I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

It is not my intention to detain the House or to challenge a debate. It is, rather, a formal motion to refer the petition mentioned to the Government for consideration I want to say a few words in connection with the motion, but I will not enlarge on it, because it has already been debated in another place, and a select committee of that place is investigating the matter. I speak with the object of explaining why I call the attention of the House and of the Government to it. It is a petition subscribed by 18 breeders of thoroughbred horses in the Free State, and the object of it is to induce the Government to interest itself in this industry which was a very important one in the past, but, owing to circumstances, has languished. The petition is amongst others signed by Mr. O. G. Kellner. Hon. members will possibly know that the late Mr. Frans Schimper, of Breslersplat, in my division, was one of the largest horse-breeders in our country. Hon. members on both sides of the House have, doubtless, heard of him, and possibly even known him personally. Further, this petition has been signed by Mr. Otto Kellner, a son-in-law of the late Mr. Frans Schimper, who was one of the best known breeders, and by two sons of Mr. Schimper. They are all people in my constituency who are trying to continue to breed blood horses. It is not necessary to point out the importance of good horses in South Africa in time of war as well as of peace. Everybody will realize how important it is to-day, because where formerly the farmers had good horses these have on the countryside often got into the hands of the natives to-day. There are certain reasons for this, but I do not want to go into them. Countries like India sell thousands of horses and mules annually to Australia and South America for military and other purposes. The petitioners want South Africa to have a share in this export and, to that end, to breed good horses. We will in that way annually export our surplus horses to India. The petition further mentions that in South America, e.g., no horse may race if it is not home-born. The result is that a very good class of horse is bred in those countries. The motion, of course, refers to any kind of horse whether it is a racehorse, a draught horse, or a riding horse. The petitioners now ask the Government to enquire whether it is not possible to introduce legislation to protect and encourage the horse-breeders here. They point out a good result has been obtained in the case of the protection of our sheep and cattle. It is not an attempt to cause the spending of public money. They merely ask for horses bred here to be protected, and so to encourage an important industry. I hope the Government will seriously consider the motion and grant the same protection to this industry that it gives to other sections of the farming industry.

I second the motion. I am particularly glad that this motion has been introduced by a member from the Free State with its vast traditions for horse breeding. Unfortunately, the thoroughbred horse has fallen on bad days, not so much on account of depreciation in love of the horse, but more largely on account of the Free State farmers to-day having found that the horse is no longer a profitable investment and does not return money on invested capital. The sadness of the whole picture is that the horse which was bred in the Free State, and which has played such a big part in the history of South Africa has now been removed from its pastures where it has grown up, and which were responsible for that animal, the commando pony, which has made history. The Minister of Defence stated the other day that if we were suddenly called upon to face any sudden emergency in this country, we would be unable to do so on account of the absence of that horse. The production of the horse has fallen into disuse largely owing to the want of assistance from the public in the first instance, and to the Government not assisting in keeping it going. I should like to ask the members of the Government to think what the position would be supposing South Africa were cut off from petrol supplies. The horse-breeder contends that the only fostering influence to-day is the presence of the racehorse owner, and these men are called upon to face very large costs, and they now come to the House and ask that this petition shall be favourably considered for two reasons. In the past the production of the horse has dwindled down entirely to the production of the thoroughbred and the only use the thoroughbred is put to at present is racing. In the motion they ask the Government to legislate for the regulation and control of the importation of thoroughbred horses into the Union. If you look at the last returns of horse racing and you take the official organ you will find in the South African Racing Calendar for 1926, 2,733 horses are shown, and each one cost from £5 to £7 a month to those people who are racing them. The total cost of forage was no less than £163,980, and that was principally forage which was taken from the farmers in the Union to keep these horses going. Therefore, they have a peculiar call on the farming community on this side of the House to foster that industry. Unfortunately, these people have fallen between an unsympathetic Government and, I might almost say, an unsympathetic parent club. The Jockey Club which dominates these people has not legislated for their best protection, and the Government through the subordinate Government have taxed these unfortunate racehorses to such an extent that the owners have found it difficult to carry on. I have the authority of one of the biggest racehorse producers, who has something like £150,000 invested in the industry, and he assured me that unless something can be done to assist and foster this position they will have to consider very seriously whether that capital will not have to go by the board and be invested in something else. The provincial councils have taken heavy toll, and largely they have been very unsympathetic. The Minister of the Interior has been relieved of a large burden of taxation which has gone into education from taxes derived from these people. If you take the Racing Calendar again you will find that in the year ending 31st July, 1927, 2,599 races were run in South Africa, and of these, 364 were won by imported horses, and 2,235 were won by South African bred animals. Of the 364 won by imported horses no fewer than 220 were won by imported geldings. These imported geldings are no good to South Africa, and every one immediately takes away from the capital which would otherwise be invested and would be reproductive to the owner. I hope the Government will consider the motion sympathetically and that we will be able to come to the assistance of these people in some way. The Minister of Railways and Harbours is not here, but I want him to give his ear, because he will be able to tell the Government that a very large revenue is derived annually from these different meetings. You have your big races with very large stakes in different centres like Johannesburg and Cape Town and Durban, and you have large numbers of the public travelling backwards and forwards, which is a considerable source of revenue to the Government apart from the movement that takes place in the moving of these horses and the revenue that accrues to the Government on that account. In commending the motion to the favourable consideration of the Government, I only wish to say in conclusion that everything has been done in the past to discourage the production of the thoroughbred horse, which stands as a monument to the intelligent production of the thoroughbred in South Africa, and I want to ask the Minister to remember that nothing has been done to encourage this. It will be the first time on record that any Government has given a sympathetic hearing to it, and I hope this Government, at any rate, will give that hearing.

I move, as an amendment—

This is a similar petition to that handed in by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). The petitioner is one of the best known breeders of full-blooded horses in the Transvaal.

Has the petition already been handed in?

Yes, it bears the number, 489. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) spoke about the tax on horses and the protection that was necessary. I agree that protection is necessary especially against the importation of certain horses like geldings. We must, however, be careful about this. I think that it was argued in the other place that the importation of good, first-class stallions must be limited. Of course we do not agree with that, but the importation of geldings ought certainly to be subject to a tax, and breeders make a very sensible recommendation, viz., that to the owner of a full-blooded stallion a certain amount, e.g., £3 per annum should be paid for every foal he gives. If an owner of such a stallion gets, e.g., 20 foals by him out of his own mares or those of another, then he will receive £60 a year out of it, and that will be a great encouragement for the breeding of blood horses. Where is the money to come from? The hon. member for Vredefort has already pointed out that much revenue is obtained from the tax on races. I have the figures here. £49,000 for Natal, £120,000 the Transvaal, £46,000 the Cape Province, total £215,000. The Free State is fortunate enough to be exempt, and I must say that I went to a race meeting there once and it was one of the most enjoyable meetings I can remember. The amount that was got out of the other three provinces is considerable, and the small part of it can be taken to encourage horse breeding in our own country. Races will, in the end, produce more revenue, because more interest will be taken in them. In this way the amount for necessary encouragement will fall back on the taxes. There are other measures which can be taken to obtain easily the amount necessary for the encouragement. The introducer of the motion and the hon. member for Vredefort have mentioned a number of important points, and I think that I need say no more to induce the House to accept my amendment.

seconded the amendment.

