I move—

It is my privilege as a son of the north-west to say a few words on behalf of the people up there, because of all the stricken districts the north-west has had the lion’s share. The object of my motion is as follows: During the five years’ drought which passed like a devastating fire over various parts of the country, and which was so bad in the north-west, as if it were the fire of Elijah, the district of which I particularly want to speak—Calvinia, Van Rhynsdorp, Namaqualand, Sutherland, Kenhardt, Fraserburg and Clanwilliam—got the lion’s share. The Government did something to assist, and the people living in the northwest were not likely to forget it. I, myself, cannot praise the Government enough for what they did. When the need was at its greatest the Government agreed to the people moving their stock by rail to other districts as, e.g., the Free State, where the grazing was better. The people, of course, had no money, and the Government agreed to carry the stock and allow them to pay later. When things improved last year, the Government did another good deed to the population of the north-west. They gave the people seed to sow on the condition that if they reaped a harvest they could pay for it later. My case now is that that harvest was a failure in the greatest part of the north-west, because in the mountainous parts the frost practically killed the whole harvest, and in other parts there was too much rain and rust got into the grain. The grain grows splendidly there, but it was killed by rust, and in other parts where it is sandy and burnt out it did not rain in September just at the time that it was required, when the ear is coming, and there too the harvest was ruined. When now, after five years, rain has come, the attempt of the Government to assist the people has ended in failure. Moreover, the price of wheat has so dropped in the meantime that the people were offered 12s. a muid. In Calvinia the people were offered by the shopkeepers as a favour 18s. a muid, but then they must deliver it in bags on rail. Anyone who knows the distances in those parts knows what it means to deliver a muid of wheat at 18s. a bag on rail. My point now is that, seeing the Government gave the seed-wheat at £1 15s. a bag, and the harvest was a partial or entire failure, the people cannot pay back the £1 15s. for every bag of wheat they have got, but that they should give back bag for bag, but where, e.g., a man receives 10 muids of wheat he will not have to pay back the cash, but to give 10 muids. My motion goes further. Where a man has had no harvest, or a very bad one, let him not pay back muid for muid, but less, and where a man can prove to the magistrate that his harvest was entirely destroyed by frost or rust, let him then pay back nothing. The object of the Government is, in any case, not to trade with the people, but to save them. Therefore, the people must be given a chance of paying back according to their ability. With regard to the carriage of stock by rail, the people are also at a complete loss what to do, because the wool is unsaleable and the price of meat has dropped a good deal, and, although the stock are fat, a farmer only gets 13s. for a wether three years old. The wool farmers cannot pay it, and the farmer who has only Afrikander sheep also gets nothing for his meat and consequently not pay. My request to the Government is to give those people time until they are able to pay, and if they cannot pay all to allow them meanwhile to pay a part, and to give a chance to those who cannot pay at all. It is painful for me to mention a case in my own family. My brother was a rich farmer who had 5,000 sheep, of which to-day there is not one left. He made use of the Government’s offer of stock. In that way he got 300 head of Government stock, but the drought came and also destroyed them. Can we now expect such a man to pay back the Government for the stock? I am very glad that both the leaders are present in the House, because I did not rise to condemn any party or the Government, but I came to plead with the Government. My first reason is, and I am certain that no one will controvert it, that at least 80 per cent. of the population of the northwest have been impoverished, and do hon. members know how large the north-west is? Do they know that it is much bigger than the Free State, and that we are, therefore, dealing with a gigantic part of the country? I do not in my motion ask us to make beggars of the people, but when they are drowning I ask that they should be given an opportunity of stepping out on to a bank so that they can get a firm footing. My second reason is that the north-west is not always in such a position. I remember having a talk with the Minister of Lands, and asking him to assist the people. He said that the people were always poor, and always in trouble. I did not blame him, because he had never been there.

Yes, I have been there and know it just as well as you do.

No, that is not true. You do not know that part of the country as well as I do. Have you, e.g., ever been in Koekenaap ?

Yes, I have been there as well.

If the Minister has been there and seen the misery, and was not prepared to assist the people immediately, then I believe his heart is not as big as I thought. The position was not always so desperate. I well remember how 40 years ago the people came for Nagmaal to Calvinia, and how streams of wagons with six or eight horses arrived there. The people were prosperous, and so prosperous was the north-west that in the district of Calvinia there was only one man named Hendrik van Wyk who had a bond of £200 on his farm, and everybody almost regarded him as a leper. To-day there is not one man whose farm is not bonded. When recently I drove through the best part of the country I saw how the old occupiers of farms and their children had left the farms, and, in some cases, they are now living there as bywoners. I only wish that care would be taken for the people to keep their noses above water, and that they should be given a chance when they will help themselves on. The second reason is because the people of the north-west are the neglected section of the public. There are hardly any trains, telephones, etc. If we ask for a small post office we are refused because the revenue does not justify it. I am not complaining of that, because I can understand it, but no one will contradict it when I say that the north-west is the most neglected part of our country, and yet it is the richest part. We have there the only two rivers which are perennial—the Olifants River and the Orange River. The Olifants River has its catchment area in the part of the country that enjoys the greatest rainfall. They have there the greatest riches which have ever yet been discovered in South Africa, viz., the Namaqualand diamond fields. They are the most neglected people, and yet they have riches adjoining them. That is one of the great anomalies in the country. Now I come to another reason which is very close to my heart, and, therefore, I am glad that the leaders of the House are present. My third reason is that the northwest was always the refuge of our people when they were in need. When during the second war of independence the leader of the House was in need in the Free State, and his horses were tired, where did he fly to? To the northwest. I saw him there, and I had to remain there in gaol as a spy for the Prime Minister. After he had got hold of a large number of horses, and had started the rebellion there, he went away and then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) came. In his case he came from the Transvaal and was so hungry that he almost died in the district of Calvinia because he had eaten a kind of devil’s bread. He was driven about like wild fowl on the mountains, but he continued in the north-west the work of making rebels which the Prime Minister had started. He formed a magnificent battalion of 1,200 young men of the north-west, and he acknowledged that no men had ever fought like those. Then the Minister of Agriculture came, I do not want to make any idle compliment to him because it is unnecessary. I fear no human being, but I consider him the greatest soldier in the country. When in his own Transvaal he was in difficulties, and, like Noah’s dove, could find no resting place for the hollow of his foot, he went to the north-west. A son of the north-west who is to-day in gaol, jumped off his own horse when the Minister’s horse was shot under him and said: “General, your life is worth more than mine, take my horse.” When Gen. de Wet could find no rest in the Free State, and was deserted by the Free Staters, he also went to the north-west. When I was in Budapest in a café talking Afrikaans some of those present remarked that I was using a strange language; they then asked me what my nationality was. I answered that I was a Boer, and when they found that I belonged to the nation of Gen. de Wet 10 caps were at once doffed in salute. I call him the Napoleon of our people, and when he had no place in the Free State he also fled to the north-west, and, with his face to the Jerusalem of deliverance, he was captured by his own people. When the Minister of the Interior was defeated in Cradock and Victoria West, and when he could not find a seat anywhere, it was my brother-in-law, Mr. W. P. Louw, who, after consulting with me, decided to resign his seat—Calvinia— so that the leader of the Nationalists in the Cape Province could get an easy seat. But when Mr. W. P. Louw recently, when the election of senators was on, came to Cape Town to seek election, and when a word from the Minister could have done so much, that word was not spoken by him. When the election was over I said to him: “Brother, how are things now, and how do you feel?” His answer was: “I feel like a man who has planted a tree and made it grow, and now another man comes and sits under the tree.” The north-west has often been the deliverance of our people and to the Nationalist party of the Cape Province. When a seat had to be found for the Minister of Mines and Industries it was once more the northwest which had to step into the breach. Nationalist and Saps, met together and said that Mr. Fourie was a good man, and I am grateful that I had a share in it, because I think it was an excellent choice. The Minister got to Parliament without an election contest, and he had an easier time than any member. I am only once more pointing out that the northwest was once more the place of refuge. I know there are objections to this motion I wish the Minister of Railways and Harbours was here.

He is here.

