the magistracy where the pass was originally issued, so that if a native deserts and applies for a renewal pass, the pass officer will be able to see at a glance whether a contract exists. If a contract exists, it will be immediately discovered that this native is applying under a false pretence for a renewal of his identification pass. The Bill has become necessary owing to a number of employers suffering through natives deserting after entering into contracts, and because there is no means of tracing these natives. Natives obtain renewal passes, and if the provisions of this Bill are applied it will not be so easy for them to obtain renewal passes, because there will be some means of checking whether or not a contract exists at the time when a renewal pass is applied for.

I have seen this Bill for the first time this afternoon, but that is not the fault of the hon. member who introduces the Bill. I believe he has seen the Minister of Justice, and from what I have been informed, the Minister of Justice told him there is not much likelihood of getting the Bill through the House. The Minister of Justice not being here, I feel that I must ask whether Sub-Clause 1 of Clause 6 is possible. Is the Natal farmer going to submit to what will be the law if this Bill passes, because it will mean that every farmer who engages a native as a servant will have to drive to wherever the officer is who has to endorse the identification pass. The result will be that no farmer in Natal will be able to engage a native without first leaving his farm, and finding that officer, and getting an endorsement made.

The idea is that that will be done by an inspector.

By the visiting inspector? How about incurring expenditure?

I believe that was submitted to the proper authority.

I am merely pointing out that this is a matter pertaining to the department of the Minister of Justice. Sub-Clause 2 of Clause 6 reads—

If we do not point out what this entails my department will be blamed. What it entails is that when a pass is issued in future to a native servant that pass will be left with the master—

It can be done in Natal now.

It seems to me that there is an opening for abuse. If the Bill is read a second time, I hope it will be very closely scrutinized in committee. When you have to deal with matters of this kind, legislation should be initiated from Government quarters, as that is the only guarantee you have that the interests of both sides will be safeguarded. Both my own department and the Department of Justice are busy at this moment going into this question of native passes. I am in hopes that we shall be able, during the next two years, to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter.

Has your department gone into this Bill?

Only indirectly after my department came to know about it.

I have not the least intention of hindering the motion of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), but I feel on reading through the Bill that it deals with a matter of general interest for the whole country as well as Natal. We shall in the near future have to go into the question to see what is to be done with the application of the pass system in the Union, and how it is to be done. In each province the laws are different to-day, and this gives rise to difficulty because the natives go from one province to another. Therefore, I think that before we go into this system for one province we must consider that of all the provinces, because if something is adopted in one province it can very easily be applied to another. On reading the Bill I find that the farmers probably also fall under its provisions. Now, as the Prime Minister has already said, the Bill goes the length of appointing inspectors. Those inspectors of the Department of Justice will go about and inspect the workers on the farms. What difficulties may not arise in this way in future? I do not sufficiently know the conditions in Natal, and I do not think that it is similar to other provinces, but as far as I know it is not necessary in the other provinces to introduce the new provisions of the Bill. We have a certain system with reference to the pass system for natives, and it never caused trouble. Apparently the position in Natal leaves something to be desired, but I cannot judge about that. I feel, however, that we must be very careful when we tamper with the pass laws. As stated, I do not want to put any difficulties in the hon. member’s way, but I fear that if such a principle is adopted in one province it might very easily be applied to the other provinces.

In my part of the country there will be strong condemnation of this Bill, as if the farmers are not sufficiently handicapped already in many ways without these extra regulations, such as regulating the kind and quality of food, housing and sanitation to be supplied by a master to his native servant. Then the Bill requires that whenever any person engages a native as a servant, the terms of the engagement must be endorsed on the native’s identification pass by a pass officer. Even a day labourer will have to be registered. In our part of the country natives come in from the territories and Basutoland at shearing, lambing and harvesting time, and it would be most inconvenient at such busy periods if the employer had to chase after a pass officer. Further, an army of such inspectors will be needed. The proposal is objectionable to the farmer and native alike. I know of many farmers who have been obliged to pay a native’s tax before the native is allowed to leave his home to work for the farmers. With regard to the younger natives who are liable to their ordinary tax the law does not permit them to come out at all until they have paid that tax. This is a great hardship, and in view of the additional impediment which has been imposed upon the farming community, I do hope that the movers, who do not seem very keen on the Bill, will be prevailed upon to withdraw it.

Before speaking on the Bill, I want to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I understand from what the Prime Minister said that the persons referred to under the section will be new appointments of inspectors not at present provided for under the existing establishment. It appears from what the Prime Minister said that the Governor-General’s permission to bring this before Parliament has not been given, and I would like to ask if it is possible to proceed under those circumstances?

In view of the Prime Minister’s assurance that the whole matter will be gone into and of the fact that private members’ facilities end to-day, may I ask leave to withdraw the motion and leave the matter to the Government?

With leave of the House, motion and Bill withdrawn.