At one time this country produced a very good class of remounts, and exported a considerable number to India and other places, but I think the advent of the motor car is one of the principal causes why the breeding of good remounts has been neglected. I must say I also blame the agricultural department—I do not know whether it is the agricultural department as it exists at present, or the previous agricultural department—for the present state of horse breeding. A few years ago they sent officers from the agricultural department round the country to buy good remounts for the police at a limit of £15 or £20. That in itself will kill the industry. No farmer could breed a remount fit for the police at that price. Consequently, the farmers were considerably discouraged in the breeding of horses. I see that one of the proposals of the petitioners is that thoroughbred geldings should not be allowed to be imported. That has no bearing on the question at all, because the importation of geldings has no effect on the breeding of the race horse. You might as well say you wish to improve the breeding of the human race by preventing the entry of eunuchs into this country. I think if the Government would give £30 or £35 for a good remount, that would encourage farmers to breed good horses, quite sufficient for the country’s purposes. I know at one time De Beers had a considerable number of remounts, which were bought for the Rhodesian police. I wanted to place at the disposal of farmers well-bred horses, but they did not avail themselves of the opportunity: in fact, they passed a resolution condemning the De Beers Company for charging for the use of these thoroughbred horses. As shown by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), the large majority of races in this country are won by colonial-bred horses, which are the progeny of the thoroughbreds imported. Whatever the Government can do to improve the breed of horses will be an excellent thing for the country. There is a very big demand in India for horses, and that demand increases in time of war, although we hope that wars are at an end. I should like to see the horse breeding industry fostered, so that we can export horses, as we used to do. Wherever our horses have been exported they have gained an excellent reputation. Anything the Government can do to encourage the breeding of horses would be a benefit to the country.

I am very glad to support the motion. When one considers the enormous revenue derived from horse racing by the Government indirectly and the provincial councils, it is only fair that assistance should be given to maintain the standard of the South African horse, with which no other horse in the world can compare. We have proved that by exportation to India, Europe and various parts of the African continent. It is a deplorable fact that the country is denuded of the famous remounts for which at one time South Africa was noted. The industry is not receiving that encouragement it is entitled to get from the Government. Look at what other governments have done in this matter. Austria, Italy, the Argentine and other countries have paid enormous sums in the purchase of first-class sires. That is where we are weak; we want more good sires. I do not agree that we have sufficient stallions, although we have as good mares as are to be found anywhere else in the world. We should not import any geldings, as there is an over-production of them here. First-class sires are sent out to South Africa to win classic races, and then they are returned to the country of their origin. I would like to make that illegal, so that once they come here they must remain, so as to maintain the standard of South African horses.

I hope the motion will be accepted, and that the mover will accept a couple of small amendments. I move—

I cannot go beyond the terms of my petition.

Mr. Speaker will decide that. I move, as a further amendment—

You cannot very well alter the terms of the petition, but if the hon. member wishes to bring in something additional, that could be added.

I take it that the mover wants some practical results. It is quite possible for the Government to consider the matter, and that is all that will be heard of it, so that the House will never know the result of the Government’s consideration, if any. This is undoubtedly a motion of considerable importance. Other speakers have said that the horse breeding business in South Africa is diminishing very rapidly. We may reach a period in our history when horses with be of vital importance; it is unlikely for many years to come that we shall manufacture motor cars, but in the meantime we can breed horses. It is sad to see the lack of good horse flesh to-day, compared with 25 years ago. There is no more useful or wonderful animal in the world for its size than the Basuto pony, which was bred to a state of perfection through the agency of Arab sires. All the best horses in the world are of Arab origin. I was interested to see the Arab horse in his native home, where he is looked upon as a member of the family and enters the tent of his master. The Arab horse is rarely degraded by a saddle, bridle or bit. The Arabs have developed the king of horses, and from that stock the best horses in the world have been bred. I would like to see a movement initiated to induce people to import more of these Arab sires, for we should see excellent results from them. Hon. members have alluded to horse racing. Some people look on racing askance, but no other method has been invented for testing what a horse really is. His courage, speed and endurance can only be tested on the racecourse, so it seems inevitable that if we are to maintain our standard of horses we must have racing, and it must be encouraged in one form or another. This country is admirably adapted for the breeding of horses. The horse’s natural habitat is a hot climate, and he reaches perfection in a hot climate, provided he is bred and grazed on a limestone formation that will give him the necessary bone and stamina. I do not agree with the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) that we should limit our business in horses by prohibiting re-exports. I believe in free trade in horses. You get astonishingly varied results sometimes from transferring a horse from one country to another. Sometimes the results are disappointing, but it often happens that a horse finds a new environment most natural for its development by being transferred from one country to another. We have seen horses imported into this country with a great reputation that have not maintained it when they came here, and others that have improved it. Others that have done very well here have gone elsewhere and perhaps have not improved the reputation they had gained here. I do not think we should bring legislation to that pitch, but, at all events, it is very desirable that we take cognisance of the situation; that we note that our horses are deteriorating in quality, and that there is a great deficiency in their numbers, and the Government, therefore, should find it their duty to go into the matter to see how these evils can be remedied. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this motion, and that the mover will accept the amendment.

I heartily support the motion and second the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I am only sorry that the motion does not go further. I should like to have seen it demanding the proper investigation by the Government of the condition of horse-farming in our country. It is a shame the way this industry is being neglected. Everybody must admit that the horse is one of the chief means of building up our country. Nothing has contributed more to that than the horse. If in time of war we had had no horses, we should not have been able to do anything; they are invaluable. The horse has rendered a great service in this country, especially the Boer ponies. To-day we see that horse breeding is going back. I should like to go so far as to say that the Government should so regulate our defence force so that each man of the force should have a good horse and be able to ride it. If then we have troubles in our country, we shall have a good mounted force and, not as happened in the last war, the riders mounting the horses on the one side and rolling down on the other. That sort of horseman is useless. Every South African ought to have a good horse and be able to ride it. It is not too late yet, we still have good horses in the country, and we must encourage the breeding of them. I am not thinking so much of racehorses, because I think they are more of a detriment than a benefit to the country, but I mean the ordinary riding horse for the police and defence forces. I hope the Government will go carefully into the matter and take steps to encourage the breeding of good horses as much as possible and to protect horse-farming.