Well, the Minister is so big that one cannot always see him. I am glad he is here because he must keep a sinking ship floating, and I have great respect for anyone who succeeds in doing that. The Minister will say that my motion contains a bad principle. No, it is a good principle to assist your own people when they are in need. It is a good thing to assist a man who is in the water to get out of the other side, and not to let him go in the middle of the stream. That is good policy—let those who have ears to hear, hear—to assist the north-west which was so neglected in the past. The north-west which has been such a giant in political and military matters in the past, is in need. That giant is hungry and a hungry man is an angry man. I want to read out something to the House. The Minister of Finance has found great wealth in Namaqualand, which enables him to sit on his throne like Buddha. In one year he got £7,000,000 worth of diamonds from Namaqualand. That gives the Minister great satisfaction which the other Ministers have not got. I do not grudge it to him, because I have fortunately found grace in not grudging others pleasure and prosperity, but what are those parts getting now? Not a single public work. The Government first of all allows the people to work on the roads, but now they have to travel five hundred miles to work at Boegoeberg. First of all they could not take their wives and children with them, now that is permitted, but there they are living in houses made of bags. Now they have tents, but are hon. members aware that the heat at Boegoeberg is 110 degrees in the shade, and is it not barbaric to expect an Afrikaner woman and children to live in tents in that heat, while there are fortunes in their country? I now want to quote a letter to the House; it is a letter from a red Gert Nieuwoudt, a man who will be remembered by the generals; the leaders of this House. He writes his letter in capital letters. [Letter read] The memory of our people is unfortunately very short, and also that of our leaders, so I want to remind them of the battle at Tontelboschkolk. I want to remind them of this beautiful and unsurpassable war episode. There were 300 horses in a kraal which had to be taken out to the Boers. The kraal was under a cross fire from three sides and it was a matter of life and death; three men, Gen. Maritz, du Toit, and red Gert Nieuwoudt were the men who undertook it, who braved the cross fire, and broke open the kraal for the horses to come out. To-day that man is so backward that he is a vagrant, he who has sacrificed so much for his country. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. I want to ask him as the leader of the House if it does not break their hearts for that man and his eight children to walk about naked. I am ashamed that this hero has to walk about naked to-day. I end by repeating “those who have ears to hear, let them hear.” Years ago I saw something I shall never forget; the Minister of Railways, who was then organising secretary of the Nationalist party, came to Calvinia. They would not give him a hall at Calvinia and he spoke in the street. His speech still echoes sweetly in’ my ears to-day. The same northwest, however, which once stood as solid as a block behind Gen. Botha when he came from the Transvaal to Calvinia, notwithstanding his personality and his great name, passed a vote of no confidence in him to his face. The people came for 20 hours by donkey cart and we stood there from half past nine until half past three, and passed a motion of no confidence in the great man. I got three cheers for Gen. Hertzog. Where did the change come from at that time? The giant was hungry, was therefore angry, and he rose and shook it off. If the Government does not look to the north-west it will have the same fate that Gen. Botha had. I do not say this to reproach or to criticize, but as a friend of the Government, as one who has suffered more for the leader of the Government than 90 per cent. of the people sitting behind him.

I second the motion because I have every sympathy with the people, and have always done my best for them. I am well acquainted with those parts. I have often visited them, and I can assure the House that unless one has been there, he cannot realize the difficulties of the people, and stil less their poverty. They are going through a very difficult time to-day. Parts of Bushmanland have had no rain for five years, and when they get rain they will not yet be out of their difficulties. The want of facilities always remains. They are hours and hours from the post offices, from the schools, and from the shops. I got to a farm a short while ago, and the owner told me that he had only just got back. He had been 2½ years on trek. He trekked from Bushmanland to Kookenaap and then back again to the north part of South West. I then asked him how things were going. He said better. I asked have you been sick? No, said he, but I have lost 900 of my 1,000 sheep, but now they no more are dying. Now I feel a little better. When they had trekked and were fourteen days away from the farm, a distance of 90 miles, the wife and a daughter 15 years of age came back to the farm to water the young fruit trees. They did not know how long they would be absent, how long there would be no rain. Those are the women of the north-west. They returned 90 miles to water a few young trees. What people’s wives would do it? They would not do it with a donkey cart or with a motor-car, although possibly they would go back 90 miles to play tennis or to go to a bioscope. The people deserve to be assisted. We always hear about “back to the land,” is it not better to keep the people there on the land? Are they first to sink down into the towns? They have nothing of what they got from the Government. Almost everything is dead. Are they first to sink down to the towns and then o back to the farms? Keep them there. I hope the Government will give its earnest and favourable attention to the motion.

We listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the hon. member for Namaqualand. May I say that there was just a little political colour in the speech. The hon. member gave a few reasons why those parts ought to be assisted. We believe that the people there are in a sad position, but the hon. member also mentioned many political reasons why they ought to be helped. According to the hon. member’s speech, the norths west was really the refuge of the fighting parties and Namaqualand is the only cause why the war has lasted so long. Just when the horses in the Transvaal and the Free State were exhausted they fled to the north-west. I, however, want to take his speech seriously When he pleads for the north-west we realize that he feels for the north-west. He talks as a son of those parts. When I speak I sympathize with him, but we talk for other parts of the Cape Province which have been so heavily tried. War has pressed heavily there too, and droughts still more. We know what great interest the hon. member takes in the uplifting of the impoverished people, how keen he is on them keeping their self-respect, and feeling of independence. He has, indeed, repeated it several times to-day. We remember how the hon. member pleaded last session for these people, and asked the Government to remove them from the relief work, and to give them something more tangible, so that they could keep their self-respect and honourable feelings. We do not, however, wish to attribute any motives to the introducer of the motion. We want to regard the matter from a broad standpoint, and assume that the hon. member really means well in introducing the motion. He has spoken appreciatively of what the Government has already done for the stricken areas. We congratulate him on that, and also want to thank the Government. It is a pity the hon. member did not accompany the Minister of Lands at the time be travelled through the midlands, when the Minister described it as miles upon miles, I believe it was almost a hundred miles, that he did not see even a live bird. At that time the Government intervened. If that had not been done, how many people would have already been driven off the lands where the need was great, this Government has never failed to assist, and it is to their credit how they have always been ready to meet the people. In this connection we recollect the emergency loans which have already been granted in the drought-tried districts. I believe an amount of between £600,000 and £800,000 has already been granted, and the Government will further aid if necessary. Then there was the great concession by the railways. I think I am right in saying that the people’s stock was at that time carried at only one-fourth of the rate for the return journey. The Government carried it free in one direction, and also bore half of the return journey, so that only one-fourth was paid. Can anyone say that that is not a special concession? Our farmers were very glad and thankful about it, and are doing their best to repay it, but the Government went still further, and said: “See, in the bad times you must be short of cash, we grant you twelve months’ time for the repayment, and if necessary that will be further extended.” I understand that of the £150,000 which was advanced on acknowledgments of debt to the people for railway rates, £100,000 has already been repaid, and there is only about £43,000 out standing. I was speaking recently to the managing director of the Land Bank and he told me that the bank’s money was coming in excellently and that he was quite satisfied. Times are bad, very bad, and the people are suffering, and I have a letter here which I received a few days ago from Jansenville. The people in the stricken districts still have some self-respect, and honour, and if there is one thing they are proud of, then it is that, of the emergency loan in 1915 when about £50,000 was advanced to the people, everything has been repaid, except about £3,000. All the rest has been paid, and the people are very proud about it. But I return to the letter which I received from a friend in Jansenville. He gives an account of the depression, and the collapse of all the markets at the same time; the people are finding it difficult to meet their obligations to the Land Bank. They do not ask acquittance, but only that the bank should give them a longer time for paying the interest and redemption, and that thereafter they will begin to pay. I think we will manage to get the Land Bank to assist the people in this way. When the Emergency Belief Act was passed at that time it was not effected by means of a motion. The Minister of Agriculture wanted to assist the people, but he wanted to do it in another way, viz., by means of the system of credit associations. We subsequently convinced him that, the best way to do it was by means of the emergency Belief Act. We did not suggest it by means of a motion, but obtained it by being personally zealous in the matter, and I think the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance, and also the Prime Minister were thereafter glad to be rid of us, and to introduce the Emergency Belief Act.

What is the use of this House then?

Acts are passed. The hon. member possibly is a little older than I am, but he will still learn that the best way of getting a thing is not by a motion. It would possibly be interesting if we could get a return of the amounts which have been granted to the various parts of the country under the Emergency Belief Act. Then hon. members and possibly also the hon. member for Namaqualand would see that not only has Namaqualand suffered, but that the Midlands have also been severely tried, and were in a terrible state.

Help them as well.

I merely point out that the Government did a great deal. The Government treated the people so fairly from the beginning, and the people always have confidence in the Government, so that I will move the following amendment to the hon. member’s motion—

I move the amendment without the least hesitation because the public are satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, as has been done in the past.

I second the amendment. I sympathize with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) and in his attempt to assist the people of Namaqualand, because he knows the conditions there, and the miserable circumstances under which those people live. He would not be doing his duty as their representative if he did not come there to plead their cause.