I move—

May I say at the outset that this Bill has been put on the Order Paper for the purpose of promoting the discussion of a matter which very seriously relates to the future stock-breeding of this country. I have been in communication with the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) on the subject of this Bill. The hon. member had given notice of a motion dealing with this very subject, and I understand it is considered on the other side of the House that the present time is not opportune for the introduction of a Bill—a view to which I do not demur, and therefore this afternoon, although I shall lay before the House the reasons which prompted me to bring forward the Bill, it will not be regarded as a Bill intended to reach its final stages. It is brought before the House for the purpose of submitting in concrete form the kind of legislation that has proved successful in other parts of the world. The Bill has been drafted on the lines of legislation already existing in the Irish Free State and northern Ireland, where the effect of such legislation has been most beneficial in the direction of improving livestock-breeding in those countries. The Bill as it stands provides that the Governor-General, after conferring with the interests chiefly concerned—I assume they would include the South African Agricultural Union and affiliated bodies—would then proceed to the appointment of a consultative council which would have the duty of advising the Minister in regard to the drafting of regulations on the various subjects alluded to in the clauses of the Bill referring to regulations. The object of the Bill is to improve the breeding sires of this country and to establish confidence in the livestock industry of South Africa. The conditions at the present moment are extremely bad, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to a chart prepared by Dr. Romyn, of the Department of Agriculture, showing the varied extent to which pure-bred stock exists in the Union. The pitch-black spot in the corner shows where the stock consists of 75 per cent, pure-bred—that is in the Natal province and East Griqualand—and it shades away in varying degrees until you get pure white, where you have as low as 10 per cent, or under pure-bred. That chart illustrates the extremely bad position of the livestock industry in the greater part of the Union. I am speaking now of cattle. The scheme of the Bill is to begin with the improved areas, to follow the line of least resistance, and I propose, in committee, to make this Bill a permissive one, optional upon the consent of the preponderating number, say, two-thirds of the landowners or livestock-breeders of the area, and only upon the consent of that proportion of people would the Act be extensible to any particular area. It is reasonable to suppose that where you have 75 per cent, pure-bred stock it would not be difficult to secure the adherence of the majority of breeders to this principle of going in for better bulls. I presume that the advisers of the Minister would not set too high a standard to begin with. They would tend to begin modestly and in the course of time to work up to a high standard in the areas in which the whole of the stock was pure-bred. That, I understand, has been the principle of such legislation in other countries. It has worked satisfactorily, and it has revolutionized stock-breeding and tremendously improved the type of stock. On the details of the Bill there may be many criticisms, and I am prepared to admit those criticisms are probably well founded. The Bill has been hurriedly drawn. My object to-day is merely to introduce the Bill, and if the Minister expresses a wish that it should stand down for further consideration or that it should be referred to the Government for consideration, I am perfectly willing to agree, because I realize that with the disappearance of private members’ business after to-day’s sitting there remains no opportunity of passing this Bill, but a very useful purpose will be attained by commending it to the attention of the people of the country and asking them to consider to what extent it would serve to act as a stimulus in the direction of improved livestock-breeding. To-day that sinful animal, the scrub bull, is virtually free to wield his evil influence on every herd in the Union, except in that enviable sanctuary marked so conspicuously on the map. The position, I think, is very depressing, but not entirely hopeless. Within a measurable time we may look to the improvement of livestock taking place in that vast area [indicating area on map], but it is only by an evolutionary policy that we shall improve the livestock in the country. It is impossible with a stroke of the pen to do away with scrub stock. The Bill provides a stimulus, without compulsion.

I am certain that every farmer in the House will welcome the improvement in the breeding of our stock, because no one knows better than they themselves that it will be very beneficial to them. I think, however, it is a mistake to try and secure the improvements by legislation of this kind. The hon. member is theoretically a farmer, to judge by the papers that he wrote to explain the conditions in the country, but the practical execution of the matter will not be as easy as he thinks. In our country we have agricultural sacieties and farmers’ unions which regularly hold congresses, and we have a very sympathetic Agricultural Department. The Minister of Agriculture attends the congresses if it is at all possible. This Bill aims at the establishment of certain bodies, but apart from them, all the necessary advice can be given to the Department of Agriculture. It is provided that the Governor-General-in-Council should appoint the bodies, and this only means that the Minister of Agriculture has the duty. When one looks at the regulations they are merely going to make things more difficult for the farmer. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) says that this legislation was introduced into the Irish Free State. That may be, but then, do they farm in the same way as we do, and do they have the same difficulties? The carrying out of these regulations will cost the country a tremendous sum of money, because certain persons will have to be appointed to carry them out. Are we to appoint for the purpose people who have been through the agricultural school? We know the story that one of them asked how old a calf should be before you could see whether it was a bull or a cow? When he was told that yon could tell immediately after birth, he replied that it could not be so, because you had to wait six months before you could tell whether a chicken was a hen or cock. The agricultural school students will be glad to have the jobs, but if they have to go round rejecting stock and saying that others must be bought, then it will only be assisting certain breeders. We also have thousands of natives who cannot afford it; it may be said that the natives’ bulls come on to the farms of the farmers and that in that way an increase in the number of scrub stock takes place, but the farms are divided to-day and are fenced, so that it is a farmer’s negligence if it occurs. Why is there always a demand for making laws apply to the farmers? What will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) say if a Bill is introduced to prevent him having certain things in his shop? We know that there are many useless things in shops. What would the mover think of it if we in the Free State were to tell the Natal people what sort of banana-trees they ought to plant? In my opinion legislation should come from the right source. If the farmers’ unions and agricultural societies think that this kind of legislation is necessary, then they can communicate with the Minister of Agriculture. If the Minister there-after brings a reasonable Bill before us we shall all agree to it, but we are not prepared to vote for such an imperfect Bill such as this one introduced by a private member. How he can do so is beyond my comprehension. I therefore move, as an amendment—