The last speaker clearly wants to go a long way. He even wants every member of the defence force to have a horse, but I should like to ask him who is to pay for it?

Let him pay for it himself.

The hon. member says that the man must buy the horse himself. We are already putting a duty upon our people in time of peace by the training camps of the defence force, and, in addition, according to the hon. member, the Government is to compel them to keep a horse in peace times. The hon. member will see, if he looks at his own constituency, how rarely people want to keep horses. I have heard various hon. members this afternoon arguing very strongly for horse-breeding. I also favour horse-breeding, but I ask hon. members who so strongly favour the protection of horse-breeding how many of them own a horse, because if they want to encourage horse-breeding they must set an example, and I even go further and ask how many of them can ride? It is very easy to say that the Government must do this or the other. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) says that we can use the provincial revenue from race meetings to encourage horse-breeding. It is impossible for us first to agree by legislation for a tax to be imposed by the provinces, and then to say that a part of the revenue is to be taken by the Government for other purposes. We cannot always be passing legislation and repealing it later on and adopting something which conflicts with it. A select committee was appointed in another place to make an enquiry and to hear evidence, and I hope they will make recommendations which we can adopt. As for me, the Government can agree to consider the petition. I am sorry that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has moved an amendment. I sympathize with the original motion, but I do not think that we must go so far as to say that the Government must make definite amounts available for the industry. I am inclined to consider the original motion and to see how we can encourage that industry, e.g., by prohibiting importation of geldings or some such measure. I think, however, that it is an industry which should depend on itself, and not be supported by the taxpayers’ money. If an industry which was so flourishing cannot stand on its own legs, I feel very nervous about various branches of the farming industry in South Africa. It is true that horse-breeding has suffered by the competition of the motor car, but horses will always be required in South Africa. I think it is an industry which ought to be able to stand on its own feet. We must not forget that the police and other people still require horses, and the farmers often still need them. But to say that the Government must furnish certain funds as a support of the industry is wrong. It cannot be said that we should breed horses for times of war. I must say that, with the modern fighting methods, I should prefer not to take part in such a war on a horse. If, e.g., the aeroplanes appear, then a horseman has absolutely no chance of cover. I think that we are no longer living in the time of the great horse commandoes, and that we, for that reason, need not be anxious about our horse-breeding, but I sympathize with the original motion, and I am prepared to inquire as to what encouragement can be given for horse-breeding.

There can be no doubt whatever in regard to horse breeding, things have come to a critical stage, and the Government should recognize and meet the position. Racing people complain that the provincial councils are taking for too much out of “the game,” as they term it. Taxation of it is considerable. As a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council, I tried hard to get the Administrator to agree to return 10 per cent. of the impost to encourage horse breeding, and it should be given, if no other way presented itself, through agricultural societies’ shows, but I am sorry to say the then administrator, not the present one, turned down the proposal, I thought rather remorselessly, saying he could not consider anything of the kind, that practically he had not the power; but I pointed out that if not, he could easily get it. However, Nemesis overtook him; he was beaten in the electoral contest at Wakkerstroom and had to retire into private life. There is no doubt about one thing, we now truthfully can say that horse racing is really going to the dogs. Those who look upon racing merely as a gamble will presently have to put their money to a much more ignoble use. While many people condemn racing, there are so few outlets for gambling and those who want to gamble—many of us desire State lotteries—but the good people of the country who are in a minority over-rule the majority of wicked ones who want something straight to gamble on. At the same time, operations on the stock exchange, strange to say, are encouraged. I do not know what the Government may do actively in regard to this motion, but the proposition put forward to stop the introduction of geldings is practical, and the Government wished this could be done at once. There is no necessity for that useless thing to go on, and I do not think anybody would argue for five minutes that it should be allowed to continue. The horse racing people assure me unless there is the betting money and racing, horse breeding will practically stop except the weeds that are bred all over the country. Unless we have some system of bringing in proper sires, we can have no excuse for destroying the scrub stallions which should be shot. Until something is done in this direction, it is no use trying to attempt to weed out animals which ought not to exist. Very little is done, and certainly it does not overtake the deterioration that goes on. One can only regret it and hope that this motion will have some effect, and that the Minister of Agriculture will at least try to persuade provincial councils to return 10 per cent. of the exactions they are making on horse racing. Something tangible might be done in regard to returning to the racing community some of the money which they put up. It is they who keep horse breeding going. You may speak of the goose that lays the golden eggs; in this case it is the goose. Anyone who wants a short and merry experience will get more of it from backing horses than he can get from any other relaxation. The bookmakers say that every minute a fool is born, so one can pluck as many human pigeons as like to bet. I think this question should be taken up with some real intention to improve conditions because the well-bred horse we have so greatly loved is passing from us fast.