To a point of order I am not in my motion pleading for Namaqualand, but for the drought-stricken area.

The hon. member for Namaqualand, who seems to be a little touchy this afternoon, told us nothing else but how the leader of the Opposition was one of the biggest rebels in the north-west, and particularly in Namaqualand, and he also related how one of the Ministers also was a rebel there, so that it looks as if he based his argument on the number of rebels there were in Namaqualand, and not on the conditions in the north-west. I think hon. members of the surrounding districts very much appreciate that the hon. member so suddenly is taking an interest in their constituencies. We also very much appreciate that he has also included in his motion the question of the money still due to the railways. That is a proof of his friendship for hon. members of the surrounding constituencies, because I think that the hon. member, himself, has very few electors who still owe money to the railway administration. At present there is still £43,000 outstanding of what was given to the drought-stricken districts for the carriage of stock, that is £3,000 to £4,000 per district on the average. Calvinia still has about £5,000 outstanding, and we know that Calvinia was one of the most tried ones, and where most of the people had to trek by rail. The people in Namaqualand also trekked, but there is only one railway in Namaqualand, the line to Bitterfontein. The hon. member, however, possibly does not know that not a single sheep trekked from Bitterfontein. When the farmers trekked with their stock from Namaqualand they trekked via Calvinia. We see, however, now that the amount still owed by Calvinia is very little over the average of the other districts, so that we come to the conclusion that Namaqualand is owing very little to the railways for the carriage of stock. We, therefore, see that the hon. mover only made the proposal to the Minister of the Interior out of good feeling.

You are a poultry farmer at Stellenbosch, what do you know about the conditions in the interior?

I have not been so long in the House as the hon. member for Namaqualand, but I hope that when I have to snail always remain a little cooler in the debates than the hon. member. I do not know why the hon. member is so touchy about his motion with regard to the repayment to the railways. When one examines his motion carefully it looks as if the part about the railways was added subsequently. It looks as if someone whispered to him and that he then added it. The hon. member is silent, so I take it that is the case.

I remain quiet because I am so very much under the influence of the wisdom you are exhibiting.

I shall just say something about the debts to the railways, and not about that which only the hon. member for Namaqualand knows anything. I will only deal with the railway rates, because that is a matter which particularly affects my constituency. When I look at that part of the motion which asks for the writing-off of the debts due by people to the railways for the carriage of stock, then, without going into the merits, I want to enquire whether it is a sound principle. The hon. member for Namaqualand said that we must avoid turning the people into beggars, but is that not just what the hon. member is proposing to do by this motion? I do not say we must not help the people, but we must not do so in the way the hon. member proposes, by which they will lose their self-respect, because that will be the result. When a man is in difficulties assist him, but do so so as to enable him to retain his self-respect. We cannot adopt the principle of writing off, because the result would be that there would be people wanting advances from the Government every day, while they cherish the idea that they will never have to pay them back. What will the position in South Africa be then? When a man borrows money he must have the idea of repayment by him, but the Government can see to it that the repayment by the people shall take place in the best and fairest way. I doubt, moreover, whether the railways actually have the right of writing-off the debt. Apart from the question whether it is desirable. When we see that the people owed £150,000, and that in eighteen months it has been reduced to £43,000, and that in our difficult times, during drought, and a fall of prices, then I am proud of representing a constituency which has contributed so much to repay the obligation to the railways. I am proud when I see that my people, notwithstanding their hardships, are putting their shoulders to the wheel and have done their duty in reducing their debt to the railways to such a large extent. Now we come to the second point, viz., whether the people in these constituencies actually want the Government to write off the debts. I am not speaking for the irresponsible people who will take everything they can get. I am talking of responsible people who know the difficulties of the railways, and I ask do they really want the Government to write off that money? I say emphatically that they do not ask for it. I was honest towards the people in my constituency. I did not raise a hope in them when I knew that they could not get those things. I explained the difficulties of the Government to them, and they were quite satisfied not to ask for that money to be written off. But what they do ask for is that they must not be pressed by the railways when they are unable to pay. I often get letters from my constituents asking me to help them. They write that they have had a letter from the railway department demanding payment of their debts. I at once ask them whether they can pay, and if they can pay anything that they must do so. If they can pay a part they must do so, and if they can pay nothing, then I tell them that they must go to the stationmaster and tell him that the Minister of Railways has said that they must not be pressed. I have never in any case had a further letter. It is the policy of the railways to give time when the people are unable to pay. I think it is a good policy, and if the members representing those constituencies are honest and do not seek cheap popularity by raising a hope which they themselves know cannot be realized then I am certain that those people who have suffered so much will be satisfied. They have suffered hardship, but they have put their shoulders to the wheel, and if we meet them in the way the Minister has explained, we shall assist them to regain their self-respect.

It is pleasant for me, as a farmer, and the representative of a, farming constituency, to support the motion of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp). We have heard how the farmers, after five years drought, have reaped hardly anything. The Government then gave seed wheat, and we greatly appreciate it. We have also heard that as the result of the drought, frost, and rust, the harvest has turned out very pool. The wheat was poor, and thereafter the prices dropped. Not only is wheat cheap, but we find it difficult to get a buyer. This me ns that the farmer practically has to give away his wheat at 12s. or so a bag, or otherwise he must retain it. We also know that the people have not proper storage, and it will not be long before mice and weevil are in the grain, with the result that the Government in the long run will get nothing for it. Therefore the Government should now accept the bag for bag offer that has been made. In my constituency the position is that if a farmer wants seed wheat, or if he runs short of forage, he goes and gets it from his neighbour. The neighbour does not expect payment, but when the next crop is reaped, then the grain is given back bag for bag. If private individuals can do that, why not the Government? I am surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo). He represents a farming constituency, but to listen to him one would think that he represented a village. I should like to know why the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) remains so quiet. What has happened to his motion on the same subject? Why did he withdraw his motion. Has he got lockjaw ?

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

To return to the motion. I hope the Government will accept the motion, so that the farmers can return the seed corn bag for bag. Therefore, I should like to call the attention of the Government to the matter. I know how much the farmers have suffered. We have a lot of poor farmers in my constituency, and therefore it is a pleasure to support the motion.

If ever there was a good proposal before the House then this is one. Unfortunately the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) has made a very bad taste out of a good one. He is advocating a thing of which he has not had the least experience. Let me tell the House that the difference between Bredasdorp and the Western Province, and the area for which we are pleading is as wide apart as the heavens. The impression made on me by the hon. member was not favourable. He did not come so much to plead for the people who had suffered, but to make political capital out of the matter. He has never yet been in those parts of the country.

How do you know that? I have been there.

I am sorry—

The hon. member must come to the motion.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Bredasdorp has discussed a matter he knows nothing about. I can associate myself, to a certain extent, with what the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) has said here. He lives there and is acquainted with those parts. I have also lived there for the last twenty years, and therefore I feel that I can speak on the matter with authority. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Sauer) has just said that those of us who advocate this proposal are out for cheap popularity. I am sorry to hear such a statement when we are trying to supply the true needs of our electors. Such a statement is tragic, and deplorable. If there is a part of the country that has suffered severely it is the north-west. The hon. member for Namaqualand, in the first place, praised the Government, I support him in that. The Government has assisted a good deal in connection with the carriage of stock during the drought, but I want to ask them whether it is right to assist people halfway and leave them in the middle of the stream, when they are in difficulties through circumstances for which they are not responsible. It is no good assisting this section of the people up to a certain point and then leaving them in the lurch. I feel very strongly on the matter. It is said that the Minister of Railways will give the people time, and I am very glad to hear it. The debts for the carriage of stock are stated to amount to £150,000, and that they are now only £43,000. This is very nice, but let me point out to the Minister of Railways that that money has been paid by people who are in a more privileged position. I have represented Victoria West for twelve or thirteen years. I know the constituency. The people were necessitous, and they had to be helped, but you cannot compare the district of Victoria West with districts like Carnarvon, Van Rhynsdorp and others. When the farmers of Victoria West had rain those districts still continued to suffer from terrible drought. If a part of the debt has been paid it is very nice, but is that a reason why we should not assist the other people? It has been said that it is a wrong principle to write off this money. In 1925 one and a quarter million pounds was written off the debts of the farmers in the Transvaal and the Free State. Whether that money was money of the British Government does not make any difference. I am talking here on the principle. Are those parts then to he favoured, and another part of the country left to suffer? It is very nice that the people were assisted in the past, but I ask whether that assistance will quite solve the question. We must not make the people vacillate. I want to plead with the Minister about the interest on the debt. If the Government compels the people to pay interest it will make them vacillate because they will see that the debt is becoming greater. Instead of assisting them we shall be turning them into pool-whites. They will become despondent and vacillating and will become careless. They will sell their property to pay the Government because they remain honest. Then they will drop down into the towns and have to compete with people they are unable to compete with. In this way these people will become a burden on instead of an asset to the State. I think that hon. members on both sides are imbued with the idea that the poor white ought to be put back on the land as much as possible. That must be the policy. We are an agricultural people, and have shown ourselves such in the past, and therefore we want to avoid the people becoming despondent and continuing to flock into the towns. The Government has assisted considerably in the past, but it is its sacred duty to see that those sections of the population are not ruined. It cannot be a bad principle. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic. Promises have from time to time been given to the north-west. It has been said that bores will be sent, how many bores are there? Go and see in the Transvaal how the bores are sent from one district to the other, but where are the bores in the northwest? I am pleading for the parts that really are in need, and are really deserving of help. Let hon. members who do not know the conditions there please not act in ignorance against the people. They are honest people, a part of the population of whom we can be proud. We find so little honesty in the country, but these people are honest and I plead for them. I invite the members of the Government to come and see, not only at election times, but now, when the people are suffering. The people were strongly on the side of the Government and supported the Nationalist party. Why? Because they saw that the Government was striving after right and justice to those sections of the population. They are the old patriots who strongly support the Government, and I hope the Government will have pity on them. Sympathy is fine, but it is not good enough. There is one man in those parts, a very good man who is always prepared to give advice, but that Mr. Goosen immediately refers you to another man when you go to him to borrow a little money. I want to ask the Government to-day to honour its name and to exhibit more sympathy.