I second the amendment. No doubt the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) means well in introducing the Bill, and he wants to improve the stock in the country, but what he proposes here appears to me to be a little socialistic. We here are constantly being accused of co-operating with socialists, but it looks very socialistic if the Government has to intervene entirely in the private business of the farmer, and say what kind of stock he should have and what not. I will not dispute that there is plenty of room for improvement and development with regard to our stock, but the question is if we are not making good progress with the assistance of the Agricultural Department in the way of expert advice. When we think of the fact that we can compete with the best wool in the world, that our Friesland cattle can be exported to Great Britain, it is sufficient evidence that good progress is being made without legislation. The farmers are a peculiar kind of people. If they are forced by an Act, they do not progress half as well as without it. The farmer wants to work according to his lights in his little kingdom, and I think we ought to bear in mind that there are farmers who have devoted all their lives to improving their stock, farmers who have practical experience, and have made a special study of stock improvements. Are they now to be dictated to by others, people who possibly only have theoretical knowledge? We must not forget that we have to do with various climatic conditions, situation or areas, etc. It is very difficult for an expert to advise any farmer; wool produced at one place can possibly not be produced from the same stock on a dry place with little rainfall, and vice versa. The theoretic advice of an expert will not always assist very much. Nor are they always right, as I will exemplify. A number of years ago, when wool had gone up, and great interest was being taken in it, many sheep were imported from Australia, and the experts then advised the farmers to import coarse wool sheep, one might almost say coarse wool sheep. We find to-day that that kind of wool is nearly off the market, and that there is a great demand for fine wool. The Government will be assuming a great responsibility if it is to prescribe what kind of stock the farmers must keep. If the Government had not at that time borne the responsibility for the importation of the sheep that produced rough wool, the Government would have been blamed for it. I think this motion is unpractical, however well-meaning the hon. member may be.

I am sure every progressive farmer must approve of the principle of this Bill, a principle which I have advocated in this House before. I think this wants to be brought about gradually. If we are to have our fair share in the export of beef, this is a question which must be tackled. When I was in England recently, the 28th annual congress of the Council of Agriculture was held, and at that congress one of the speakers pointed out that there was no reason why Scottish beef should be preferred to English beef. It was all a question of stud animals. The English breeder was not careful enough in his selection. I should like to point out that the Union-Castle Company carry freight-free all animals imported for stud purposes except thorough-bred horses. We know that one of the burning questions of the day is the mounting of our police. Year by year the demand is far greater than the supply, and the police force cannot do efficient work unless it is well mounted. Why should not our Minister of Agriculture get into touch with the Union-Castle Company and see whether he cannot get them to include thoroughbred horses for stud purposes, not for racing, among the animals which they carry free of freight? If this were done our police would have all the remounts they require. Sires suitable for remounts can be bought by the dozen in England at from £250 to £300 apiece, but when in addition to that you have to pay a freightage of about £70, it becomes another question. The reason why horse-breeding is going downhill is because sires are not in the country. If they were placed on the free list I have no doubt that hundreds of farms would go in for mares to breed the proper type of horse. This is an important and an urgent matter, if we had war or rebellion, where could we get horses for our mounted men? They are not to be had now in South Africa. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will get into touch with the Union-Castle Company and remedy this matter. I trust that the House will encourage the principle enunciated in this Bill, because we are very far behind other countries.

No, no.

Yes, we are. Take the cattle in Australia, and compare them with our South African cattle. We are not in the same street. You must not forget that out of the ten million head of cattle we have in this country no fewer than eight million are scrub stock. You have not that proportion in Australia or in any other country in the world.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), not because I do not see the necessity for a Bill of this kind, but because I think that legislation of this nature, which is of such great importance, ought not to be introduced by a private member. I do not suppose the Minister of Agriculture has the least doubt of the necessity for such a Bill. It needs the study of the department for years however, so that it shall not be too drastic, nor against the interests of the farmers. The greatest argument in the countryside is that such a Bill is only in the interests of the breeder and the man who already has stud stock. I do not agree with that. I believe, as a matter of fact, that it is going to assist the small man, because the largest section of the poor farmers have insufficient knowledge and experience of bulls, rams and stallions.

Nor of the prices.

Yes, the prices also. I know of a case where an expert condemned a sheep for breeding purposes. That sheep was exhibited at a show, as unfit for breeding purposes. But it was rubbed up nicely with a greasy blanket by the owner, and kept under a blanket so that it should look nice, and a poor man paid a very high price for it. It is so easy to mislead a poor, innocent farmer. Even if I differ from the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) as he avers, on various big questions, I agree with him in this, that disgraceful horses are bred in South Africa. I am not talking of racehorses, because, in my opinion, South Africa would have lost nothing if they had never been bred, but I mean the working horse, the utility horse, as the Englishman calls it. Even if the Bill is opposed, the Minister of Agriculture and his department will see that similar legislation will be required soon. Now I want to refer to sheep-breeding. There is great demand for rams. But on account of this the farmer who breeds rams will sell any ram, even those that are not suited for breeding. What should be called wethers are sold and bought as rams and large prices paid for them. Farmers are not all experts. In that way there is much damage done to our sheep-breeding. We admit the jump ahead that our sheep-breeding has taken in the last few years, namely, that the average weight of wool per sheep has risen from 3£ lbs. to 6 lbs., while in Australia it is 7½ lbs, per sheep, but to keep our good name, it is necessary for us to be very careful in the kind of sheep we breed. What I want to see them do of this kind is that an eye should be kept on the sheep imported, especially the sheep from Australia. There are many sheep which ought to have their throats cut before admission. Because the farmer does not know the sheep sufficiently well, he pays a high price for a valueless sheep which is imported from abroad, under some name or other. Hon. members will remember how we laughed about the sheep that were imported from America and shown at the Bloemfontein show. If I had had any say, and if the Minister of Agriculture had been present, the proper thing would possibly have been done, and the throats of the animals cut. It is not only sheep that are bred in South Africa, but other animals that are imported and that are a danger to our wool industry. The poor people are often exploited, they have not had the knowledge nor the opportunity to visit an agricultural school, and they are not good judges of sheep. They buy bad sheep from breeders who are well-known as breeders and imagine that they must always be good. I, however, support the amendment because I think that it is a matter which should emanate from the Department of Agriculture. They can do a great deal with the experts in sorting and classifying sheep, and in giving the poor man a chance of buying good sheep. I think, however, that the time will come when the Minister of Agriculture will see that legislation of this kind is necessary.