I am sorry that the Minister gave rather an unfavourable reception to this motion. He said no doubt that the Government would consider it, but as far as I understood, he said he did not see what the Government could do. I hope that the select committee which has been appointed by the other place, and which I understand is going to take evidence, will produce something which will really be of assistance, because it does seem, as the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Hay) has stated, that the horse-breeding industry in the country at present is going steadily backwards, and it is rather surprising to me that hon. members opposite, especially those who represent farmers, take so little interest in what, after all, is a matter of some considerable importance to them. The Minister said, “What can be done, what is the Government to do?” As the hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Hay) has just said, the only people who are doing anything for the encouragement of horse-breeding to-day are the racing people. The racing people are certainly doing what they can. Most of the responsible racing clubs in South Africa to-day conduct their racing without any desire or intention to make any profit for their members. Take the clubs which operate here. Members derive no profit whatever. The profits go to the improvement of the stakes which are given, and the improvement of facilities offered to the public and of course that is to attract larger attendances at the meetings, and that goes again in increased prizes. Without the racing clubs, there would be no encouragement of any kind given to the production of horses. What does the Government do? The central government does nothing at all, but the provincial governments do a great deal to damage racing. They allow racing, it is true, but they take an enormous share of the profits, which is probably not a great deal when considered with the rest of the provincial council revenue, but is a great deal out of the total revenue of the racing club. The more that is taken away from their revenue, the less is available for the stakes for which the horses run. In England it has always been recognized that racing meant the encouragement of horse-breeding, and that if it were not for racing and fox-hunting, there would be no reservoir upon which the country could draw in emergency. It was even recognized in time of war, and with the encouragement of the Government a certain amount of racing and fox hunting was allowed to go on, simply with the object of keeping the industry alive and doing something to preserve the enterprise of the people interested in the breeding of horses. If we take the Argentine, there the Government interests itself actively in the encouragement of horse breeding. The Argentine Government spends large sums in the purchase and importation of stallions. They pay enormous prices and that is done for the assistance of horse breeding. I am not suggesting we should embark on that, because there are certain obvious difficulties in the way, but if the Government is not prepared to do anything definite, as, for instance, in the way of the purchase of horses wanted for the police and defence forces, it might use its influence with the provincial councils to prevent them damaging the one influence which can do something to encourage horse breeding. It seems to me if something is not done in this way, things will go very badly with horse breeding in this country. We are mechanising a great many things, but we cannot mechanise everything. Beyond the point of mechanical appliances, we cannot go. For instance, no one has discovered a better way of getting food into your mouth than with a fork and spoon. Therefore, for a long time to come, every country will be dependent on horses to a very large extent. It is a great pity if the horse-breeding industry in this country for sheer want of encouragement and by reason of the actual discouragement now given it by the provincial councils, should be allowed to drift into disaster. I do not altogether agree with the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), who says if horses are imported into this country and run for such valuable stakes, they should not be allowed to go out. There is a great deal to be said for free trade in horses, as there is for free trade in trade, and the result would be that unless some exceedingly valuable stakes were offered, people would not send their horses out at all. I cannot altogether agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), who talks about the scandal of importing geldings. There is no doubt the importation of these geldings does raise the standard to some extent, and supplies a want which we have here. If we did not import them, we should probably have a lower standard of racing, and probably less racing. In principle, of course, it would be a very good thing to say we will depend on our own horses, but in practice I very much doubt whether it is really a workable suggestion now. It may be in the future, but in any case it seems to me to be a rather unworkable proposition. But that is a side issue. The point is that something ought to be done, otherwise things will go from bad to worse. The Government, judging by what the Minister has said, is not prepared to do anything concrete. Then I suggest they should do something, perhaps in a negative way. They should use their influence with the provincial councils to see they do not take so much out of the profits of the racing clubs as they do at present. I suppose now the Government will await the report of the committee appointed in another place, and I do hope, if that committee makes any concrete suggestions, the Government will give them most sympathetic consideration.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. viz.—

This matter is one of the most important that can be debated. When we think of the droughts and of the one with which South Africa is now at grips, and we think of thousands of our fellow-farmers who have been reduced to begging as a result of the drought, everyone will agree that this matter is one of the most important we can consider. In South Africa farming cannot be-successfully done without water. A large part of South Africa is subject to drought, and to make a success of farming it is the duty of every farmer to give his attention as much as possible to the conserving of water to provide for the dry years and to preparing himself for droughts, the time of whose coming is uncertain, but which can always be expected, and will certainly come. But it is not only the duty of the farmers, but also of the Government, to assist the farmers to prepare. South Africa cannot get on without agriculture. Take away the farming industry, and what will become of South Africa? If a comparison is drawn between the incomes from businesses in South Africa, then the farming industry appears to be the most important. When we see how many white people are employed in farming, and compare it with the mines, we find again how important farming is. The importance of horses in the event of war has been mentioned, and it was asked what we should do without horses. But I say that if we are cut off from the foreign markets, then we shall only be able to feed our people if we produce sufficient for our needs. That is why the motion now under discussion is so very important. I support the motion of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), and I am very glad that he raised if. At the same time, I hope that the Government which is prepared to accept the motion will not spend money recklessly as in the past. We made a failure of irrigation works in the past, a hopeless failure from a financial point of view, but yet we dare not allow our hands to drop and say that we will not encourage further irrigation works. When we read of the report of the Director of Irrigation, we see for the first time what a failure has been made of irrigation, but I repeat that we must learn a lesson from it, and after the experience we must see in future schemes that we avoid the mistakes and make a success of them. According to the Director’s report last year, I see that the Government advanced £5,110,755 to the Irrigation Board, private persons, labour colonies and municipalities. Most of the schemes to-day are not a success financially, because we see that out of the sums advanced by the general taxpayers of the country in all these years, only £498,640 has been repaid, and that is a very small sum. Further, we see that already an amount of £122, 947, the money of the taxpayers, has been written off the cost of the scheme, so that the amount still due is £4,489,168. I do not know whether that is so, but the reports are going about, and responsible people have told me that we shall have to write off a round sum of £4,000,000 from the advances by the Government to irrigation boards, private individuals, municipalities, etc. If it is correct that £4,000,000 must be written off to make the schemes a success and to enable the people to make a living, then we see what a hopeless failure the schemes were in the past. I do not want to-day to go into the causes of the failure; I should have to drag in party politics, and I do not intend doing so now. Nevertheless, I say again that, in spite of the failures, we cannot stand still, but must face the great matter and realize our duty. In view of the rumours that £4,000,000 will have to be written off, I want to-day to make another suggestion to the Government. I always thought from the time I commenced farming that the best way of encouraging the building of dams in South Africa would be by giving a grant. If the Government, e.g., would assist the farmers of South Africa on the 25 per cent. basis with the building of dams, then many dams would be built, and that work would be specially encouraged. I am not thinking of all the small, insignificant dams which the farmers can build themselves, but if they want to build larger dams on their farms, let the Government assist them on the 25 per cent. basis, and advance the money for the schemes to be carried out under proper supervision. When I say proper supervision, I do not exactly mean Government engineers, because our experience as farmers in that respect, with all respect and appreciation for the engineers, was that their schemes always cost too much. When I was still a young farmer I built a dam, and if I had followed the advice of the engineers, I would never have been able to build the first dam. Therefore, I wish that the Government will appoint farmers with practical experience to supervize, and that the Government should then assist the farmer, who builds such a dam with 25 per cent. of the cost. Take, e.g., the £4,000,000 which has now been wasted in irrigation works. If the farmers had got that money on the basis of 25 per cent. support, then there would have been dams everywhere today which we could regard as big national works, because the farmer would not only have the benefit of them, but they would be a benefit to the whole country. Our duty is not only to undertake those big irrigation works which cost thousands of pounds, but there are many places where dams can be built at less cost. I do not say that the Government alone must help, because I should much like to see the farmers also showing more enterprize. As, however, it is acknowledged that the welfare of our people depends on irrigation, we must encourage the building of dams and irrigation works, and if the Government were to spend half a million every year, e.g., in the way I have recommended, then in 10 years they will have spent £5,000,000, but the benefit thereby obtained would far exceed that amount. It would benefit the whole country. There is another side of the matter I want to discuss. We cannot build dams in all parts of the country, but there are certain parts where we must bore for water. Some time ago I introduced a motion into the House about this matter, and I want to say something more about it. We do not want any dams or large waterworks in those parts, but the Government must encourage boring for water. The Minister in his reply at the time said what the Government had done, and he pointed out that 720 boreholes had been sunk in the past year. An hon. member then said that we were grateful for it. Of course, the farmers are grateful, and we would be grateful if only one hole had been bored, but 720 bore holes are useless in our extensive country. We need thousands of bore-holes. I assume that thousands of holes have been bored, because many farmers did not use the Government bore, but they use private bores. With regard to the Government bores, I notice from the report of the Director of Irrigation that the Government own 82 bores, and that 62 were not in use during 1926-’27. These figures are possibly incorrect, but the report says that 62 bores were not in use, so that only 20 were used. I ask what the reason is that out of 82 bores, 62 should be idle and rusting from want of use? There is something radically wrong. What is the cause? The farmer has no confidence In the Government bore. It is too expensive. The Government may possibly find another way of assisting the farmer with the bores. In 1927 there were only about 700 applications made for Government bores out of 90,000. That again proves that the people have no confidence in the Government bores; 720 holes were sunk at a cost of £87,708 to the country. From 1903 to 1927 the total depth bored was only 1,606,123 feet. That is for all that time, and it cost the country £1,339,631. When you calculate it, it comes out about 17s. a foot, while we, as I have already mentioned, pay 5s. a foot for private bores in my constituency.