What do you want?

I ask assistance for the people who cannot pay. The amendment for the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo) is fairly good, but when the people cannot pay, blood can surely not be got out of a stone. Assist the people to keep on their legs.

Do you want us to write off ?

Where they cannot pay.

That is being done.

I am very glad. Let me thank the Minister heartily for this statement. I am glad of it because they are in a terrible state. Let the Government listen to men like the hon. member for Namaqualand, and myself, who have grown up amongst the people, and know their sufferings.

Are we also to write off in the case of people who can pay ?

That is another matter. It is an old Afrikaner principle that a man must pay his debts. If he can pay he must. That principle always wins honour by our nation. The people, however, who cannot pay must be assisted.

Before I deal with the motion I want to say something in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). I was a little astonished at some statements. He began by asking that the amounts due should be written off. What a dangerous principle. Are we to lay down the principle that the Government will write off as soon as anyone is unable to pay? Are the Government if anyone, e.g., owes income tax or any other monies to have the right or the power—I do not think it has the power—to allow the man not to pay? See the political power that is immediately put into the hands of the Government. The Government could buy all its supporters by writing off. I, however, think that the object of the motion is that where the people cannot pay they must be assisted. The hon. member for Prieska advocated a little more sympathy. Neither he, nor the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) mentioned a single case where the Government took proceedings against the person who could not pay. I speak from experience of parts which have been just as severely tried as the north-west, and possibly more, and I must say to the honour of people in the northern Transvaal that they did not say that they would go to the Government for remission of the monies, but that they said that they would try to pay. That has always been the characteristic of our people, and we must really not try to spoil that characteristic, or to break it. We must not establish the view that a debt to the Government need not necessarily be paid. The people outside also know the position, but, unfortunately, there are some members of this House who ought to be leaders, and give a lead, and who, instead of enlightening the public and pointing out that money due to the Government must be paid, go and strengthen the impression that such a debt need not necessarily be paid. In the northern Transvaal they had five years of drought, and suffered just as much as in any part. I do not know, however, of a single case of any Government department refusing to assist the people. Why this motion then? I can understand that it would be necessary if the Government had acted harshly, but as I have already said the hon. member has not mentioned a single case of such action. I have a telegram here which I should like to quote. It asks for assistance, but the word “writing off” is not used, but “extension of time.” I will read the telegram—

I am glad to admit that that is all the farmers really want to-day. We know that they are in very difficult circumstances. As mention is here made of commercial banks, I want to say that we know the Government has no control over them, but I think that we here in the House, and the Government of the country ought to express the view that it is expected that the banks will not act harshly. I do not say that that is being done, but where there are such cases the banks must realize that they also have an obligation towards the people of South Africa. I hope the Government will carefully note what the banks do, and, if necessary, give them a hint. I only read the letter because I wanted to show that the people are grateful for what the Government has done in the past.

The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl), who considers himself such a tremendous farmer and friend of the farmers, said that if a farmer lends another a bag of wheat the man who borrows it returns the bag of wheat. Do you imagine, however, that the Government can do the same thing that the magistrate in Namaqualand, or elsewhere can and accept half bags of wheat? Not only that, but who is to check the grade of wheat? Is a sack of rusty wheat to be accepted for first-class wheat? Who will grade it?

If a man cannot give any better what then is to happen?

Who is to judge of that? The Government has paid £1 15s., and are they to be satisfied with 16s., that is the present price of a bag of wheat? I further understand that about £100,000 has already been pa stock. If then the £43,000 is to be written off, will the other people, who have paid the £100,000, be satisfied? Will they not come and say that the Government must return the money they have paid? I think that in many respects the motion is very unpractical.

As a representative of one of the districts concerned, I want to point out that it is not my method of action to persuade the people on the countryside that they need not repay their debt. I differ from hon. members about the course of action which is proposed here. My hon. friend has touched upon a point which makes the matter unfair. It is unfair towards the people who have always been loyal, and who are prepared to pay everything. I agree that the people should pay their debts provided they are not summoned. They already to pay, but they must have a fair chance. I do not, therefore, agree to the motion.

I want to take this opportunity of saying that the people of South Africa, whether in the rural districts or in the urban, districts, owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) for having brought this matter before the House. It is necessary when any hon. member knows that there are people in such a state of dire poverty that he should inform the House, and that we should do our best to find a remedy and apply it. It is necessary that I, as a townsman, should know what the people in the country have got to bear. If I do not know, how can I interest myself in the finding of a remedy? I have been cudgelling my brains to discover the reason for the amendment. The motion requires no amendment, and certainly this is not a time for wholesale adulation of the Government. The motion is a clear cut expression of what the hon. member considers desirable as remedies, and we should examine these remedies on their merits and decide for or against them. First of all, we have to decide whether these circumstances exist, and there can be no question about the fact that these circumstances do exist. I am as much concerned as an urban dweller in the conditions of life that obtain amongst the rural people as I am with the people in the towns who find themselves in parlous conditions. I am sorry to have forestalled the Minister of Agriculture, but I think that a member of the Government should have intervened earlier in this debate to indicate what line the Government intend to adopt with regard to this motion. Immediately my hon. friend got up to speak the Prime Minister rose and left the House. That was consistent with the course of conduct adopted towards members in this corner of the House. The Prime Minister has been out all the afternoon.

Pressure of business.

That is all very well. We know that the House gets slack in point of attendance round about tea-time, but I do say that on an all-important question like this, a question that affects farmers, a farmers’ Government might show some personal interest. I fail to see why an amendment should be moved to this motion designed to give our appreciation to the Government for what it has done. The very fact that this motion has been put on the Order Paper is in itself prima facie evidence that the Government has done very little indeed. I am going to give hon. members examples I have come in contact with.

But the hon. member for Namaqualand himself expressed appreciation.

I am not tied by anything my hon. friend has said, highly as I regard him. I fail to see why this House should amend the motion in order to express appreciation. I am going to give an example, a case that has been brought already to the attention of the Government by myself and by the people concerned, by myself first, and by the people concerned afterwards. They did not get any redress from the Government. I am referring to what is known as the Pomana Estates or the East Rand Co-operative Society. This society is composed of working men, inspired by a desire to get back to the land. These men saw land advertised, cut up into fruit plots. They purchased, and they formed a cooperative society. Though I don’t want to complicate the motion by moving any amendment, it would have been desirable if we could have inserted the words “or other unpreventable natural causes,” because there are other natural causes which militate against success in farming quite apart from drought. I refer to hail. This particular place borrowed an amount of something like £2,000 and erected a packing shed. They had two successive years of heavy hailstorms. Hon. members know the effect of one hailstorm. At the end of two years they got a communication from the Land Bank: “Pay up and look pleasant!” They were in a hopeless position only getting ordinary wages from their work and could not meet their commitments. When pressure was brought to bear, I wrote to the manager of the Land Bank and asked him to give them time to pay. This year they had a third and most devastating hailstorm; a thing that I suppose will not happen again.

You are on the hail belt there.