I appreciate the object of this Bill, but the question is a practical one, and up to the present no practical solution has been found. Breed societies have considered this question of the improvement of our cattle, and, so far, have come to no definite conclusion as to how this can be done. This proposal has been carried out in the north of Ireland and in the Irish Free State, and has proved a very satisfactory method of improving stock; but local conditions in Ireland are very different from those in South Africa. Therefore, I do not think the Bill is a practical solution here at the present time. The cattle industry in the Union is in the doldrums; it is down and out. I am a believer in self-help. I would see the farmers help themselves, but, at the same time, I look to the Government to give encouragement and assistance where it is their duty to do so, and not by any measure or means to put anything in the way of the importation of stock into this country. It is by the importation of stock that we are going to improve the quality. Therefore, I think the Government should do nothing to check or hinder the importation of stud stock into the Union. Stud-breeders are a link in the chain of productive effort and in the improvement of cattle. The future development of the cattle industry depends on the importation of stud stock. What help does the Government give to encourage this importation? The Government wishes to safeguard against the introduction of disease, and this is done by a quarantine station, so-called, but the quarantine stations are such in name only. The stock are herded together for 30 days, and if some of the cattle are affected with tuberculosis, mange or contagious abortion, there is every risk of infection, for the animals are kept together in contact for a month. It is of vital importance that the diseases I have named should be kept out of the country. To do that we should begin at the fountain head, that is, at the point of importation. At present this present system is carried on at enormous risks to the importer. He may be careful to have his stock properly tested in Europe, but other importers may not be so careful, and the result is that there is enormous risk run on the ship, and there is further risk of contact and infection at the quarantine station. I can give instances of animals that have come from pure clean herds being infected, I do not say at the quarantine station, I cannot prove it whatever I may think, but between embarkation and the release of the animals in South Africa. It is essential that the quarantine system should be altered. I have been informed that the English Government can do nothing in the matter, but surely, as a sovereign power, we have the right to arrange a quarantine station of our own and protect our industry. Over £50,000,000 worth of stock and land are represented in this one industry alone, yet we begrudge having a quarantine station in Europe. I appeal to the House to urge the Minister of Agriculture to take decisive action and to do something to prevent disease spreading. With reference to the cattle industry as a whole, let us look at the position squarely in the face. We have somethink like 10,000,000 head of cattle, but the market for our surplus is represented only by the demand for trek oxen—that is our market. We employ somewhere about 1,500,000 cattle for transport purposes; at least 20 per cent, have to be replaced every year, and this represents something like 300,000 animals. This is our present outlet for surplus stock. Surely that is not a market for an industry with 10,000,000 head. Every year 340,000 cattle are sold for slaughter purposes—a very large proportion being represented by worn-out trek oxen —derelicts that have survived the hardships of work and end by supplying the public with so-called beef. The position should be investigated to see whether we cannot improve the local trade and demand far better quality. We talk very big about an export trade, but we have to walk before we can run. We shall have to work for a much higher quality for the export trade, but before we can do that, let us encourage the local demand for better beef. Speaking on this question last year I made a suggestion which the Minister turned down. I suggested a method which has been carried out in Canada and the United States of America and is to come into force in England. That method consists not only of the meat being stamped by the health officers, but also being stamped to indicate whether it is prime or choice, the inferior grades being unstamped. By this means we shall be able to assist the consumers to secure the meat they require and wish to have instead of second- or third-rate meat. The stamp would be an incentive, not only to the sellers to improve the character of their trade, but to the producer, for buyers would ask for the best beef to supply the demand which would be forthcoming from the consumers. So I feel that there are two points worthy of the serious attention of the Minister. The one is, we must have quarantine regulations of a very different character from those we have to-day if we hope and expect the breeder to import good stock. He will not do it at present. The risk is too great. Cattle with mange have come out of the quarantine station at Cape Town. This is a very serious matter, and I appeal to the Minister to take it into very careful consideration. I cannot say the disease originated in the station, but I can honestly and truthfully say that it occurred between England and Cape Town, so it shows how essential it is that this quarantine station should be arranged for in England, so that animals shall run no risk of infection. The other point I wish him to take into consideration is that at the large abattoirs of the Union there shall be grading officers to decide upon and mark all the beef passing through, so that the consumer will know exactly what he is buying and whether it is first, second or third grade.