The hon. member must not on this motion discuss things which have already been debated on another substantial motion.

I do not want to discuss the other motion, hut, as I understand, the Government is preparing schemes to encourage the increase of water supply.

Yes, but the hon. member is now criticizing the Government in connection with bores, and that was fully debated and disposed of on another motion.

I am not criticizing, hut I just want to indicate in what way the Government should go to work to effect more

The hon. member cannot go over the same ground again which he has covered on a former occasion.

I submit, of course, but I just want to mention it.

The hon. member can mention that certain things must be done in support of his argument, but he must not go over the same ground again.

If the Government demands 17s. per foot of a farmer, while the private contractor asks 5s., then it will pay the Government of the country and the taxpayer better for the Government to introduce a different method of support. Say, e.g., that the Government paid 3s. 6d. a foot as a subsidy, then there would be much more boring for water than is the case at present.

Why cannot the farmer himself pay for it?

I am surprised to hear that from the hon. member, but he doubtless comes from a part where there is much water, but if they had to bore for water in his district, and after all possibly find only salt water, and then have to bore elsewhere, the hon. member would not talk like that. I must say that I am astonished to hear him say that; I could understand such a remark from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I wish the Government to earnestly consider this scheme and to encourage the farmers to build dams. Then there is another point which has a lot to do with drought, and that is the over-grazing of the veld. I see from the report of the Drought Commission, the chairman of which is now chairman of the Irrigation Commission, which is one of the most important reports ever made, that one of the recommendations refers to the erosion of the soil. I want to ask the Government to consider that report, and to see whether it cannot do something to encourage the building of furrows and dams so that all our best soil and water should not wash away to the sea without benefiting us at all. Millions of tons of our best soil goes into the sea, and I think that it is not only the duty of the Government, but of every farmer and of everyone who is interested in the welfare of our country, to encourage the solution of this great national problem.

Although we are not concerned with irrigation in general, the debate of this motion has done a world of good, because attention has been drawn afresh to a great important subject in which South Africa is interested. When we look at the stretched-out Karroo with its insignificant rainfall and restricted portions of agricultural ground along the course of dry or half-dry rivers, then I say that we cannot or may not allow the water of the rivers to run unused to the sea—water which can usefully be employed to irrigate fruitful ground. If this applies to dry or half-dry rivers, it applies much more to perennial rivers like, in the first place, the Orange River. I visited South-West Africa last year and it was remarkable that in the whole distance between Ladismith and Grootfontein about 1,500 to 1,600 miles, we did not see a single running stream, except the Orange River, which takes its large mass of water unhindered to the sea. When I got there I said at once that there was great work to be done, and that a scheme should be prepared to get the fruitful soil there irrigated. It will, in any case, partly solve the poor-white question, and the Government must see whether it is not possible to deviate a part of that great river so that a great dry plain can be put under water. It will cost a great deal, but the Government should not be afraid. It will push the development of the country and possibly allow a larger population to be able to live here. We see to-day how thousands of people are streaming from the country to the towns and villages, because the farming population have become discouraged, and cannot possibly make a living. In the towns also there is no living for them, and the mines no longer have any billets for them any more than the alluvial diggings. The following step, therefore, will have to be the back-to-the-land movement, but how can that take place if the irrigation works remain in the state they are in to-day. We must put the irrigation policy on a sound basis and encourage people, not only to undertake big works, but also smaller ones. In his reply to the debate the Minister said that the farmers were very clever in applying for irrigation works, but that they never think of the financial side, in other words, that they never think about paying interest and redemption. How can they pay off? Unfortunately, they went on to the irrigation works during the time of the greatest drought that we have ever had. Nature turned itself directly against them. The drought period commenced about 1915, and it is remarkable how irrigation works have been constructed just from that time. The people have been driven into a corner, and an attempt was then made to do something to be able to make a stand against the droughts in future. Droughts, however, continued, but I can assure the Minister that the farmers really went to pay interest and redemption as soon as nature shows herself more favourable. The droughts have, however, had the good effect that irrigation works were commenced. During the Governments of the Cape Colony before 1910 more than £100,000 a year was never expended on irrigation works. From 1913 to 1917 the amount was £651,000, or about £163,000 a year, and from 1917 to 1924 the average amount was £431,000 a year. The amount has thus appreciably increased in an attempt to fight against the droughts. What, however, do we hear now? The Minister has said that, notwithstanding the fact that such large amounts were spent, only £21,000 was paid during the past year by the farmers. The Director of Irrigation gave me different figures, but be this as it may, the question is—why, during the past few years, has much less been spent on irrigation works? Is it due to drought? I have the idea that the cause must be sought with the Irrigation Commission that it allows itself to be influenced too much by the abnormal drought, and that the development in irrigation matters has come to a standstill. There is a scheme for a dam in my district which is very optimistically recommended, and in connection with which the Irrigation Board has gone to great expense in making investigations, and they have all come to the conclusion that the scheme is particularly good, but the Irrigation Commission came and drew the pen through it. If the farmers are to blame then the Government is still more to blame, because in the past loans were given right and left without taking the rainfall and the run-off of the rivers into account.