It may be. Man has no control over Providence. They had three successive hailstorms, but the Land Bank now came down upon them, would hear no excuse, and took all their movable assets and then charged them up the whole amount of their indebtedness without allowing the value of the assets they had taken to be set-off on the credit side of the account. I am citing this first in advocacy of accepting the motion, and secondly because the Minister of Agriculture should have it seriously brought to his attention and induce the Minister of Finance to quash their proceedings. Just as the farmers, whether they desire it or not, are performing a communal service to the people of South Africa, so the community in its turn has to recognise its responsibility towards the farmers where these acts of God are concerned. The obligation is mutual, I make no apology in supporting the motion of the hon. gentleman in all its phases. For instance, the hon. gentleman put a reasonable request that advances made to them may be repaid in kind, in the form of wheat. I understand that a hon. member on that side in opposing this, urges that more time should be given. I have yet to be convinced by any argument you may bring to bear that the mere allowance of more time will meet the case. The request is a reasonable one. Surely the Government can estimate the value of the wheat and write it off in terms of money against the indebtedness. A simple thing and not without precedent. Why, the whole land settlement scheme of New Zealand was based on this principle, and the whole world can testify to its success. Land was given to prospective settlers. It was largely a question of pasturage; the building-up of pastures in order to develop the dairy industry. The Government advanced the seed to the farmer. Before he had prepared his land, they put the farmer on road-making, and paid him 10s. a day. I do not ask the Government to do that, although it would be an excellent scheme. The seed was sown and the crop reaped, and the Government took the crop from them at the highest market price then payable, and the farmers had their own seed for the next season. This could be done in South Africa in times of stress, and it is not unprecedented or unreasonable. This could easily be done by a wise administration, though I certainly could not call the present Government that.

Since you left.

Yes, since I left. Wealth is not money, wealth is the means of life. Money is only the counter which liquifies the commodity and enables it to flow from the producer to the consumer; that in short, is the function of money. Well, why do you insist when dealing with the farmer who is producing a commodity on repayment by means of a counter instead of the commodity itself. Is not the Government in a better position to dispose of the commodities than the farmer? I urge this on the Minister. In writing-off indebtedness there comes a time when they find it impossible to pay off their indebtedness. Should you grind out of them the last forthing; should you drive them off the land and send them to an earthly perdition? Is that right? In settling the land, what you want to do is to settle the people on the land. It is the people who are being settled who are the important factor. Our towns are teeming with people driven off the land. This problem is not confined to the rural districts.

A few days ago the press told us of a demonstration by 700 unemployed. Were they born in the towns? Not one-half of them. Most of them came from the rural districts, many of them by acts of God, many of them by the unwise administration of the Government in power which claims that it is a farmers’ party, a farmers’ Government.

So it is.

So it is! There is evidently much in a name, but very little in the accomplishment. There is poverty all over the country, and it is not due to a non-desire on the part of the people who are indeed in impoverished circumstances. It is due to the fact that opportunities are not furnished to them. In fact, they are deprived of opportunities by the unwise administration of this Government. True, they are not the inceptors of it. True, it is a long and consecutive policy, whichever Government is in power; but I advance this seriously, and without fear of honest contradiction, that that situation has been markedly accentuated by the present administration in power. Markedly. I remind the Government and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who is in charge this afternoon, that that Government came into power on the votes of these very people, your bywoners or poverty-stricken farmers, or people who realized that everything was wrong, and that they have had no help or sympathy of a practical nature from the very people whom they put in to govern largely on their promise that these circumstances would be redressed, and that poverty, if not abolished, would certainly be mitigated. Yet, when an honest, honourable attempt is made in an eloquent fashion, eloquent because it comes from the heart and the experience of the hon. member, to impress upon the Government the seriousness of the position, first of all, he is smiled at by the hon. the Minister, and, secondly, we have this fatuous amendment moved by the hon. member over there, giving credit to the Government for what they have done. I urge upon the attention of this House the desirability of regarding this as a serious debating chamber. I know the effort, unfortunately, was consummated only yesterday which relegated this House further and further in the direction of being a mere rubber stamp, a mere registering machine. But on a question like this, surely you can break the bands and snap the bonds, and so, as the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) said, if I understood him correctly, he was courageous enough to say, and to attack the Government, “surely you can push them from behind” if they do not want to go willingly to assist the men in this parlous condition and provide a remedy for it by a bold, courageous, honest and wise policy on the part of the Government. It is up, to the hon. members sitting behind the Government there to relieve economic conditions by pushing the Government which is unwilling to go, and in so doing, they will get every assistance from my hon. friend, and from hon. members who sit upon these benches.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) cannot help constantly airing the grievance that he is no longer sitting here. But why does he use every opportunity to point out that the Prime Minister is not present in the House? Must the Prime Minister then always be here? Have not nearly all of his colleagues been sitting here? And have not I, the responsible Minister in connection with this matter, been constantly here? He only wants to bring people outside under a wrong impression. But I want to say that the public attach more value to the words of the Prime Minister than to him. The hon. member referred to the advances given to the orange farmers. The fruit was knocked off, and now he wants a loan to be given to the people, that is real socialism. We must take other people’s money and give it to those fruit farmers. The hon. member forgets that the Land Bank is a business institution, and do hon. members opposite expect from the House that the Land Bank should not be run on business lines? Are they going to say that the Land Bank must write off everything when the people find it difficult to pay their debts? But we have another instance here of the old policy of the other side of the House. The back-benchers support the motion, but the front-benchers do not say a single word about the motion, because they know it is an impossibility to ask for it. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) had every opportunity of talking and to tell us whether the proposal is acceptable. Let me say at once that if the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) knew what the Government was doing in that direction he would probably not have introduced the motion. He said that he is thankful for what the Government has already done when those people were starving.

Now you are wanting it all repaid.

Here we see the mentality of the hon. member. Have we asked those people for anything? I say again that if the hon. member had known what the policy of the Government was he would not have introduced the motion. The first point in his motion is that the seed corn must be repaid in kind. What of the people who during the five years have received wheat and who have paid for it in hard cash? Are we to repay their money ?

No, but give the other people a chance.

We will give them a chance. Can the hon. member say that we are pressing people?

They are receiving demands indiscriminately.

No, that is not the case. But may not the State notify the people that their bills are due? The hon. member has served in the church, and I trust that he ran the affairs of the church on business lines, but he does not want the State to do so. Seed corn has been advanced to the value of £40,567 during the five years. Of that £30,653 has already been repaid. That amount has already been repaid by the people, and let me say here that the poor people have been the keenest to pay back the money. The agitator in connection with this matter is often the rich man with his pockets full of money.

You can go and look for them in Namaqualand with lanterns.

Up to date the Government has written off £1,365, in the case of people who could not pay. There is £7,549 outstanding. A few people have been summoned. During the five years five people have been summoned for repayment of the seed wheat, but let me say at once that that was not done from pure desire to persecute, but because the creditors stepped in and wanted to take all the property of the people. Then the Government intervened, and I ask hon. members whether the Government should remain inactive and allow the property of the people to get into the hands of speculators, or shopkeepers, and get nothing themselves? Then I come to the Drought Emergency Relief Act of 1924. The Government spent £418,355, £343,876 has been paid back, and £4,095 has been written off in the case of people who could not pay. As for the Drought Emergency Relief of 1927, of which the northwest got most, a sum of £425,275 was made available for the purpose, but in addition the railways carried 1,500,000 sheep at one-third of the ordinary rate. Not only that, but the Government also gave time for repayment, and on behalf of the Minister of Finance I took upon myself the responsibility for half of that to the Railway Department. As already stated, about £100,000 of the amount has already been repaid, while between £30,000 and £40,000 is still outstanding. Amongst those who have not yet paid are people who can pay and who are our opponents. Amongst them are people who have sold wool for £1,000, but who agitate not to have to pay back. The poor people, however—and I am proud of it, because the poor people have all the support of the Government and will continue to do so— have repaid.

I am not pleading for the rich people.

Why introduce the motion then? We have given assistance. If I understood the hon. member aright, he only wants assistance, not j favours and gifts to the people.

Yes.