I think the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) means well, but he does not appreciate what an impossible position the passing of the Bill will create. The Agricultural Department will require an army of experts to give the farmers advice and to carry out the regulations. Imagine also that an expert condemns my bulls, and that I cannot get other good bulls of the breed I like farming with. It will put me in a very unpleasant position. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) shakes his head, but we do not farm with blood stock in Bechuanaland. We have learned that they do not pay there. We aim at meat and milk together, and there is no known breed which answers the double purpose. We are therefore obliged to cross so that we can get a strong animal that can live in Bechuanaland and will answer our purpose. Yet it must be admitted that Bechuanaland produces some of the finest cattle in South Africa. At the Johannesburg show the first prize for slaughter cattle is usually won by Bechuanaland, although we do not farm with blood stock. In the second place the Bill does not take account of the poor man —the small farmer. A man who starts as a dairy farmer starts with a few cows, and cannot afford to keep a good bull. If the experts disapprove of his bull then he will be ruined, because he will not be able to buy an expensive bull. Nor is any account taken of the native locations. Every native, on the average, has only two or three cattle, and which one will have to keep the good bulls? Will the passing of the Bill not mean that the State will have to keep the bull? If we are inspired with the idea of ruining the natives and not allowing them to farm stock, then the provisions of the Bill must be made applicable to them. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) used a good expression when he said that he believed in self-help. I believe in experience, self-help, and co-operation. The tendency of this Bill, one might say, means that only the Minister is to farm. I say that we should have the opportunity of building up farming upon our own experience. There is another point of great importance about which the mover as yet knows nothing. A farmer can be led, but not driven. It must be a South African party Government which tries to drive the farmers, because it will never be a Nationalist Government. No, we farmers are willing to be led. In Bechuanaland there is good co-operation, and there is a farmers’ association in every ward. We asked the Agricultural Department to send us an expert every three months—especially a cattle expert—to give lectures and to explain the good points of cattle. This is of great assistance to the young farmers. I should strongly object, however, to an officer having the right to condemn my cattle. I am master on my farm and in my kraal. I heartily support the amendment of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) and I believe that even the hon. member for Illovo, after the vote, will not introduce such a measure again.

I should be sorry to see this House express the adverse opinion that it would be if the amendment is accepted. I am sure that the mover would be prepared to let the matter stand over in view of the difficulties which have been raised. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) and others have spoken of Government experts and advisers being available; that is not the point. Those advisers may give the soundest advice possible, but there is no way to see that that advice is carried out. We ought to do something quite definite to get a higher standard, especially in regard to our cattle and horses. The Minister of Justice, in reply to a question from me, said that his department was in consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Defence with reference to horse breeding for police remounts. I would suggest for the Minister’s consideration and the hon. member when he comes to think out a more comprehensive and sensible Bill—because we cannot agree to this—the system which has brought English horses to the position in which they are—to have premium sires available for use at moderate fees by the poorer men who cannot afford to buy expensive sires. That would help a great deal. The whole thing behind this is that there shall be bodies constituted throughout the country whose advice would be accepted by the farmers and acted upon. If you cannot have legal compulsion let us have material compulsion so that the man who does not do his best to improve his stock shall not have the facilities the others have. I have recently been in Rhodesia, and was astonished to see the type of cattle there.

Scrub.

No, not scrub. The Rhodesian cattle are all in all fifty per cent, superior to the Union stock. Instead of running so much rubbish in the Union, we ought to be running the same class of cattle they are exporting from Rhodesia. Little of our Union stuff goes overseas. Sheep have improved themselves automatically almost, because of the high prices for Wool. The native does not care much what class of stock he has so long as it is on four legs and can breed. The intention behind this Bill should have the support of every farmer and well-wisher of agriculture in the Union. The most feasible system is to have premium sires available for the poorer farmer and make our cattle industry what it should be.

I was astonished to hear the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) criticizing the embargo on Rhodesian stock. He says that in that way we brought about an improvement in the stock of Rhodesia. I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to say that the embargo should be removed. Such a motion will be most strongly opposed by our farmers. I come back to the Bill and must say that it is strange that the farmers are always being legislated for, that laws are always being passed in connection with something the farmers ought to do in their own interests. Think of the sheep farmers. To-day we can compete with any country in the world with wool. Are the sheep farmers compelled, have they been told that they may only import certain kinds of rams? They have seen for themselves that they need the best class of ram. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) said that the average yield per sheep is 6 lbs. of wool to-day, but that we run the chance of losing this good position if we do not take care. Does he think that the sheep farmers who take so much interest in their sheep will not take care to maintain the standard which they have attained. They will themselves take pains to keep the best sheep and to improve their position still further. Now it is said that we must prohibit the importation from other countries of sheep that are said to be bad. Now the poor sheep farmer is not the one who imports rams, as the hon. member said. It is the rich man who has money who can import sheep from Australia and other countries. Is he not going to try to get the best sheep? He allows himself to be led by experts, and it has already happened that Government experts have been asked to investigate abroad what the best animals to import are.

It is the speculators who import the inferior stuff.