That was the then Government.

Yes, but what was possibly worse was that the engineers made favourable reports and that the farmers believed in them and undertook works which ultimately cost three to four times as much as the estimates. The case of an Oudtshoorn farmer is well known. The engineers recommended the building of a dam on the Olifants River and the estimate was £3,402, but on completion it cost £16,032. If the farmers had known it would cost so much they would never have built it. In the circumstances the Minister cannot expect them to pay interest. I must, however, say in justice to the engineers that their estimate was based on a dam of stone and wire. When they were at work they found that that was insufficient, and a cement dam was built. A change must be made in this and, in any event, account must always be taken of the rainfall and the run-off of rivers. The Irrigation Department must register the rainfall for a period of at least 10 to 15 years, so that they know the position, and where irrigation works of large capacity must be constructed. The department must also get busy in another direction, viz., in connection with natural springs in the country and streams from the mountain. Much of the water runs to waste between the mountains and the farms where the water is required for irrigation. It should be the duty of the department to survey all the water so that the farmers can know the exact position. After a great deal of trouble I induced the Irrigation Department to send me an engineer to survey the mountain streams. The result was: (1) Very little loss. Difference between the strength of the stream under the mountain and on the farm very slight, therefore, no change is necessary. (2) The farmer only gets one-sixth of the water on the farm, i.e., of the water which comes out of the kloof; the rest is lost by the water percolating away. (3) The farmer gets two-thirds of the water. (4) The half is lost. (5) Also no great loss. Those were the five conclusions of the engineer and, thereafter, it was decided on two farms to make cement furrows, and they were to get assistance by means of a loan from the Government. The department ought to make accurate surveys so that the people know what is being lost. The expense will be great, but the benefits still greater. The natural resources of the country must be used. It is unfortunate that many of the natural resources should be destroyed by mountain fires. The reservoirs of water are destroyed, and when the rain conies it runs off the mountains quickly, and immediately afterwards the little streams are stationary and there is no water. That is the case in the Langeberge and the Swartberge, where the streams are quite stationary. The mountain fires are usually caused by shepherds, hunters, and often by adjoining farmers burning their veld to get grazing. The law is severe enough if we can only arrest and prosecute the people, but that is the trouble. I want to repeat what I suggested before, viz., whether it is not possible in the first place to have more co-operation between the department and the Department of Education, so that dodgers can be sent out to all the public schools and teachers may constantly point out to the children what dangers and damage are caused by mountain fires, and what the penalties are. The younger generation must be educated. Further, the divisional councils could be asked to put up notice boards along public and private roads warning the people against mountain fires and indicating the relative punishment. The public will then gradually be educated in that direction. I am very glad that since I mentioned the matter last year people have commenced to wake up. Some members did not favour it, and immediately opposed it, but I received letters from progressive farmers thanking me, and I am glad that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has also twice mentioned the matter, as well as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). I hope that every member of the House will assist in starting a big agitation till the Government takes steps in this direction.

It has been rightly said that this is a very important matter, and particularly, perhaps, because we have another opportunity of talking about irrigation. I have noticed that almost all the speeches had hardly commenced before hon. members went on to the second part of the motion, viz., irrigation. That is the burning question for South Africa today, and one very difficult of solution. The devastating drought has made itself very severely felt. That can be testified to by about 150,000 white people, most of whom were formerly engaged in farming. That the Government, on the other hand, appreciates that this is a serious matter is proved by its having appointed a Drought Commission in 1920 or 1921 to enquire into the circumstances of the droughts, their consequences, and how to obviate those serious consequences. That the farmers realize the seriousness of the drought is proved by the altered methods of farming compared with 15 to 20 years ago; the country is completely changed. We find that the farmers who were particularly characterized by powers of endurance could no longer stand against circumstances. I am glad to be able to say—and other hon. members have doubtless got similar views—that I have had a telegram from my constituency that splendid rains have fallen in certain parts. We are very thankful, and hope that it will lighten a little the task of the Minister of Agriculture, who has gone very far in assisting us. When we think of the drought and its consequences two questions arise, and the first is whether, now that our rainfall has diminished in past years, our powers of endurance have also been reduced. I am not speaking of this big drought because it is an abnormal one, and which is almost unknown in our history. When we speak of the results of the drought, then I remember that during the past 13 years it has thrice been necessary to pass an Emergency Loan Act, and then I ask whether our rainfall has diminished or our powers of endurance have diminished, and in this connection I would like to quote what the members of the Drought Commission, experienced men, stated after their enquiry. [Quotation read.] The great point in that possibly is, I think, that by over stocking of the veld the natural scrub is trodden down and rainfall does not have the effect it formerly used to have. As I have said, the methods of farming have changed. Unfortunately, owing to the unheard-of and abnormal drought, we have been put back very much, and it will take a long time before the veld gets normal again. The only thing, then—I think the Government cannot do much more in this direction than what it has done—is to encourage the farmers to develop and assist themselves a little. We have had a difference of opinion about the way of assisting, but I maintain that a system of subsidies is not a right one, and will in a short time have the result that the expenditure will be so great that it will be stopped, and I still think that we should continue the existing methods of assisting the farmers. Farming methods have been particularly changed by wire fences, and the old kraal system has been completely abandoned. The Government and the Land Bank have assisted us there as much as possible. The loans from the Land Bank were made on very easy conditions, and in that respect we cannot find any fault with the Government. When I come to the second part of the motion, however, I cannot, I am afraid, say the same thing. It deals with irrigation, and one of the great problems in connection with it is the alarmingly high expenditure. When we think of the big works and the large areas which still remain undeveloped, then we see at once that there is something wrong. Irrigation and stock-farming can be brought into closer connection and the irrigation schemes can be very beneficial to stock farming. I fear that irrigation has been treated by the Government a little like a stepchild. The Director of Irrigation, in his report, says that during the past five years there were not less than five different Ministers of Irrigation. There seems to be little time for irrigation, and after a time it is sent from one Minister to another. Irrigation is an important matter, and it takes years before anyone is au fait with all the circumstances. It is just as big a problem as the diggings. We admit what the Minister says that all the schemes in the country are practically economically unsound, and that a proper investigation must first be made, and this House will be obliged to write down the schemes to a sound basis. That we realize, and we do not blame the Government for the unsound state the schemes are in, but we must surely face the position. The Financial Irrigation Commission was appointed long ago, and it recommended that a permanent irrigation commission should be appointed to go into all the works and investigate them thoroughly, so that they could be put on a proper basis. I believe they are doing so, but the position has practically come to a deadlock. We have, indeed, had a report, but it practically deals only with the small schemes, but the large schemes, which are important and which ought to have been tackled to put them on a sound basis, have apparently not been investigated. What will be the results? I want again to repeat what the Minister said, viz., that the time has come to put existing schemes on a sound basis, and that there are still 10,000 morgen of ground situated below irrigation schemes which contain no population. There must, therefore, be something wrong if there still remain 10,000 morgen of irrigable ground which is not cultivated by people. The large schemes must be put on a sound footing so that they can develop, and the sooner it can be done the better. The schemes cannot, of course, develop if there are no irrigators. There you have 10,000 morgen suitable for irrigation which is not developed. I want to point out to the Minister that there have been many applications to go on to the ground, applications which are already 12 to 18 months old, but they have not yet been granted. There must be something wrong for people to have to wait so long.