That is precisely what we have given. We have assisted the people, but with the taxpayers’ money, or money that we borrowed on behalf of the taxpayers. We point out to the people that it is the taxpayers’ money, and that we must repay it. Last year there was a large deputation from the north-west, I think 20 in number, and they came and pleaded for writing-off. After the Minister of Railways, and I think also the Minister of Finance, and I had explained to them what the position was and that it was a question of taxpayers’ money which we had borrowed for them, they returned satisfied. We told them that we could meet them and give them an extension, as we have always done, but that the Government could not strictly write off the debt. The people appreciate that, and it was before the election. With one single exception possibly, the people in those areas sent the Government back again. Let me now say a word in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), who unfortunately is not here now The hon. member said that the interest on the money that was still due to the railways is accumulating. Let me tell the hon. member that not a single penny interest is calculated on the amount still due for carriage. I think that great praise is due to the railways for the way in which they intervened in the need of the people, left goods which they could have carried at a profitable rate, and placed the trucks at the disposal of the Agricultural Department to carry the stock for the people. I am convinced that the people in the north-west are thankful. That is not all that has been done for the north-west. The Government extended the railway from Bitterfontein to Klaver; when there was a famine, the Government immediately gave the people work at 7s. 6d. a day.

The hunger is just as bad now as then.

The hon. member knows that it is not so bad now as then. We have a superfluity of wheat, cattle and everything to-day. How can the hon. member say that hunger is just as great? The Government went out of its way and gave the people work on the Boegoeberg scheme. Now the hon. member complains that the people have to live in tents there. I think they are thankful to have the tent. Were we to build palaces for them? The Government did not intend to build palaces, as was done at Hartebeestpoort, which are now white elephants and cannot be used. The people are thankful for the help they have received. The hon. member says that the hunger is just as bad to-day. I sent one of the officials in my department, Col. du Toit, there. Every man was seen, and when they were landowners they were sent back, or got notice to go back, and go on with their farming. The hon. member, however, asks that a bag of wheat shall be repaid in kind, apart from price or grade. That is not business. Secondly, he asks that the money still outstanding for railway carriage shall be written off. About £110,000 has, however, already been paid. Will the people who have already been paid be satisfied with that? I believe the hon. member is honest in his desire to assist the people to keep their heads above water. The motion, however, goes much further, and talks of repaying wheat by bags of wheat and the writing off of money.

Where a man cannot pay. If he borrows ten muids of wheat and can only pay back five, we must only be called upon to pay five bags.

If a man in the end cannot pay, we cannot knock blood out of a stone, and will have to write off the money. This Government is writing off daily. The Minister of Lands, during the last five years, has written off more than £1,000,000 on settlements. I am, however, glad that the hon. member for Namaqualand does not wish the Government to write off where people can pay. As for the amendment, I am prepared to accept it. It expresses gratitude to the Government for what has been done, and asks for a further extension. I am prepared to accept it, but the motion of the hon. member does not represent what he intends. The hon. member for Prieska made a few charges here which I must contradict. He said that the Government had written off money in the Transvaal and the Free State, but that the Cape Province had to pay. What the Government wrote off was money that could not be recovered, just as we are now writing off money that cannot be recovered. And the circumstances were already investigated by the last Government with a view to writing off. I hope we will not exhibit the provincial spirit, and not look at our own constituencies. The hon. member says that the Transvaal is full of water-bores, but that they have no bores in the north-west. The Government specially had 50 bores more made, and if the people in the north-west apply to the Government, I do not doubt they will be only too ready to assist; but the applications are not received. Now there has actually been rain, but the dry times will reappear, and the Government is prepared to send bores to those parts if they are applied for. But I had a case when I was visiting the northern districts recently. The people there told me that it was now raining, and why should they spend money on bores? They would prefer to put it off. It makes me think of the man who has a big hole in his roof, and someone asks why he doesn’t repair it, and he says: “Do you not see that it is not raining; why should I close it up?” I therefore hope that the northwest will make use of the bores which the Government will make available. I think I have now dealt with all points, and I hope that after this debate and after I have made it clear to the hon. member for Namaqualand what the policy of the Government is, viz., precisely what he asks, that he will withdraw bis motion. I will not say what additional help will be granted, or what further steps will be taken. But I hope, inter alia, to introduce a Bill on warehouses at an early date, the object of which will be to erect storehouses in the country, by which the people will be further assisted. I hope the hon. member for Namaqualand will be prepared to withdraw his motion, because, if I understand aright, he suggests a policy which is precisely the one followed by the Government.

The Minister has just asked where the front benchers of the Opposition are. Must our front benches then always give the policy to the whole House?

No, but to your party.

Yes, but the front benches of the Government have not spoken either. The Government seems to be so bankrupt that they cannot give any lead. When we have listened to the speech of the Government and to the motion of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp), then we ask what the difference is between the policy of the Government and the motion of the hon. member. The difficulties of Namaqualand are not a question of to-day, but of years and years. Namaqualand has retrogressed in material matters. The droughts came, and the result is that the farmers to-day are in a sad predicament. Now comes the hon. member of Namaqualand and asks the Government in the first place to consider his motion. It is not asked that the motion should be accepted, which will bind the Government. In the first place, the Government are asked to consider where a farmer is unable to pay back the money advanced for his wheat, whether they will not take payment in kind, instead of in cash. Is there anything unfair if they want to give value for their debt? They do not want to evade the debt.

It is not practical.

I cannot see why it is not practical, but all that is asked is that it should be considered, and that, in my opinion, is not unfair. In the second place, the hon. member asks for it to be considered whether the debts of such farmers whose harvests have been ruined by rust or drought can be written off. The Minister says that the Government is already doing so, but what harm can the motion do if the Government is already following that policy? Are they ashamed of their policy? I cannot see why there should be opposition to the motion. As for the third point, I agree that it will possibly lead to difficulties if the railway rates are paid back, but it must depend on the circumstances. If a man is saved by that money, then it is worth while considering it. The hon. member for Namaqualand also asks that this should really be considered by the Government. I think the Minister can accept the motion without committing the Government to any financial burden. The proposed motion is not a comfort to those people. This motion of the hon. member is a comfort to the people. Hon. members may say that it amounts to nothing, but it is a consolation, while the amendment means nothing.

I fear that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has dealt with the matter in his usual superficial manner. Let me put the facts before him, and then he will see that he has not gone to the bottom of the matter. The Government lent wheat which cost 50s. and £2 and more a bag. Now the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) is asking the Government to take wheat for seed wheat. This will mean the State suffering a loss.

No, the farmer can give more wheat for a bag of seed wheat.

This shows the superficiality of the hon. member. He says there will be no loss to the State. If he gave the slightest consideration to the matter, he would know that expensive seed wheat was supplied, and the motion asks that the farmer should be allowed to return an ordinary bag of wheat for a bag of seed wheat. Is it the policy of the Opposition for this writing off to be done?

I read the motion that the farmer must give back a sufficient quantity of wheat to compensate the State for the seed wheat.

That is certainly not what the hon. members for Namaqualand and for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) read in the motion. They wanted that the wheat should be returned bag for bag. I should like to know what the attitude of the Opposition is in connection with this matter. When a person’s wheat is destroyed by rust but he has money, or if he has a good harvest the following year, is he not to pay ?

I was speaking about the motion.

I want to know what the attitude of hon. members opposite is. Is the State to suffer the loss if the wheat was rusty in spite of the fact that the person is possibly able to pay? We see here how easy it is for the Opposition to talk loosely for the sake of the provincial election.

I supported the policy of the Government.

Our policy is known to the public. We are not prepared to write off a single penny in the case of anyone who is able to pay. If he is not able to pay this year, then he may possibly be able to do so the next. We are not going to follow the line of giving doles to the people, because it will undermine our national character.

If the price of wheat is 5s. next year, what then ?

Yes, but if a man gets into a hopeless position, then no Government, and certainly not this Government, will press him to his ruin; but our national character demands that these people must pay their debts when they are at all able to do so.

If they can pay.

But is that not precisely what my colleague here has said? It is, however, not the attitude of the hon. member for Caledon. Now I come to another point. There are thousands of farmers who have already paid, some borrowed money and inconvenienced themselves to pay the State. Has the hon. member for Namaqualand thought of the position his motion will create? He wants the debt to be written off now, and what about the people who have already made sacrifices; are we going to pay their money back?

They will be only too glad that they have assisted poorer brethren.

That shows how superficially the hon. member went into the matter. Does he know that there are rich people and speculators who are owing money to the State?

I am not talking about them.

Yes, but your motion applies to them as well. No, we have from the start had great sympathy with these people. We assisted them, and we are still doing so, but we are most certainly not going to allow the hon. member to raise a hope by this motion in the people that this money and their debts will be written off. The question here is not only the debts in connection with the railway rates, and the loan of seed wheat, but the Land Bank made advances of thousands to the farmers, and will the hon. member for Namaqualand now say that we are to let those people understand that they need not pay back the money when they are in difficulties ?

Read my motion.