I think that we must try to make our people realize more and more that it is in their own interests to get good rams, bulls and stallions. Farmers as the hon. member for Becuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) rightly said, cannot be driven. We shall attain more if we allow the farmers to make use of the advice of experts. Then they will get the best animals. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) said that the breeders’ association have not yet come to an agreement about that matter. I ask whether there are enough bulls to-day available for the purpose? Are there enough bulls to-day for this Bill, or even enough rams’ Were the agricultural societies consulted about this Bill? Were the farmers consulted? I have just had a letter from the Friesland Cattle Breeders’ Association in which the secretary writes admitting that the object of the Bill is a good one, but that it cannot possibly be carried out, and that the bodies concerned ought first to have been consulted. He says the time is not yet ripe for such a Bill, and that the measures ought first of all to have been considered by those interested in the matter. I see that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) himself admits that the Bill is full of faults. It provides that the Minister of Agriculture shall be entitled to castrate rams, or bulls that are not according to the regulations. Then I should certainly have to come to this House again to ask for an indemnity if the owner of the castrated bulls or rams sues for compensation. That is only one point. I feel that possibly hereafter something may be done in this direction, but to-day we cannot force the people. We have a quarantine station to protect the country against the danger of infectious diseases. The hon. member said that in a few cases stock was infected, but he gave no proof. I have personally seen the head of the quarantine station, and he assured me that the station passed no infectious disease on to cattle, that there was Very little chance of that. The hon. member said that we should provide for the choice of meat. Does he want an army of officials to be appointed to stamp the meat in every village? The hon. member says that much trek ox meat is sold, and that it is not good meat. There is still much demand for that sort of meat in Johannesburg and elsewhere. Are then our poor farmers, because it would chiefly affect them, to be prevented from selling their trek oxen or stock that they have used? I do not think the farming interests are advanced by such arguments. Then it was said here that our horse breeding is retrogressing, that the police cannot get the necessary horses. The other day the commissioner of police told me that probably the regulations under which horses were bought for the police left much to be desired, and that the police— who did not need so many horses—can still get enough of the right kind in the country. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said that the Bill is necessary in view of what Mr. Romyn, agricultural departmental expert, indicated on his map with regard to the places where improved stock is found. I agree with the hon. member that, with regard to cattle, we are a long way behind, but notwithstanding this, there has been great progress visible in recent years. If we let the people see that it does not pay to farm with scrub stock, we shall do a good deal. The registration of the milk assists in this purpose greatly, and the people ought to be advised more and more to go in for that system. We must also not forget that of the 10½ million cattle in our country, 4½ million belong to natives. Is the House prepared to pass legislation providing that the natives can only own a certain class of animal? Is the House prepared to pass a Bill providing that the European farmers can only keep certain cattle? It is easy to talk, but the Government has to carry the thing out. Can that be done? I think the measure is premature. Let the hon. member encourage the farmers to establish associations, and let them get experts to show them what the best cattle and sheep are. Then the object of the Bill will be attained without legislation, and any other difficulties that legislation and compulsion would create. Then the farmers will not object to the measures as they undoubtedly will do if an Act is passed. But they will themselves gradually bring about the necessary improvements voluntarily. Let the agricultural associations first bring up such proposals, let the necessity for them first be felt. Then the position will be different. For this reason I do not think it is in the interests of the country to pass this Bill now. If people are prepared to support such measures we can possibly see later on what can be done. At present the time is not ripe, and I therefore hope the hon. member will withdraw the motion.

Speaking to the amendment, I think a profitable discussion has taken place, and I should like the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) to concur in the withdrawal of the Bill, provided that course meets with the approval of the House.

Is the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Celliers) prepared to withdraw his amendment?

Yes, I will do so, if the Bill is withdrawn.

The amendment is withdrawn.

If it meets with the approval of the House I wish to withdraw the Bill.

I object. The hon. member can withdraw the Bill after I have spoken.

In that case I take it that the amendment stands.

I do not intend to address myself to the question of the amendment, but I do desire to thank the hon. member who introduced this Bill. We have had an interesting debate. We have learnt much—I have because I know so little about bulls, unless they are Irish. The only thing I am surprised at is that, seeing that this matter affects the farming community so much, there should have been so few farming members present on the other side of the House. At one time there were not more than five or six members present representing farmers on the other side. Recently I saw a statement by Mr. Lloyd George who said that he would be the last one to introduce a private bill with any hope of successfully getting it through the House. Little encouragement is given to hon. members who desire to introduce private bills, especially if we are to judge from the speeches made this afternoon, when nothing but difficulties and stumbling blocks have been put in the way. As the hon. the mover has said, this matter is of very great importance to the farming community and to the whole of South Africa. I have always heard it stated that the farmer is the backbone of the country, and I admit that that is so, provided he is a good farmer. I regret that there is no encouragement given to a private member to introduce a Bill of this kind. It may be that it is inopportune, but it is a matter that should be widely discussed. With regard to the question of horse-breeding, the moment motor cars came into this country a dealer said: “My business has gone to pot”. Perhaps the Minister has not read what appears in the Auditor-Generals report, page 247, under his Vote No. 29, Agriculture—Education. Under paragraph 6, the Auditor-General says—

It is strange to find that it was replaced because the progeny was either red and white or nearly black. I may be allowed to suggest that the Government should take this matter into very serious consideration. I understand that the amendment is withdrawn and that the Bill is also to be withdrawn, but it is a matter of wide importance to the farmer and the country at large.

With leave of the House, amendment, original motion and Bill withdrawn.

There are only four municipalities, viz., Durban, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg and East London where the Railway Department pays a grant in lieu of licences for its motor ’buses. The other municipalities want to know why the department should not pay them in the same way as they contend that the Railway Department uses its vehicles in competition with the ordinary ’buses the owners of which have to pay licences and, therefore, it is only right that the department should pay in the same way as the private ’bus owner. Is it intended to extend this payment to other municipalities?

No. The administration is not responsible for any licence fees. The payment to the four municipalities referred to were made as ex gratia payments, and have been paid out for a considerable period. I think they have been paid even before my predecessor took office. It would be unjust to withdraw these payments now. I am not prepared however to extend these payments, but if any municipality thinks it can make out a good case for payment, it can do so.