What do you want then?

The people can buy ground under Section 11. I am glad the Minister has introduced a Bill to assist certain farmers to obtain ground.

When was it introduced? Six weeks ago, and it is not even yet in operation.

The people can buy ground under Section 11 of the 1912 Act. In the new Bill the Minister of Lands provides that people can obtain ground without living on it themselves. That is a great improvement, but under the Land Settlement Act of 1912 people can buy ground, and if there are applications standing over for 12 to 18 months, there must be something wrong. It takes a time, and then we hear that the money is granted. The position is very serious and many of the people who are waiting are in great distress. The Minister must put the irrigation schemes on a sound basis as soon as possible, so that the people can be placed there.

It is very clear to-day on what side of the House the farmers’ representatives sit. This is the second day of the debate, and we have not yet heard a word from any other party than the Nationalist party, which represents the backbone of the country. I see hon. members opposite are now waking up a bit, and I shall be glad if I succeed in drawing their attention to this big question. The representatives of the countryside in this House are undoubtedly indebted to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) for introducing his motion, but, unfortunately, a few hon. members during the debate were guilty of certain misrepresentations which I must correct. For instance, the seconder of the motion—the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick)—did not confine himself merely to the Orange River scheme, but dealt with and condemned other irrigation works; he spoke about the Karroo water schemes, and went so far as to come into my district and make certain remarks about matters there which he does not understand in the least. As a representative of a Transvaal constituency, he told the House that there was not enough water in Pretoria for the steel industry. As opposed to that we have the view of the Government experts who investigated the matter. If he does not even know the position about water in the Transvaal, then he must certainly not try to judge of my constituency and to utter such incorrect views. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) said that no stock had died in the drought-stricken districts that had irrigation schemes. How can it be expected that the best irrigation scheme should hold water to keep animals alive after a three years’ drought? It was said that the dam in my constituency was silting up. An expert has calculated how much sand had gone into the dam in ten years, and the conclusion is that if it is spread over the whole surface of the dam it will only be a few inches thick. To prove that it is one of the best schemes, I want to say that after the three years’ drought, we are only £80 in arrear with our taxes, and there are very few schemes that can say that. That proves that the hon. member did not know what he was talking about. I am here as a representative of the division, and if it is necessary to take action in its interests, I am here for the purpose. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) has again found another scapegoat in connection with the irrigation works, and he said, inter alia, that the Irrigation Board only consisted of one person, and that he was an engineer who shields the engineers that have made mistakes. I just want to say that I differ from the hon. members. I know the three members very well personally and have every confidence in them. They are sympathetic and competent, but what is their position? As far as I view the position, there are quite a number of schemes which I may call political schemes. They ought never to have been constructed, and they hang like a millstone round the neck of the Government and the Irrigation Department. Now they have to put matters on an economic basis. We can quite understand that they are criticized, but we must not forget their difficulties. Schemes have been constructed that are white elephants, and the best schemes that ought to have been built were not built. I am glad that this motion was introduced, and I feel that we have possibly, by means of it, put new life into the Irrigation Department; the motion has attained the purpose of drawing attention to the great problem. It especially draws attention to the value of plants and varieties of grass. It will be of great value to the Karroo to ascertain what the best plants are. We must try to prevent people having to trek. In my constituency there are only three things the Government must do to save the terrible position, viz.: (1) The facilities for repayment of fencing money; (2) granting better terms to the farmer for the boring for water and for wind pumps; (3)—the most important—the construction of more water schemes. We have enough places in the Karroo if the necessary attention is given to the matter to develop them into the most fruitful and best parts of the Union, but the Karroo has always been neglected, because they have been satisfied with small doles. It will be a very good thing for the Karroo if attention is now at last called to it and if the people there see that at the next election it is necessary to keep the Saps at home and send Nationalists to Parliament.

I just want to say a few words on this subject. I shall heartily support the motion. We must do everything possible to fight the drought. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) rightly said recently that drought is like a war. I quite agree with that. The drought causes great damage. When we look at the statistics for 1922-’23, we find that no less than. 6,000,000 sheep succumbed owing to the drought, and although the figures are not yet available, we can safely assume that in 1925-’26 at least a further 6,000,000 sheep will have died. What damage has thus been done by the drought which could have been avoided by irrigation. It is not only the dead sheep, but also the produce in wool and hides, etc., which has been reduced in consequence. The drought is pressing our people, who are rooted to the ground, off it and driving them to the towns and the great question is how to get them back to the land. The well-to-do man is the middle man of to-morrow, and the mediocre man of to-morrow is the poor man of the day after, and we must fight that process on the countryside. Anything is done in war to defeat the enemy, and we must therefore also do everything to fight the drought and to win. I am glad that the motion is before the House. It is true that the Government has done much in connection with drought, but when such a severe drought comes we must be prepared. I am, therefore, glad that the Government is making experiments as proposed in the motion of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) to find varieties of grass which can best prevail against the drought. It will be of great value, because it will prevent the farmer from trekking and the losses in consequence will also be less. I am also glad that the Minister said the tariff for boring was reduced from £5 to £3 10s. That will be a great encouragement to the farmers to bore, and I hope that they will take advantage of the opportunity. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said that only 20 of the 82 Government bores had been used. I cannot understand it. If that is correct, I hope the Minister will see to it that the bores are allowed to be used gratis rather than to remain idle. As for irrigation works, the Minister said that irrigation works in the past had not been entirely a success. That is possible, but I hope it will not be a reason for no irrigation works being undertaken in future. I hope that it will actually be an encouragement to avoid the mistakes of the past in the future. We now have a Government that undertakes things. We have large perennial rivers in the country that are not used. Tons of water and valuable ground run down to the ocean annually. Those rivers ought to be the great granaries of our country, and grain and other products ought to grow on the banks. The Orange River, which was mentioned inter alia, ought to be the great stand-by of our country in the future. I ask the Government to have an enquiry made where the river can best be dammed up, and where the best irrigable parts are. In a recent report it is said that at least 500,000 morgen of land lies along the Orange River which can easily be irrigated. If that can be practically carried out, similar irrigation works could be executed chiefly, e.g., at Prieska. Then there is the case of Kukamas, which means a great deal to the country to-day because it maintains many people in work. Private people have already constructed irrigation dams along the Orange River, and lucerne is cultivated for miles and miles. If that can be done by private enterprize, why cannot the. Government also do it so that in times of drought we shall have enough lucerne to feed our cattle. It is said that South Africa has only been scratched up to the present, but the possibilities are enormous. I hope the Government will weigh the possibilities and will encourage the building of dams in every possible way.

I should like to express a few thoughts, because there are few matters of greater importance to the north-west than the affairs now before the House. I want to quote a few figures to show what the losses were in consequence of the drought of the last few years. The figures refer to losses in consequence of diseases and drought, but, as during the last few years we have had no plagues, we can assume that the figures for the most part refer to loss in consequence of drought. In 1920-’21, 440,000 great stock were lost and 4,348,000 small stock. In 1921-’22, great stock 308,000, small stock 2,579,000; in 1922-’23, great stock 734,000, small stock 6,090,000; in 1923-’24, great stock 746,000, small stock 4,047,000; in 1924-’25, great stock 672,000, small stock 1,600,000; in 1925-’26, great stock 472,000, small stock 3,367,000. To a question which I asked on the 25th October last, the Minister replied that in 20 districts of the Cape Province, about 1,367,000 head of small stock had died, and that as regards small stock the direct or indirect loss could be estimated at about £3,000,000. I think that we can, therefore, estimate the number of small stock which died in consequence of drought and disease in recent years at 23 or 24 million. We still are only dealing with the direct losses in stock, but not with the loss suffered in other respects. There is, e.g., the indirect loss that the drought-stricken districts did not produce any harvests for years. One of the most important farmers, even in the district of Worcester, who is very active and has named his farm Rus-Roes, because he takes the view that one must always be occupied, has not had any harvests for practically three years, although as a rule he produces on the average 2,000 bags of grain annually. The losses in grain and field vegetable life is therefore also particularly great. In consequence of the sad conditions on the countryside, we have to deal with the stream from the countryside to the towns; thousands go to the towns, where there is no room for them in the industries. We, as representatives of the countryside who have the interests of the country at heart, consider this motion as a very serious one. We do not regard it as a motion condemning the Government. Some speakers—all the speakers from one side of the House—have possibly not taken sufficient account of their responsibility and not sufficiently gone into the complaints they raised and what the Government has already done. I do not want to go into details, but if hon. members look at what the Departments of Agriculture, Lands, Education and Labour have already done with regard to the struggling areas, they will be astonished. The great thing is that we must develop the resisting powers of the inhabitants of the countryside. This is not a matter of psychology, but a matter of general education. We must educate the population to make better use of the veld and to permit less waste. The great question for everybody who has made a study of the capacity of the ground is the conservation of water. I therefore want to suggest that the Minister, by the department and the large number of officials he has, will do more educational work, especially in the schools. The object must be to increase the carrying capacity of South Africa. As for irrigation, I know that the Government is enquiring as to what can be done with regard to the big rivers. That life-stream of the Cape Province, the Orange River, runs with its great mass of water to the sea, and the water is practically useless to the country. For the last 20 or 30 years great interest has been taken in the possibilities of the river, and I have an extract here from the first engineer in the Union who says that 500,000 acres can be irrigated by the river. If we remember what the value of 500,000 acres of irrigable ground is, and how many people could live on it, I think we shall clearly see the necessity for a practical scheme to make use of the mass of water which flows to the sea. I do not want to refer to any particular scheme, because there are a number of schemes along the Orange River which are being considered. One of them is at Petrusville, of which the estimate is that at least 150,000 morgen can be irrigated. I do not know if that is correct, but in any case, there is only 63,000 morgen of irrigable ground along the river. That is only one scheme, and there are others. I only mention that one to call attention to the great possibilities. The question will probably be where are the funds to come from. We are unfortunately faced with disappointments regarding previous schemes, but we must now make a fresh start. A fresh start has been made by a Government digging on that important river, the life stream. Let us take the funds from the proceeds of the diamonds and put another asset in the place of the diamonds taken out. I am thankful that the matter was raised here, and I think that the number that did so is not disappointed at the reception it has had in the House.

I want to heartily thank hon. members for their support. I am very glad to see that all are deeply impressed by the great necessity of doing something. As for the data of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), I just want to say that surveys have been done from time to time, but more in connection with the immediate riparian round, the silt or alluvial ground. Schemes have never yet been properly surveyed in all their bearings, and as regards the areas which can be put under irrigation. I do not want to say any more about the matter except that irrigation is of great importance, and that my motion has aroused great interest in the country. I am flooded with letters from all sorts of people that I do not even know. I have a telegram which says that the people there heartily welcome the motion and wish me every success, I have, e.g., had a letter from Kenhardt in which the question of the varieties of grass is discussed, and in which it is urged that the Government should make further tests with varieties of grass which are suitable for conserving. Let me here say that there has been a little misunderstanding with regard to my motion even by the Minister. I only intend what the Minister is prepared to do, viz., that experiments on a large scale shall be made and that the Government shall set the example. I have just said that there are thousands and tens of thousands of morgen of Crown lands which is covered with grass that can be cut, and that the kind of grass which I have mentioned will be suitable for times of drought. The letter I referred to says that the writer is prepared to make tests even in times of drought. All he requires is the necessary machinery, and he is doing something on a small scale. He says further that during the drought the stock can live for some months on bird nests. I must explain that the collecting bird or “love-bird” makes tremendously large nests, sometimes even with a diameter of 10 to 12 feet, and they use the grass I have mentioned in my motion. The grass is so good that the cattle can live on the nests made with it. I am very grateful for the support. I have received, from the Minister as well.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

1. (1) the question of making extensive tests in the matter of various kinds of grass and plants for use as fodder in times of drought;
2. (2) the desirability of giving special encouragement to all plans for increasing the water supply in those parts where open waters are barely sufficient, beyond reach of the animals and far apart; and
3. (3) the feasibility of embarking upon a comprehensive scheme whereby the surplus waters of our largest river, the Orange River, and other rivers may be used for agricultural purposes (a) by forthwith undertaking minor possible schemes for irrigating all alluvial soil in the immediate vicinity of the river and (b) by thoroughly investigating larger schemes which have as their object the conservation of water and the development of the more distant Karroo-vlaktes.