Yes, I have read it. The attitude of the Government is just, not only towards those farmers, but also towards the country as a whole and the taxpayer. In the circumstances, I think that we shall be doing those people and the country a great disservice if we pass this motion, especially those who have made such great sacrifices in paying their debts and meeting their obligations. We are going to write off at the cost of those people. Those people do not believe in running away from their debts. I therefore hope my hon. friend will be prepared to withdraw his motion. He says he loves his people. I believe him, although his mouth is very full of it. I, however, accept it. But a man who loves his people will also be courageous enough to tell them the truth.

I must express the greatest surprise at the attitude of hon. members opposite. If the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) had not been an independent Nationalist, we should not have had this storm in a teacup to-day. The motion of the hon. member is one which is reasonable, and it should have been accepted without all this argument, but farmers should have the opportunity of returning wheat for wheat. I understand that the wheat would be returned to the amount of the original indebtedness of the farmer. With all due respect to my friends on the other side, this is very plain in the motion, which states—“to make repayment in wheat, instead of in money.” I submit it is very simple that these people should be allowed to return wheat for wheat. I am concerned with the motion as it stands. Again it is asked that the Government should write off the indebtedness in cases where everything was lost on account of rust or drought. Are you going to take blood from a stone, when these people have lost everything? I have seen the ravages of rust and drought. How often business men have had to do what the Government is asked to do? My friends on that side of the House shout that they are for the farmers, and here we have a request ignored because it did not come from one of their members. I sincerely hope the Government will accept this motion. What will be the cost? I am told it is £7,530. How many thousands and hundreds of thousands have been lost in land settlements? These are all overlooked, and you have had millions of pounds from that part in the shape of diamonds. We do not know how many millions, £7,000,000 we are told. We do not know how much more, but we hope the Minister is keeping it for the rainy day that is surely coming. I admire the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). He has shown what most members on the other side feel about this. Those members are muzzled, but he had the courage of his convictions. I hope we shall not have any more camouflage, but accept this motion.

This is an important motion. The debate it has evoked shows the importance and we at once feel that it is not easy to oppose it. When a section of the people suffer the other section must, of course, sympathize, just as the whole body suffers when one member of it does. On the other hand, it is not so very necessary for hon. members opposite to spend so much energy to convince us that the people there are needy, and require help. We know it, and are sympathetic with the motion, although possibly not in the same direction as the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp). But I nevertheless think that the motion has three big defects. The first is that the motion has put the hon. member in bad company, the second that it gives the impression that the Government is about to take steps of pushing the people who are in distress into deeper distress, and the third is that already mentioned by the Minister of Railways that they are not the only people to whom money has been lent. Most of the money has already been repaid, and if we were now to write off the rest, we should put the people against each other and cause terrible trouble. As for the party opposite, amongst whom the hon. member has found a home, I want at once to say that it makes me think of the story I read of an old German philosopher who said about his pupils that of them all only one understood him, and that one understood him wrongly. Members who have listened to the speeches of the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) must realize that those hon. members do not even know what motion they are actually supporting, and what is in the motion. What support is that? Then the hon. member has got into the company of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I think the hon. member ought rather to have told the hon. member for Benoni to remain silent and not to speak on the motion. The hon. member for Benoni harbours a grudge which he cannot forget. He cannot forget his miserable past, and must bring it up every minute. The administration of the Government is unwise simply because he is not in it. He makes me think of the Dutch proverb: “Be yourself said somebody but he could not because he was nobody.” The hon. member for Namaqualand must just enquire where he took the wrong tack. I do not agree with the motion. The hon. member will agree with me that the motion allows me to make the logical inference that the Government is expected to assist those people a little. He must not forget that the debt has not only been paid by his people, and the debt does not only rest on Namaqualand, but some of it has been repaid by the whole of the north-west, and the other people who have not paid are not compelled to pay. Letters of demand will possibly be sent, but if the Government says that they do not intend to take legal steps to sell their property, then there is no necessity for the motion. We want to give them a chance, a reasonable chance, a year’s time, and if necessary possibly another year.

Will you be satisfied if I say to the people that the Government means nothing by their letters of demand, and that they need not bother their heads about the letters ?

No, the hon. member must not be unreasonable and tell the people that.

I did not say that they need not bother about the debt, but about the letters of demand, because you say it meant nothing.

I said no such thing. The debt is not being collected because the Government does not intend to ruin the people owing to their inability to pay. Two of the Government speakers spoke on these lines, and if the hon. member for Namaqualand wants to infer from that that they can go and tell the people that they need not pay the debt, and need not worry about the demands, then I say it is his inference for which I am not responsible. I think the hon. member will agree with me that we knew each other well in our young days, and that we then often discussed the building up of character. Do not the people also possess a character, and must we hot build up that character as well? Is it a wise way of building up the national character by introducing the motion he has done, and which is supported by the other side? No, we shall mar the character of the people by his proposal. I know the other side would pass such a motion, but would not carry it out. They do not feel as he does, and I want to warn him to be careful and not to listen to them. But is it wise, even if a man is poor to say that he need not pay his debts? Whether it is the Government or a private individual, it makes no difference to the responsibility. Every man who owes a debt must pay it off if he is an honest man, and if he cannot pay his debts at the moment he can go to his creditor and tell him so saying that he will repay it when he can, and if he is an honest man, then the wise creditor will not cause trouble, or send him to gaol, but will give him a reasonable chance. I now come to another point. £150,000 has been spent in the service of the people. I speak under correction, but I think I am right when I say that that amount was contributed by the departments of the railways and of agriculture. Of that amount fully £100,000, I think the amount is £117,000, has been repaid. I put the same question that the Minister of Railways has put, viz., “what do you want? ” Is that £117,000 to be repaid to the people who have already paid their debts? If we write off the remaining debt and do not repay the £117,000, then we are creating an impossible position in the country. Then we are making a distinction between the people. We are drawing a line between those who have paid, and those who have not paid. We arouse dissatisfaction amongst those who have already paid, and we make the dissatisfaction much greater than it is to-day. I know a few cases of people who are owing money to the State, and who cannot repay it yet. I should, however, be very thankful if I possessed one-quarter of what those people have who have not yet paid back the money. We say the people must not be pressed. The people who can pay must, however, pay. We can wait for the other money. We want to treat them as honest people. We want to give them an opportunity of paying, but all who can pay must. I cannot see how the Government is acting wrongly in this. We cannot get away from the fact that the Government is helping the people to go through the world as honest people, and, therefore, I cannot at all support the motion of the hon. member for Namaqualand as it stands.

I am glad of the opportunity of speaking on this subject. I can speak authoritatively about drought-stricken districts because my constituency has been in that case for seven years. The drought certainly was just as bad there as in any part of the country. Besides all this, the farmers had to meet the drop in the price of ostrich feathers so that that industry has failed, and the people had to incur a double loss. I have, however, never yet introduced a motion like this to gain popularity. I have, however, done my best for the people, and when they were not able to pay, I went on their behalf to the Minister. I did not ask for impossible things, but went and asked for help where it was required, and I never asked in vain. It was necessary for the Government to spend £26,000 on relief work in Ladysmith and Calitzdorp. Thousands of pounds have been written off the irrigation works, that is not referred to. In this motion it is asked that the people should be acquitted of their debts. The Minister of Agriculture has made it plain that the Government are not going to press the people. It is not the people who cannot pay who are making the fuss. It is the people who can pay who are making propaganda. The other day a deputation came down from Laingsburg and Sutherland and they asked us to assist them. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) and I went to the Minister. His reply was that each case would be dealt with on its merits, and if the people could not pay he would give them time. What more do those people want? Then seed-wheat has been referred to. In this respect I should like to support the motion if I wanted to get a cheap popularity with certain of my electors. But I have never yet found that the Minister has pressed people when they were not able to pay. If the motion were practicable I would have been in favour of it. The trouble is whether the Minister will get back the same wheat. That was seed-wheat, and if the Minister now takes back wheat bag for bag will he get the same wheat? What will happen if the price of wheat rises to £2, then there will be a complaint that too much has been given to the State. The Government is using the taxpayers’ money. Some of my bywoners also borrowed wheat, but they have already paid for it. Will it now be fair to them if the others do not repay? There are possibly people who are landowners who have not yet paid, but even in their case the Minister will not press them if they are unable to pay. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) spoke about hailstorms that had devastated the people’s oranges. That also happens in my constituency, but I did not make a fuss about it here in the House. I went and asked the Minister to exempt the people from water rates, and the Minister was accommodating enough to say that the persons concerned need not pay it. There are cases where people have borrowed money from the Land Bank, they have not paid the interest, and the Land Bank cannot simply write off the debt. The Government has always been very fair in every respect and has met the people. At first I sympathized with the motion, but I think the amendment which has been moved fully covers the case. While speaking on this matter I should like to mention a letter I received the other day from a person who sent seven cattle to Klerksdorp. Two of the cattle died, and now the railways want that person to also pay for those dead cattle. That man had a grievance. The Minister, however, had the matter investigated and the man did not pay. I hope the hon. member will bear these cases of assistance by the Government in mind, and that we will not press the motion.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking entirely for myself and on my own responsibility. The Government know that I am in Opposition, and as such it is my duty when I think the Government are wrong to criticize them, but on this occasion the Government have taken up an entirely businesslike attitude, and for that reason, I cannot sit still and let it be believed that everybody on this side is against the Government, or in favour of the motion as it stands. It appears from the motion that the Government came to the assistance of a large number of people and provided them with wheat at a time when they were not able to provide themselves with it some years ago, and now they find a difficulty in selling their wheat at the same price the Government paid for it, and they ask the Government to accept wheat for that which was provided for them. Are we to understand that the Government are expected to become merchants, because that is the effect of the proposal? I can understand a merchant doing that sort of thing and taking jolly good care to get a quid pro quo, but can it be expected of the Government to get five bags here and five bags there and then get rid of them again? The motion does not say wheat of an equivalent value. It simply says, wheat instead of money. If the farmer could have got the equivalent of money for his wheat he would have sold it, and said: “Here is your money.” The Government is dealing with public moneys. Is the Government sitting there to waste public moneys? If you accept this motion, you will encourage the Government to waste public money. There are large sums of money owing to the Government. I know people are clamouring at the doors of the Government, asking to be let off payment, and I admire the attitude of the Government and of the Minister of Finance. I think the Minister of Finance is right. We expect the Government to look after the taxpayers’ money, and I think the Government is right in declining to accept the motion. We should not ensourage people to run to the Government under every and any possible pretext, and ask the Government to let them off. I will not be a party to that. I do not like the amendment, but it is better than the motion, and it should commend itself to the common sense of hon. members. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) had a great deal of latitude allowed him this afternoon in moving his motion. At first, I felt inclined to rise to a point of order, but as it seemed to be a matter which affects the community, I did not. He started by praising Ministers.