I move—

It merely makes some small additions to the Act which was passed in 1927. Hon. members will see it largely deals with additions to head men and native commissioners, officers who were at the time overlooked and who from time to time fulfilled the functions of those to whom their names are to be added. There are only two really material questions involved. That is in Section 2 in the fourth line where after the word “such” it is proposed to insert “rights immunities”. These two words ought to have been inserted in the original Act. They are words contained in the native code in Natal and they are very necessary for the Governor-General to exercise the powers and authorities given to him without being challenged by the court which would then practically nullify the effect of this section. Then another point is in the following line where it is suggested to delete the words “at the commencement of this Act” and to substitute “or may be from time to time This is necessary because if the clause is left as it is it would mean that investigations would have to take place as to what the law was at the time when this Act was passed. The great object of this Act was really to enable the Governor-General so to exercise his functions that the native law as it modified itself from time to time could easily be adjusted as the circumstances changed. If we left the words in it would be contrary to what is contemplated by the Natal code. These are the only changes of any material importance. There is also Section 9, and I think every member will vote for the institution of this divorce law. There is no doubt the natives have been suffering through not having a native divorce court to which they could go without the formalities and expense incurred at present. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has pointed out the necessity for this and various deputations have come to see me to have such a court instituted. It is now contemplated in this Bill. The president of the native appeal court will be the judge sitting in this divorce court. Now that we have instituted a native appeal court it is a matter of economy to have the divorce court instituted at the same time. With these words—

I just want to ask the Minister why, in view of the fact that we already have a native appeal court in Natal, provision is made here for an appeal in native divorce cases to the Supreme Court of the province. Is it the intention of the Minister to abolish the Native High Court, which has been exercising these functions why not say so. If it is not, why are these powers not placed in the hands of that Court, which is specially constituted to deal with native cases? I understand in the other provinces there is no such court and I suggest to the Minister that he might agree to the appeal court for Natal being the Native High Court.

I do not think that would be advisable. You would then have different decisions given by the two courts.

Yes I see that, but you have already curtailed the powers of the Native High Court considerably and I doubt whether to-day it has sufficient work to justify its existence and now you are going to further curtail the powers of that court. I asked the Minister of Justice last session whether it was the intention to abolish this Native High Court, because it seemed to be that recent legislation curtailing its powers indicated such an intention. Government is constantly whittling away its powers and you propose to further whittle away its powers. Litigation is cheaper for the Native in the Native High Court than it would be in the Supreme Court, and if his wishes were consulted I am sure he would prefer that the jurisdiction and powers of the Native High Court should not be further curtailed in this Bill. Where is the necessity in Section 4 for the insertion of the words “or to any province or district”

We thought that at the time; the court has held otherwise.

The Court has held that the words “within the Union” do not entitle Government to order the removal of a native from one province to another?

The Court has indicated that a definite place shall be indicated.

I am pleased to hear that explanation.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any particular demand for the constitution of a public court in the native territories, and I should also like to ask whether this Bill has been before the Native Affairs Commission. This is a fundamental and very vital alteration of the law. Has the Native Affairs Commission made any report on this? Coming to the terms of the clause itself, when we come to the Committee stage, some provision will have to be made to make the constitution of the court quite clear. It is difficult to judge from the wording of the section what the constitution of the court is to be. The wording is very difficult to understand. [Sub-sections 2 and 3 read.]

I must say it struck me too when I read it, but in Committee—

I draw attention to that now, and I hope the Minister will draft a clause so as to make it quite clear what the constitution of the court shall be. Is the judge to be the sole judge, or to sit with others?

The idea is to have him the sole judge.

It is quite impossible to gather that from the section as it stands. That very fundamental alteration in the law should be made quite clear. I would like to point out that a very important change is made in the definition of “customary union”. The word “marriage” has been used to apply to civil Christian marriage, and is distinct from marriage by native law and custom. (Clause 8 read.)

I should like information from the Minister about Clause 3 which makes provision for the appointment of additional native commissioners. If I read the law rightly, I think that the magistrates are native commissioners in the Free State. We have however in the district of Harrismith the peculiar position that in the native reserve Witzieshoek a commandant was appointed with the same powers as those of the old landdrost. I believe he has been given notice that he is no longer commandant, but has a different title. Now I want to know whether it is possible to get him appointed as an additional native commissioner. In the northern Transvaal the magistrates are native commissioners, and the additional native commissioners are practically only concerned with native cases. Witzieshoek is between 50 and 60 miles from Harrismith, and if the responsible person there does not have full powers it may cause trouble because the natives will then have to go to Harrismith. Does this person now have the same rights as he formerly had?

I would like to reply to a few observations of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). Previously in the Transkei the chief magistrate exercised jurisdiction in divorce cases, and this power had been in existence there for many years. Four years ago however these powers were taken away from him and the Prime Minister has promised on frequent occasions in this House to make other provision for such cases, more especially when the Native Commission Bill came before this House. We in the Transkei, appreciate the action he is now taking under this Bill and I hope that the passing will not be delayed. I think, however, that it will be necessary to scan Section 8 of the Bill, but I sincerely hope the measure will go through, because the position in the Transkei in this regard is very serious. With regard to the position taken up by my Natal friends I may say I have never heard of cases in which natives have appealed to the Supreme Court in divorce cases and such would be extremely rare. Under the powers provided by this Bill the expense of divorce proceedings will not be very great, and on behalf of the natives of the Transkei I wish to express my appreciation of the action of the Prime Minister in bringing forward this measure.

I rise to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) in regard to Clause 9. In my opinion, if a divorce has to go to the Supreme Court it will prove a very expensive business, far more costly than the existing Native High Court, which has been in existence for many years, and which is very suited for dealing with such cases. The Supreme Court already has a tremendous Congestion of work, and everyone knows that that Court is far more costly than the Native High Court. I think it is a mistake to constitute the Supreme Court as a court of appeal in these divorce cases. In my opinion, the Native High Court is better able to deal with them. It has served a very useful purpose in Natal, and the natives there have every confidence in it. I hope the Prime Minister will consider the deletion of the clause and will agree to the Native High Court continuing to have these appeals. It is, in my opinion, a great mistake to curtail the jurisdiction and powers of the Native High Court of Natal.

In connection with the appointment of native commissioners and additional native commissioners, I want to mention the Free State position. Under the principal Act native commissioners were appointed in the districts of Harrismith and Thabanchu, and a few days ago I asked the Minister a question to which he replied that there had been no demand from other Free State districts for similar appointments as yet, because the natives were not living tribally there. My experience in the Free State, however, is that most of the natives nevertheless desire the appointment of such an officer. They do not live tribally as a matter of fact, but the points where their law must be applied are of very great importance. Ninety-nine per cent, of the marriages are lobolo marriages, and in the magistrate’s court it is not applied. If we consult the Free State magistrates on the matter, they will all say that it is unnecessary simply because that kind of difficulty does not come before the magistrate. The position is that the natives usually consult their masters, who refer them to an attorney. The latter tells them that the magistrate will take no notice of their case, and they must, therefore, go away disappointed. The magistrates are not so well acquainted with the conditions in the Free State as the farmers on the farms and the attorneys in the villages. I believe there is a need for the appointment of native commissioners in other districts at, e.g., Bethlehem and Bloemfontein. Cases have often come under my personal notice when I had to tell clients not to proceed with their cases. There is another reason why the magistrates were not keen on native commissioners being appointed. They would have themselves to be the commissioners which is a serious matter, as they would have to study native law. It may be that they are afraid of the responsibility. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and to appoint commissioners in the districts I have named, and others where it is necessary.

I want to say to the Prime Minister that I am puzzled to know how it is that the leaders of the I.C.U. are having such licence. They are going much too far. I see that, according to one of the Natal papers, Clements Kadalie has spoken of the Prime Minister in a most insulting and derogatory manner. I take exception to it, and so does the whole of Natal. Kadalie said—

What are we coming to? The Native Administration Act, Section 29, gives the Government all the power they require to deal with these people. The bulk of our native people in Natal are semi-civilized. There is an old native custom that before preparing for war the natives kill their white fowls and animals. The natives have done that. The native chiefs are asking why the Government don’t give them the responsibility of dealing with people like Kadalie. They would do it and do it thoroughly. What does the Prime Minister think is going to happen to the country if this sedition-mongering is allowed to go on. I would like to draw attention to the fact that there is a good deal of unnecessary friction in connection with the pass laws. In Natal, when a native takes out a pass, he is given a badge which he wears upon his body, and also a registration ticket. If a native has not got both in his possession he is arrested, and in Pietermaritzburg numerous complaints have been made to me. I am told that many of these natives are arrested because the police do not speak their language, and when the natives have not got the badge, although they have the ticket, they are placed in gaol for the night. The following morning the native’s master turns up and the badge is produced, and the native is released. There is no case. With regard to the pass laws, may I again quote what Mr. Kadalie says? This was on Tuesday, February 12th. I am quoting from the “Natal Witness,” by which newspaper he is reported to have advocated the putting aside of a day in South Africa, saying: “To hell with your pass laws.” That is sufficient to lay this gentleman by the heels. I hope the Government will act, because, if they do not, they are simply allowing the breeding of trouble. The Government can act under the Native Administration Act, Section (29), and I would like to know what reason they have for not putting a stop to this. The whole country is really very uneasy about it. I hope that when the Prime Minister replies, he will assure the House that action is going to be taken.

I thank the hon. member who has just spoken for the stand he has taken on behalf of my colleagues and myself. It is opportune because a very emphatic protest has been sent to me from a friend up-country who complains in the same way about the violent attitude of Mr. Kadalie, and who suggests that strong measures should be taken. Later on, however, he says—

I do not think this is a very opportune suggestion, and when passions have subsided it will be for the Government to decide the best course to pursue. I rather sympathize with the poor man, and the less attention we pay to him the better. I feel positive that the better class native is as much disgusted with him as any of us can be.

The natives regard it as a sign of weakness on the part of the Government to allow this.

Even if I wanted to hew off his head, I would not be in a position to do so unless I wanted my own head hewn off. It is a matter for the police and public prosecutor, and I do not think my hon. friend would like me to interfere with them. I always want to do what is best in the interests of the natives, and if it can be shown in Natal that the natives there having a Native High Court it would be better and cheaper for the natives to appeal to that court, I do not see why that should not be done. I do not know of any intention of my department of doing away with the Natal Native High Court. I am thankful to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) for having drawn my attention to a few points in the Bill which should be looked into very carefully as they are very important. I have not scrutinized the definition so closely as to be able to say the hon. member is right. Both the points raised by him will be submitted by me to the law advisers to go into. He asked me whether the Native Affairs Commission had been consulted. I cannot say definitely whether that has been done. I shall inquire into that, and when we come to the committee stage, I shall be in a position to reply on that point.