Did you agree with him ?

In some instances, but I have been long enough in this House to see the peccadilloes of Ministers. I think the hon. member had enough latitude, and I think the motion is entirely unnecessary. The Government have evinced their sympathy with the debtors, and I think we should leave them in the hands of the Government.

I take notice when the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp) rises because I know he has the interests of the country at heart, but if he had been sitting on this side he certainly would not have tabled the motion. He would then have got into touch with the Minister who would have given him satisfaction, and the motion would not have come up. But when the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) rises then it really is time to wake up a little. The hon. member is, in my opinion, the most irresponsible and unbalanced member of the House who attacks the Government about everything. He broadcasts charges at the Government as if it were the worst Government that could ever exist. There is a depression. It is to be seen throughout the world. Has the Nationalist Party Government brought it about? There have been droughts for five years, he indicates that the Government has caused them. The Government is guilty of the conditions on the diamond diggings at Lichtenburg. There is poverty, of course the Government’s fault. I think the public have long since got tired of this talk. The hon. member is one who knows nothing of discipline, and was consequently put out of the cabinet.

The hon. member cannot go into that.

I just want to point out how the Government spent £1,000,000 in old age pensions, and wrote off in all £1,000,000 on land settlements, gave thousands of pounds for the purchase of cattle, and did everything that was possible. Then we have such irresponsible speeches. I move—

That the debate be adjourned.

seconded.

I hope the Government will not press the motion for the adjournment. I know it sounds like an imposition after sitting until 2 o’clock this morning, but I would remind hon. members that Government business takes precedence, and therefore I hope the Government will not press the motion.

With leave of the House motion for adjournment of debate withdrawn.

I know the hon. member for Namaqualand and am convinced that he means well. I trust that he is satisfied that the Government will further assist the people. The hon. member can offer the prayer: “Lord save me from my friends.” The people who in the past dragged him from gaol to gaol are now his allies. ... If a man has such friends it is time to be careful, they will get him into trouble again if they have a chance. We are not living in the millennium, and I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with the promise of the Government to further assist the people and give them time and if they cannot pay well one cannot knock blood out of a stone. The Government will assist as the Minister of Agriculture has said.

I am not going to unnecessarily detain the House and will only speak for a few minutes. I was astonished at hon. members not being able to understand simple Afrikaans or English. My motion is so simple that I was surprised at the smoke-screens of misunderstanding that were produced. I shall now explain my motion again in the simplest way. I have received letters and petitions from all parts of the north-west, from the people who informed me that they have received letters of demand to pay the money which they owe the railways for the carriage of stock, or to repay the purchase price of the seed wheat.

Who sent the letters ?

The departments concerned, the magistrate or whoever is responsible. I am accustomed, and every simple man like myself is accustomed, to expect a summons to follow a demand, and if a man summoned cannot pay he goes to gaol. Now those people ask me to request the Government not to force them to pay for the wheat, but to be allowed to pay back in kind, and that they should be given a chance to repay the debt to the railways. I cannot accept the amendment that has been proposed unless the Government agree to postpone the payment for the railway charges and the wheat until the price is much more than what it was, and the farmers get the same price for their wheat as in the past. Then I will accept it but otherwise not.

We cannot do that. When will it be ?

That is a matter the Minister of Agriculture is better able to decide. The Minister apparently does not feel towards me as I do towards him, but I shall never forget how we were in gaol together for our common ideal.

Nor I either, the hon. member is wrong if he thinks that I do not have the same respect for him.

Well, I accept that. The Minister wants to give the people time, just like the shopkeeper who enters things, and ruins our poor people. The people do not want time, but they want to pay bag for bag at once. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) says that I want to ruin our people. No, I do not ask something for nothing, I only say that the people must be given a chance of paying when they can pay, and if they can pay 5s. let them pay it. The Minister of Agriculture said that I am a churchman, but if the Minister reads the church papers he would know that I am only a simple medical practitioner at the Cape, and if he gets ill I shall be glad to treat him because he is a man with a good salary. I want to point out to him that the people do not ask for an extension of time, but that they should be allowed to pay what they can. The hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) said that we had many talks in the past about the building up of character. The hon. member apparently has a better memory than I, because I cannot remember it, but he says that my motion will ruin the character of the people. I never proposed what the hon. member thinks. Cannot he read simple Afrikaans, or does he still only read High Dutch? I ask him whether it was ruining their character when you and my people said to our brothers in the dark stage of our history: “We will help you”? Is the helpmekaar ruining the character, or Is it not actually saving the character? All I ask is “helpmekaar.” I do not want to have something for nothing for the people. Then I should like to reply to the Minister of Agriculture. As I have said before he is the greatest military expert alive to-day, and it gives me a little amusement to bark at the feet of a big bull like a small puppy. The Minister asks what we actually want, because our people were sent to Boegoeberg, but however I may ask him to tell me how many were sent there he is too great a strategist and constantly evades the answer, just as in the Kalahari he evaded the Government troops. Well, I will give the number. It was no more than 300 out of an area which is larger than the Free State or the Transvaal, who were allowed as an act of grace to work at Boegoeberg. It is no more than a drop in the bucket. Those people who were allowed to go had to live in tents. The Minister asks if I want to put them into palaces, but there is surely a very great distinction between a tent and a palace. There is surely something a little better than a tent to give those people. They are Afrikaner women and children for whom he fought in the past, who have to live in tents there. If they were given the assurance that they would have been given an erf at Boegoeberg then they would stand the utmost cold and heat, but who are they working for? The men are working their utmost without prospect of ever achieving anything. A man who works to-day—

The hon. member is now quite departing from the motion.

I merely wanted to reply to the Minister, but I submit, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Railways said that he demands payment and if the people do not pay then it is ruining their characters. I may be wrong, because the Minister abused me and called me superficial. I cannot compete with him who thinks so profoundly about these matters, but in my opinion the state is not a policeman to stand behind the people, but a mother who must assist them, even if she has to go into debt. The matter is not a business undertaking, because then there will not be such a big national debt. The Minister further said that my mouth was always running over about my love for my people. In August and again to-day, I did not use those words, but when the Minister was organizing secretary of the Nationalist party his mouth was always running over about his love of the people. I was pleased at the debate because I had the support of the South African party, of the Labour party, and of the Nationalist party. It is a proof that the motion is just, and that there are members here who place their people above their parties.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

announced that the committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on Subject of Slaughter of Animals Bill, viz.: Dr. Bremer, Mr. Buirski, Brig.-Gen. Byron, Col. M. S. W. du Toit, Mr. P. P. du Toit, Maj. Richards and Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe.