When the vote for the high commissioner was in committee I raised the question of officials in the high commissioner’s office in London persuading certain persons against settling on the land in South Africa, and I stated that I would raise this question more conveniently when the vote for lands came before the committee. In looking through the estimates, hon. members will observe there is nothing whatever down for the purpose of assisting immigrants to come out from Europe for the purpose of settling on the land in this country. When the Quota Bill was under consideration I think it was proved very conclusively that the great preponderance of people who were coming to this country were, speaking generally, of the trader class, but it was also shown that even amongst the immigrants who were regarded as undesirable, a number were desirous of settling on the land, and that this class of immigrant was stopped. An examination of the position in other dominions shows quite conclusively that unless the Government is prepared to take active steps in bringing people out to this country for land settlement and agricultural purposes, it is highly improbable that anybody will come out at all, and I want to ask the Minister whether the Government has set its face against the introduction of immigrants into this country for the purpose of land settlement. I want to ask him whether he knows that officials in the high commissioner’s office have definitely advised people against coming to this country, and whether these are the instructions of the Government. [Interruption.] I have private information of two individuals who were desirous of coming to South Africa, and were advised by someone in South Africa House not to do so. It is interesting to know what other dominions are doing. Take Australia; in 1928 the assisted immigrants numbered 5,984, and of those no fewer than 3,852 were for pastoral and agricultural purposes. Take Canada; for over 20 years Canada has spent over £1,000,000 a year on assisted immigration, and in 1928, the last date I have, spent something like £3,000,000 on assisted immigration. In 1927 they assisted farmers and farm labourers to the number of 81,000, and in 1928 to the number of 83,000. This question of assisting people to come to this country is not only difficult from the point of view of what other dominions are doing, but the problem of immigration is becoming more and more severe as the years go by. In the opinion of the most informed writers, the action of Governments in restricting people from coming to their country is unwise from the point of view that these immigrants were to be available. One writer says that the number of births are .4 to .5 larger than necessary to maintain the number of the population. It is quite manifest that the places from which we want to get desirable immigrants are becoming more and more restricted. Take the case of Italy. At one time Italy supplied a considerable number of immigrants to various countries, but to-day the policy of the authorities in Italy is entirely different. Emigration is restricted, and it is stated that the ambition of Mussolini is to raise the population of Italy to no less than 60,000,000. The sources are drying up, and even amongst immigrants considered undesirable, and who are now restricted from coming to this country, I understand that these people actually settle more persons on the land by private enterprise than the Government. The Government is doing nothing whatever to help the most deserving institution we have in this country, the 1820 settlers, who are the only people bringing immigrants of a proper type for the purposes of land settlement to this country. This is a serious problem to South Africa. I know it is said that we must settle the poor people of the country on the land, but experience has shown that you cannot wait to settle your own people on the land without bringing others here. Some people you can never settle on the land. Unless the Government have a definite policy for the bringing of people of a desirable type to settle on the land in this country, it would not surprise me if the time came when even the restrictions under the Quota Bill will be abolished in order to get people to come to South Africa. [Time limit.]

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the waste of time and money in the Cape Province in connection with the Land Board. I understand that during the last six months the Minister has decentralized the Free State Land Board work to Bloemfontein. I should like to congratulate him on the wisdom of the step he has taken. Seeing, however, that the Cape has half as much work again than either the Free State or Natal, I strongly urge upon him the advisability of decentralizing the Cape Land Board work to Cape Town. If this was done the senior officer in charge at Cape Town, having the records at his disposal, could deal with all cases at once, and avoid the delay now taking place. To-day all applications for assistance have to go to Pretoria, and are sent to Cape Town to be considered by the Land Board, and returned again to Pretoria; this all entails waste of time and money. Applications should be made direct to the senior officer in charge in Cape Town. If the Land Board happens to be sitting at Cape Town while papers are passing between Pretoria and Cape Town, the minimum time lost is at least a month. Another point I would like to make is that the Cape Land Board will have at its disposal all the files dealing with land settlement, if the change I suggest is made, and matters need no longer be referred every time to Pretoria, but could be dealt with immediately. In Natal the position has been different. Natal never centralized to Pretoria, and the system in Natal has worked most efficiently. I think that is what has actuated the Minister in giving the Free State its own office at Bloemfontein. The difficulties in the Cape are very much greater than in either the Free State or Natal, because the distances are greater. In either the Free State or Natal any inspection can be done in two or three days, while an inspection in the Cape Province might take anything up to ten days. Land Board members have to go from Cape Town to Maclear and other distant places, so that it can be seen that an inspection can easily take about ten days under these circumstances. I think the Cape Province should enjoy the same privileges as the other provinces now enjoy. I wish to refer to another matter. The House will remember that about 12 months ago the Minister settled about 140 men on Cannon Island. I admire these men. I have been there personally with the Minister. These men built their own weir, and they have made over nine miles of canal. They have cleared the island, and they have already reaped 1,000 bags of wheat this year, and also expect to reap 3,000 bags of mealies. They had no money, and it is marvellous to see what they have done. I do not advocate that the Minister should put these men under the Land Settlement Act. I think that would not be advisable, as the island might be washed away, but I would like the Minister to consider whether there is not some way by which these men could he assisted.

I want first of all to thank the Minister of Lands for the provision under sub-head “F” for “fencing and renovating Dingaan’s Kraal and Piet Retief monument.” I am glad that the Minister has made this provision. Under “E”, provision is made for certain monies for the Karos, Boegoeberg and Orange River Island settlements. It is difficult to know which works at Boegoeberg fall under the Minister of Lands. Other departments are also concerned in the schemes there, but owing to a large number of mine constituents being at work there, I should like to know how the work of the Lands Department is progressing, whether the Minister has any lands as yet under his control, and whether he has already granted any. The position is possibly not quite right yet, and I do not expect a full reply from the Minister, but the people there are interested in the position, and as I represent them, I should like to know what the position is. Under sub-head “B” provision is made for a new sum of £39,000 for probationary lessees on the Hartebeestpoort settlement. I have no objection to that, but would just like to know whether the Minister is pursuing a new policy there, because this is a new amount. It is an important matter, and if the Minister can give us information with regard to the development of the probationary lessee system there, I shall be glad. Under “A.l to Ä.5” provision is made for the upkeep of Government settlements. I, and others, have been obliged to bring the state of affairs at settlements to the notice of the Minister. The position is serious in consequence of the collapse of the markets. The position is particularly bad in my constituency. There has practically only been one harvest, lucerne, and for that there was, and is practically, no market. I do not speak of writing off—that is a matter which I will leave to the discretion of the Minister—but I appeal to him to be patient with regard to the collection of arrear monies.

I want to refer to the contribution to National Parks Board. It has evidently got mixed up with another vote, because it is for £7,000 instead of £9,000. I hope the Minister will have that put right. I want to pay a tribute to the wisdom of that great statesman, President Kruger, when he set aside that national park. I also want to pay a tribute to the two Ministers of Lands, the late Minister and the Minister to-day, who, I hope, will be able to carry out his ideas with regard to sections in the Cape, and to bring the whole of these under one central control. Hon. members of this House have not realized the value of the Kruger National Park in South Africa, and future generations will attach more importance to this park than we do at the present time. The Minister will have every support if he corrects the printer’s error I have alluded to.

I have given you £2,000 more than you had; I thought you would be grateful.

In regard to the work which has been done in connection with the National Park by the board, I would also like to tell the House that these men are costing the Government nothing; it is not a case of jobs for pals, but jobs for love. These are men who are working with enthusiasm and good will to develop and maintain this great asset. With the roads in process of development and the fords across the rivers, there is always this need of adequate funds for development. I think if funds were available we could also push on the work of the housing for visitors and protection of animals in their natural surroundings. Hon. members know that there is a movement on foot to do away with zoological gardens. If anyone goes to Pretoria park and sees an eland or a sable bull he will notice that they are only phantoms of what they ought to be. We want arrangements for protecting the game where people can see these animals in natural surrounding. If animals are kept in confinement a drastic change is required in their treatment. If the Minister will do this, as he is eager to do, he will, I hope, have the support of the Minister of Finance and of every right thinking man in this House.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the condition of the Holfontein settlement. There is a favourable stipulation in connection with that scheme, viz., that the lessees or occupants there need not devote their whole time to the working of their plots. They are merely half-time, or partial settlers. But the objection there is that it is situated close to the Rand, and most of the occupants are miners. The result is that already to-day, and still more in the future, most of the settlers will be silicotics, so that they will not be able to get any other work, and will have to make their living out of their plot. I am pleading for those people, and want to ask the Minister to revalue the plots, as has been done on the Modderfontein settlement. If this cannot be made of general application, then I want to ask that it should be done to those settlers who can get no other work, or who are prepared to become full-time settlers, so that at least in their case a revaluation shall be made as has been done on neighbouring settlements.

The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) made some remarks with reference to the High Commissioner’s Office. I know that the matter is not quite clear. I think the Minister should take into careful consideration the attitude adopted by the staff in London towards enquiries about settlement in this country. When we wanted to raise this matter on the High Commissioner’s Vote we were told to wait until this vote was reached. As a farmer in this country I know that you have to be very cautious in regard to advising people to come here to undertake farming. But there is a difference between caution and discouragement. I quite agree that your officers ought to be most careful in the advice they give, and that the ground on which they offer it is sound. At the same time, I say there is room in this country for the settlement of a large population of hard working, earnest men who intend to make a living out of the soil. The mistake that we have made in the past in this country is to think that all men who were on the land at one time should be put back upon the land. We have had men of all sections of the European people put back on the land, I agree that the bigger and the more successful the rural population is, the better it is for the country. In that sense they are the backbone of the country—not only from a producing point of view, but also because they breed up a robust type of people with a permanent stake in the country, men who will stand by the country in its hour of need. I think, however, we are making a grave error in thinking that merely because a man’s ancestors were on the land, and possibly he himself was on the land, that he should be put back upon the land. We are going through the natural process of sorting ourselves out in this country. I say without hesitation, after a long experience, that a man from the town might make as good, or better, farmer than a man who is born on a farm. It is a question of aptitude and taste and that should be considered far more than the fact that a man was on the land and wants to be put back upon it. I attribute many of our failures in the past to the fact that we have put men back on the land who would have been better occupied in other walks of life. I hope the Minister and the Cabinet will consider seriously that aspect of land settlement. I, unfortunately, cannot lay my hands on a blue book I was reading some days ago in which it gave the increase in the number of men put on the land over a number of years It worked out at an average of 800 odd. That is not enough and I am sure we can find the right men if different methods were adopted.

It is a question of the number of farms. There were 800 farms.

That is very high.

It is not very high; it is very low, when one considers that farms are being cut up and farmers are working smaller areas more efficiently. However, I thank the Minister for putting me right on the point. It is 800 odd farms. If you are going to establish a population on the land who are to be a material asset to the country, we want to increase it at a higher rate than that. If you look at the question of settlement, you will find that far from settling the land you are actually only replacing men on the farms instead of settling new people on fresh land. Success at farming is largely a question of a man’s aptitude for the life. Men have been on the land and left it and have been put back on the land with little hope of success. There are other causes of failure which it is almost unnecessary to refer to, such as bad years, that the country goes through from time to time; gluts in the market and the uncertainty of the farmers in regard to the returns on their produce. In that direction, I welcome any organization which will stabilize prices and which will make it worth while even to produce at a lower figure provided that the farmers know that they will get something. The farmer who produces perishables, such as fruit or vegetables, say, never knows from year to year where he will be at the end of a year or whether he will be better or worse off. Then there is the question of the greater competition in our limited markets. Another thing that is disastrous has been that so many settlers have based their hopes on “one crop” holdings. The Secretary for Lands has drawn attention to that fact in report after report, but still the fault goes on. When cotton is popular everybody goes in for cotton. It was the same with tobacco. One of our big settlements was based upon tobacco. I consider that it is absolutely wrong from the start. That was one of the causes why our tobacco farmers are to-day in trouble. They have an overproduction in their crop and too many of them grow no other thing. We should aim at mixed farming, so that men can have something to fall back upon, when one of their products is a failure or when it has lost its market. As a well-wisher of the country I say: for God’s sake get away from the idea of putting men back on the land simply because they and their ancestors were on the land. Let the natural processes go on and take their course. Let us realize that a man’s early upbringing as a farmer does not necessarily fit him for this life. Some of my friends think that the employment of white labour should be approached more cautiously. I welcome the employment of white labour in every walk of life, if it is possible. Everything in this country which can be done by white labour should be done, but let us see to it that the white men give a fair day’s return for their wages. That is the trouble. The white man too often wants a wage which is economically impossible to pay and he still wants to be “boss” and “overseer” and he does not want to get down to the real job of work. That is the trouble. Go where you like, where you see gangs of white labourers employed you will be lucky if you find 50 per cent, of them doing a good honest day’s work.

What about the natives?

I am not talking about the native. I am talking about the white man. I have known the hon. member for many years, and I have known him attending meetings of farmers’ associations, and everywhere he is the stormy petrel wherever he is found. I have known him for many years but to-day he wants to instruct prime ministers and the rest of us, but I remember the day when he used to come to me for advice.

But I seldom took it.

When you took my advice you did well. For goodness’ sake let us get away from the idea that we South Africans belong to two racial sections. We belong to one section and that is “South Africans.” I beg to move—

Will the hon. member indicate the point of policy he wishes to refer to?

It is to discuss the question of policy as to the settlement of people on the land in South Africa. We have the example of Australia, where there is no racial feeling, but parties are divided politically and also into classes. Australia lost on land settlement schemes £23,500,000—a colossal sum.

That was lost on settling returned soldiers on the land, but that does not represent all that Australia lost on land settlement.

I know that, but I took one main scheme only and, as an illustration, was dealing with the returned soldier scheme. They had done something for their country, and appeals were made there, as they were to the Government of the day in South Africa, to place them on the land. I do not deny that grave errors were made by our side in purchasing land for that purpose. We were forced by public opinion to buy land for the returned soldiers. Australia has come to the same conclusions which we who have studied the question in South Africa long ago came to, and the conclusions of the commission which has been sitting in Australia to consider this matter absolutely fit our case. The first conclusion the Australian commission came to was that everyone is not suited to become a farmer. The orginal idea here was to place any man on the land who said he wanted to become a settler. It would be far better, however, to follow the example of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association and to place intending settlers on a farm where they could not only be instructed in the principles of agriculture, but where they could also be tested in order to ascertain if they are suitable for the land. Another point is that large land settlement schemes carried out with public money are not desirable. Such schemes have proved a failure both in Australia and in South Africa. A further point is that you cannot force land settlement, but you must allow it to follow its normal course. If Government cannot spend all the money voted for land settlement in one year, the surplus should be carried over to succeeding years, instead of there being a scramble to spend the whole of the vote within the financial year, in order to avoid having to make a refund of the unexpended balance. In short, my idea is to put the right men on the right land, at the right price and at the right time. Another reason you cannot force land settlement in the Union is the sparseness of our population. Land settlement depends largely for its success on a local consuming population which we have not got, and we should see how we can have a really useful consuming population in this country. Outside markets have also to be borne in mind, and we must not forget that certain products have been overproduced in South Africa. We should endeavour to discover markets, and having found them, we should refrain from doing things which would prevent people buying om products. The mere fact of spending large sums of money on land settlement schemes does not necessarily imply that success will follow. We should spend not less on land settlement, but we should certainly proceed more cautiously, and act without fear of favour. In Australia it was found that the political control of land settlement never gave satisfactory results. Here we have strong reasons for saying that land settlement and kindred subjects should be kept outside political control. I do not say kept outside the orbit of political policy, for the Government must take the responsibility. In Australia sections of the population which have a political pull, push for development in certain directions, and here we have the same sort of thing. People think that they are not being treated with absolute equality when they apply for land. The Minister may remember about four years ago I urged that land settlement should be placed under the control of an impartial and non-political board. I am reinforced in that opinion by a finding of the Australian commission suggesting that a board of control should be established to deal with land settlement. Australia has a board of migration and land development, but we do not want that at present. I do urge the Minister to consider whether it is not desirable to remove the matter of land settlement entirely from the range of party politics, in the hope of building up a large white consuming population a population which not only directs labour, but produces. I therefore suggest the establishment of a board of control to be subject only to the Government’s general land settlement policy. Do not let us have the Minister badgered by people who think that by making a direct personal appeal to him they can obtain for themselves what they would not get without a personal interview with him. It is wrong that a Minister who is also a party-politician should be bothered in this way, and for the Minister’s own sake, and for the sake of continuity of policy, there should be an independent board to decide these points. It should be subject to the Government’s policy, and to the approval of the Minister of Lands, because finally he is responsible for whatever is done. There is another point; the lands must be proved suitable for their purpose. In the past insufficient attention has been paid to this. In South Africa we are very apt to think that because one man makes a success with one type of farming, another man in the same district should do the same thing. We have seen that with regard to new breeds of cattle, crops and fruit. Have we reached the stage of America where they have certain proved agricultural belts? One wants to concentrate on the most suitable men, land and crops, and that ought to be your slogan in land settlement. I hope proper soil surveys will be made. One of the most serious causes of failure in the past is lack of such surveys before a scheme was established. Now I must be careful what I say, or I may be misunderstood, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) was some days ago! I am not going to say the farmer is a “lazy” man, because he is not. If there is one hard-working man in the community—one who has no wage determination or a Geneva convention to protect him, it is the earnest working farmer, but there are a deuce of a lot of farmers who get up very early, drink coffee and do very little for the rest of the day.

The hon. member must not use that slang word.

If “deuce” is unparliamentary, I will say a considerable number. In other parts of the world such farmers may drink whisky; here they drink coffee. Do not let us be blind and stupid enough to say that all farmers are hard-working men, because they are not. To sum up, do not have small amounts annually, to be spent in a hurry; but have a large land settlement and development loan. Spend it cautiously and judiciously over a period of years and make your selection of men and land more carefully. Let us encourage men to come on the land who are really suited for it, let us get disabused of the idea that all men who have come from the land are suited to go back to it. Let us also welcome men from overseas of the sound stock from which we are sprung and encourage them to go on to the land. I want to ask the Minister what his intentions are with regard to the Candover Estates, which have been purchased by the Government. What are his intentions with regard to settlement in that area? We know its agricultural possibilities and the health conditions. My hon. friend the member for Barberton was abused for saying that certain types of men should not be put in a similar area because they have not sufficient sense of responsibility and not sufficient initiative or ability to make good there, but I repeat the warning. In regard to Candover I would again like to mention cotton. Before, without sufficient experimentation, knowledge and information with regard to the suitability of various areas, South Africa went mad about cotton. Since jaccid-proof seed has been put on the market there is a brighter prospect. Can the Minister give us any information as to what his policy is in regard to the settlement of the Candover Estates, and what his opinion is as to the future of cotton growing there? I think there is a big future for cotton in parts of South Africa, provided that the new plant comes up to expectation. There is another big area which ought to come under irrigation settlement; I am referring to the country on the east side of the Lebombo mountains, which runs up to Portuguese territory from Northern Zululand. I believe there we have one of the richest irrigable areas in the world. Perhaps it wants to be dealt with first from a health point of view, and I think there may be some difficulty about the water. The Pongola and rivers of Swaziland ought to be used, and surely we ought to come to some agreement with the Portuguese where these rivers are international [interruption]. To some of us this settlement in South Africa means a great deal, and the larger and better and more prosperous your rural population is the better for the country as a whole. We are not like a lot of heedlees, irresponsible young boys or the member who interrupts me. It is not because I am in opposition that I am saying this—it is not a question of the Government or the Opposition, but one of the settlement of South Africa on sound lines, which is one of the biggest questions we can tackle, and whoever solves it is the man who will help to build up a great South Africa, instead of playing at being a nation with a population of 1,600,0000 Europeans. Let us see that we get a big European population, and one of the ways of doing that is to create a large industrial population and a large agricultural population to feed them. I would like to see suitable immigrants coming into this country to build up a large population, not only to consume what we produce, but to help in production and the development of our resources.

Order, the hon. member must deal with land settlement.

I am endeavouring to show that this question of population is pertinent to the question of land settlement. If you eliminate the mines in this country you are in a very parlous condition as to markets for produce, and I want to see a big population built up irrespective of that engaged in mining. When one speaks on this matter one is often interrupted by ironic “hear, hears.” I should like the hon. member who said “hear, hear” just now to tell me how many white men he gives employment to, what he has done to assist [interruption]. Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall say no more.

Hon. members have raised so many points that I think I might reply to some of them. Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the attitude of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben). I know that he takes a great interest in land settlement. He is one of the active members of the 1820 Settlers’ Association, and in consequence of his work in connection with the association he has a considerable amount of knowledge of the question of land settlement. I would like to say that if ever his party comes into power I hope they will make him Minister of Lands. He will then find that many things that he desires are impossible. The hon. member has referred to the experience of Australia. I have read the report to which he made reference, and I may say that we have had a similar experience in this country. These difficulties you will always have. Let me take one point. The hon. member says we should train men before we put them on the land. That is what I aimed at when I brought in the probationer Act. I said then that it is necessary that we should first have men under training for a certain period to see who will make good and who will not make good; but you cannot do that with a man who comes here with a certain amount of capital, or with a man in this country who wants to buy a farm. It is my idea as well as the hon. member’s to train men and then make them settlers, but you cannot do these things in a day, and you cannot train all the people. Then there are men who are comparatively poor who apply for Crown lands when they are advertised, who cannot be put under training. I quite agree that land settlement should not be made a political question, and I am sorry to hear that there are people who think they do not receive fair treatment. As Minister of Lands I emphatically repudiate any charge of partiality. I have tried to be scrupulously impartial, and I can appeal to hon. members in the House to support me in that claim, including the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure)—

May I say that from my own personal experience of the Minister I do not think that he has ever shown any political bias.

The hon. member has spoken of one crop settlement, but I must point out that we have the Haartebeestpoort scheme, which cost us something like a million, and I could not let the land lie idle. If you have a place where you can get irrigation, and only certain crops will grow there, the land must be used for that crop. The hon. member has referred to replacement, and I can assure him that I am doing everything I can to prevent any replacement. The suggestion has been made by the hon. member that we should have a sort of non-political board in control of land settlement. It would be a good thing if it could be done. It would relieve me of a lot of trouble. He will find, however, that at election time his supporters and mine will say to us: “What are you going to do for us as far as land settlement is concerned?” They won’t allow us to do it, and, while it would be a good thing if we could carry it out, it is not practicable. With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) respecting alleged discouragement of people at the High Commissioner’s office, people wishing to come to this country, I can assure you that no instructions have been given from my department, or any other department as far as I am aware, to discourage people from coming here. I send the High Commissioner full information, and I have gone as far as to say that I would give facilities under section XI if a number of persons overseas co-operate to appoint a responsible person here to inspect land for them. There is no question of any attempt being made to discourage people. Of course I do not know whether these people the hon. Minister refers to were poor.

I will tell you privately about these two cases.

I shall be glad to get the details. Even the Settlers’ Association have had to discourage people from coming here who do not possess the necessary capital to give them a fair chance of success. It is possible that people may want to settle on the land and yet be handicapped for want of capital, but there is certainly no discouragement of these people. With regard to Candover Estates, I am keeping that part of it along the Pongola River until the irrigation works are completed and I can start probationary settlements. As regards the “dry” farms, these are at present being subdivided and will be advertised shortly as available for allotment as cotton farms. I believe that cotton is a good thing; there is a U4 cotton which is not liable to all these insect pests. It has been tested on small experimental stations and I hope that the results achieved may induce settlers to go in for that kind of cotton. They may not make fortunes, cotton will never rise to the price in 1918-’19, but so long as you can sell at 10d. per pound that is satisfactory. My hon. friend has spoken of Pongola East. Does he mean the east side of the Pongola Poort. If so, then this is a matter for the Irrigation Commission to consider. All the land can be put under irrigation; we can build a dam there and irrigate all that land and things like cotton grown very well there. If there is any point on which I have not replied perhaps hon. members will remind me.

Are you not prepared to encourage assisted immigration?

I am sorry to say I cannot do so, and I am not prepared to advise the Cabinet to do so because I have half a million a year for settlement purposes. It is no use getting a large sum because in three months we can spend all that money. I have devised a new system whereby each province gets a certain proportion of the money. If one province has not spent its money by November, we make a new allocation. I could put a million on the estimates and in three to four months it would be gone. Moreover, to import people here, they would have to be probationers because they would not understand the conditions in this country. It would not be worth while to bring these people here when there are already so many waiting for land.

How are you going to get a population?

My hon. friend (Mr. Struben) is doing something of the kind. He is bringing people here and settling them on land on probation. I do not think we can go further unless my hon. friend wants to raise a storm in this country.

Why a storm?

If you are going to spend £1,000,000 in this country on that sort of work, you will very quickly get a storm, I assure you.

What about the money you wasted in German West.

I am sorry to hear the hon. member say that. That money has to be paid back It is net wasted because people are beginning to do welt there.

I understood that they did not have to pay it back.

Nonsense.

In Canada and Australia they have land settlement schemes.

Conditions are quite different in Canada and Australia. Here you have no Government land.

The Canadian Government purchases land for that purpose.

I do not know whether they do that; why should they when they have plenty of land. In Gordonia district we have several farms where they are drilling for water now. If you were to bring people here to the Kalahari, they would run away like natives. I want to tell the House that there is a block of farms on the Komati River. These farms were only cut up after receiving a report from the soil survey that the land was not suitable for irrigation. I then cut up the land as ordinary holdings. Before I gave them out, we were told we should have another investigation—a more thorough one—because it was such a good irrigation scheme that it would be a pity to waste it. This may still become an irrigation scheme. Then we have the land referred to by the hon. member, situated at the top part of Zululand. That is all the land we have; we have nothing more. You cannot bring people out from Europe and put them on an arid area of country like the Kalahari. The only thing we can do is to help the farmers all we can. In regard to the men with capital, I do my best to let them have land under section (11). I will now deal with the remarks made about the 1820 settlers.

†*The hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) referred to decentralization; while the Free State and Natal have their own offices, the Cape Province did not have one, he said. I quite agree that it would be a very good thing, but what has prevented it hitherto has been the lack of office accommodation. Offices are now being built in Parliament Street, and as soon as I have the necessary accommodation in two or three years I intend putting the Cape Province in the same position as the other provinces. This, moreover, will very much relieve and expedite my work. As for Cannon Island, he explained the position fairly clearly. I intend submitting proposals during this session to the Select Committee on Crown Lands of which the hon. member is a member, for the sale of the ground to the people at the valuation that the land board, of which he is also a member, puts on the ground, and to allow a certain period for payment in terms of the proposals of the land board. The hon. member tor Hopetown (Dr. Stals) asked which portion of the Boegoeberg scheme came under the Minister of Lands. I want to point out to the hon. member that irrigation works are not constructed by the Lands Department, but as soon as the work is completed the ground comes under my department. I granted on the probationary lessee system. The whole irrigation area from Boegoeberg to above Karos, is becoming one irrigation work, and I have already given instructions to select people from those who are now working there to uproot trees and prepare the ground so that when the dam is completed people can immediately be placed on the ground. Then the hon. member asks a question with regard to the subsistence grants for settlements. He is wrong in his view that this refers to settlers in arrear. They are merely maintenance costs for irrigation works, the cleaning of furrow’s, the restoration of canals, etc. As for the settlers’ difficulties, hon. members know that, if I am anything, I am too tender hearted, and meet the people too much. If there is the slightest chance I grant an extension, and only when the land board has said three or four times that we must intervene and after a man is years in arrear with his payments do I usually interfere.

†In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Friend), I thought he would be grateful for what I have done. They had £4,000 a year at first, then £5,000, and I am increasing the vote to £7,000. The hon. member objects to that. He says that I should make it £9,000. I think he should be grateful for little mercies. I cannot do more than that. Let me say that I am disappointed, sorely disappointed, but not with the work of the board. It is doing excellent work; I am sorry that the National Park is not appreciated as it should be. Perhaps it is that to-day we are too near to what is being done, and perhaps in years to come the work that this board has done will be highly appreciated by future generations. They thoroughly deserve the praise bestowed upon them. What I am disappointed at is this: that at the time I brought in the Act I had hones that some of the number of wealthy men that we have in our country would make generous contributions towards the board for the purposes of this National Park. So far, we have had nothing but one small donation from a gentleman in Natal.

You make them pay too much by income tax.

No, not a bit of it. We have wealthy men in this country, and I had hoped that they would come forward and make donations to the national parks of the country. As it is, I believe we have had one small sum from a gentleman in Natal, and we have also received a donation from the United States of America. We have received this money from America in order to assist us to keep up our National Park. I think that South Africans should be ashamed of themselves. I started this vote with £4,000, and the Transvaal gave £3,000, which makes the amount £7,000. I increased the vote to £5,000, and it is now £7,000, but we do not get anything from the rich men in our country. I have been very disappointed there. I am busy at the present moment with certain places in the Cape. At one place there are only a few specimens left of the bontebok. A new game reserve has just been proclaimed, and there are several in Natal. My idea is that for all these reserves there should be one authoritative body in the country so far as game is concerned. That body should not only give information, and control reserves, and direct tourists, but they should have control, so far as shooting is concerned. They should also be able to advise the magistrates and the provincial administrations which game may be shot and which game may not be shot. That is an ideal which we should try to attain, but, of course, it will take some time to do it. I hope, perhaps, that I may be able to consult the House this session or, at all events, next session, in order to put this matter upon a proper footing.

†*Then my hon. friend, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. Potgieter), referred to the Holfontein scheme, and said that it was not an ordinary scheme. For that reason the Land Board, rightly, I think, refused to write off anything. It is not a settlement in the ordinary sense of the word. The people are living there, but it was never intended that they should make a living out of it.

Several of them are silicotics, and some of them get no pension.

I don’t know about that. I just want to say that no revaluation has been done, because the Holfontein scheme is not a settlement under the ordinary. Act Moreover, the ground is not expensive for that area, and I do not think the hon. member will be able to buy ground there at that price. I have discussed the matter with the Land Board, and I do not think it will do much good to bring it to their notice again. The hon. member knows that I can do no more if they refuse, because they decide in such matters. I do not believe that there is any other point that I still have to reply to.

Can the Minister of Lands tell me something about the Zandrift settlement? I put a question about it to the Minister of Labour, but he seems very reluctant to give the information. I had a question on the paper in regard to the matter this afternoon, but, unfortunately, I was not present when the Minister made his reply. He answered it with his characteristically evasiveness. I was not told in what way the department hopes to reimburse itself for the expenditure at Zandrift. I hope the Minister of Lands will not tell me to obtain the information from the Minister of Labour, for I have tried—un-successfully —to get the information from the Minister of Labour for some time. According to my rough reckoning, the department is already out on this venture to the extent of £72,000, and I have not been informed in what way it is hoped to recover the money from the “pagters.” It seems to me that this will become a second Doornkop, unless the Minister takes it in hand at once. Will the Minister tell me what is the position in regard to the £4,150 spent in rent, and is that money to be charged to revenue, or is the Minister hoping to recover it from the “pagters”?

I am responsible for the expenditure at Zandrift only after the farm was taken over by my department. The hon. member should raise the matter on the Labour vote. The Labour Department made an agreement with the owner to hire the farm, and then to buy it. The “pagters” said they have been there for two years, and that they had no assurance that they would ever become settlers. I said to Mr. Boydell: “Shall I try to buy the farm?” I did not want to give £38,000 for it, for I did not think it was worth it, and after protracted negotiations I got it for £30,000.

It is not worth £30,000.

The farm was too small for 100 settlers, so I placed 49 of them on another farm of ours, and regrouped the Zandrift holdings so that 64 settlers were left there. They are now ordinary settlers, and have had advances for the purchase of implements and so on. The Labour Department spent a large amount in preparing the land.

Has the Minister undertaken to recover all the expenditure incurred by the Labour Department?

You cannot recover more than they can pay.

Why not say you are going to make a bad debt of it?

You should put that question to my colleague.

Surely I am entitled to an answer from the Minister of Lands. The attitude of the Minister of Labour is one of giving evasive answers to questions.

The hon. member should bring the matter up on the Labour vote.

Then I will have to raise this matter on the Labour vote. I want to ask the Minister whether it is contemplated to do away with this settlement.

What settlement is that?

The Zandrift settlement.

No, certainly not. I have explained already.

I do not wish to act like other hon. members and make suggestions to the Minister. I want to ask a few questions to find out what the actual position is at present with regard to land settlement. I, who have had the honour of representing Zoutpansberg for the last twelve years, and who had at least 1,200 settlers amongst the 2,000 voters, am here to find out what is to be done, in what way and how politely one must behave. I am only asking the question this year to find my feet, but we are serious regarding this matter in Zoutpansberg.

What now do you actually want.

I am coming to the point, if the Minister will have a little patience. We never get a proper opportunity of raising our difficulties, and therefore I am venturing to be brave and want a decision. In the first place, I want to ask the Minister—not to dictate—what the position of the member of Parliament is in this House. Can he make recommendations to the autocratic Land Board, behind which everybody shelters? Can a magistrate recommend anything, a magistrate who knows the character of the people in the district? May an inspector of lands make recommendations? The public look to these people to make recommendations with regard to suitable applicants so that success can be made of settlement. We, in Zoutpansberg, are the refuge of the poor people from all parts of the country, and are saddled there with heaps and heaps of these people, and when joint recommendations come from the magistrate, the inspector of lands, and the member of Parliament, then we are faced by an autocratic Land Board which does not know the character of the people, and behind which the Minister and everybody hide. What is the position? I ask the House who is the Land Board? Does it not consist of people who are appointed by a political party in power, a number of people who can never get a better appointment, and who can only stop there as long as the Nationalist party is in office? I honestly ask what the position is, so that I can go back to Zoutpansberg, look the 1,200 voters in the face, and tell them the actual position. What is my position as a member, what is the position of the magistrate, what is the position of an inspector, and what is the position of the Minister? Because I have the interests of the farmers of Zoutpansberg at heart—I have myself been a successful farmer—I want to know what the position is, so that I can honestly tell the people. I put the question with all deference, and not as a threat. Who can be held responsible by the public? To whom must they look?

I do not think the hon. member has shown any self-respect in speaking of the Land Board in this House as he has done. To say here that the board is an autocratic body with members on it because they can get no other work is a scandal. The members of the Land Board are most certainly not people who are after a “job.” The hon. member, the magistrate, and anybody can make recommendations, but they cannot expect the Land Board to adopt all their recommendations. The board must use its own judgment, and decide what recommendations to accept, and whether it will accept any recommendations from outside. The position is not that no one is responsible. The Land Board makes the recommendations, and the law provides that the Minister must adopt the recommendations, unless he has a sound reason for putting them aside. The hon. member cannot expect the Land Board always to accept his recommendations, because then he would practically be the Land Board.

To a point of order—

What is the point of order?

I want to know who is responsible.

That is not a point of order.

Referring to the Minister’s answer to the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) with regard to what was said in the high commissioner’s office, of course the committee at once accepts the Minister’s statement that no such instructions were given, and that is quite what one would expect; but what I would like to draw attention to is that it is recognized there is a marked difference between the high commissioner’s office in London and the other dominions in regard to this enquiring for emigrating to South Africa, and the conditions relating to settlement. It is only some three or four years ago when I was in Scotland that I came across a farmer who told me—and it is indicative of the conditions— that he had recently been making enquiries from the high commissioner’s office about sending one or two of his sons to South Africa. He could afford to give them £1,000 or thereabouts, but not very large sums of money. He assured me that when the enquiry was made at the high commissioner’s office he saw no means of securing getting these young men here on land supplied by the Government. It would appear as if the position was not perfectly clear and as if the Government had nothing to offer. My own view is that in all probability the high commissioner’s office is not fully informed. In this particular case one of these young farmers subsequently went to Canada, and the enquiries made of Canadian officials were understood to mean encouragement and a definite offer, that land was available. Does that exist in the case of our high commissioner’s office? These sturdy young farmers are prevented from coming to this country, first of all, because of their limiter! means, but I would rather say that the conditions are not conducive to their coming to South Africa. I prefer to put it in that way. You have the 1820 settlers, of course, but, apart from that movement, I think the Government should be anxious to get young, well-trained, hardy farmers to come to this country, even if they have only a limited amount of capital. I want to put it to the Minister that the position in the high commissioner’s office is not entirely what it ought to be. When inquirers go there, they are not encouraged in the same way as they are by other dominions, and, consequently, this country loses them. I believe that Australia is keen also on securing desirable immigrants. I know that Canada is. Canada is acquiring land, and looking for settlers. It makes all the difference in the world how inquirers are received by the Government’s representatives in London. The manner in which they are received shows at once what the country has to offer, and if it is found that this country has nothing of a definite character to offer to such young men, then they will find their way to other dominions. I am sure that this is the class of people that the hon. the Minister desires to see coming to this country. I am not going to touch upon the question of assisted immigration. The 1820 settlers’ movement is a wonderful one, but I do not think we should stop there. I am sure this is a point of great importance, but I would like to point out that many immigrants would prefer to come here under the auspices of the Government rather than under those of a society. The Minister has spoken of probationers, and of the difficulties in connection with training men here. That is not only a difficult matter, but it is an expensive matter. But the instances I have given relate to men who are not probationers. These are young men who have been trained, and who really would be an acquisition. [Time limit.]

I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Minister on behalf of the settlers on the Louis Botha settlement for the concessions he has made in connection with arrear payments. I should like to bring a point to the notice of the Minister in connection with the settlement. I have a list here which shows what prices were charged for the plant, draught animals, etc., which were bought at that time. We find that the land was purchased at £4 15s. a morgen, although ground in that area is now sold at £2 15s. a morgen. £35 was charged for ploughs which now cost £22; oxen were bought at £17, the present price being £5; windmills now obtainable for £60 were bought up at £145 and trek chains at £1 are now sold at 5s. Corrugated iron cost 2s. a foot, and the price is now 6d., and wood at 1s. 4d. now costs 3½d. If we examine the prices we find that the prices that had to be paid were 200 to 300 per cent, higher than what they are to-day. We find the peak of extravagance in a contract for a fence. This took place under the previous Government, and £56 was paid for a fence of 800 feet. To-day such a fence costs about £11 10s. Writings down took place in 1929, but I do not think they were sufficient. I would like, to ask the Minister if he will not have the land revalued and take into consideration the high prices that were paid for the draught animals and plants. If a man is put off his land another takes the place who has to continue with the payments, so that the position is not improved. I hope the Minister will meet the people there.

I am disappointed that the Minister of Lands did not at the outset give us an outline of his policy. It seems we must bring out his policy by means of questions. I know his work is difficult, and we might be able to give him a helping hand. On the question of settling people on the land, the first people we should settle are South Africans. At the same time, we should also consider settling people from overseas. I make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister; why do not the successful farmers form themselves into small advisory boards for the purpose of helping their kith and kin to remain on the land? Because many could be helped to remain on the land, and what they need is advice and guidance from the progressive farmers. At the same time, one of our outlets is more successful farming by means of boreholes and paddocking, which may become useful through the development of intensive pastoral farming. I hoped that the hon. the Minister would have given us an outline of policy. I think the country would be very grateful for it. One hears rumours which one would like to contradict. One rumour was about Buchuberg; a man said it would cost £600,000, and that we should have to write off £500,000. If the Minister would tell us his policy—

I explained the whole policy of these irrigation works; you could not have been in your place.

I am sorry, but I do not remember what the Minister said re Buchuberg.

I cannot tell what it will cost; it is not my department; it is the Irrigation Department. When the irrigation works are completed, and I put probationers on the land, then that expenditure will be put on the estimates.

I thank the hon. the Minister. I only hope that the Zanddrift loss will be explained and not be told that it comes under the Labour Department. They seem to have lost £30,000 over it and the Minister of Lands says it cost £30,000, so that means a total of £60,000 to settle 64 men. It seems to me very costly, but not so extreme as Buchuberg. Although the Minister states that he explained his policy on a previous occasion, I would again request a more definite answer in regard to the Buchuberg scheme.

Does the hon. member refer to the settlement there?

When I made an interjection during the speech of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) he made a remark which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. He said that 50 per cent, of the white labourers did not deserve their wages. I then asked “what about the natives?” The hon. member then became very excited and said that I was as inflammable as petrol. We have known each other quite a little while, and it was that hon. member who, in a characteristic way, burst into flame like petrol. He further said that there were times when I came to him for advice. I do not quite remember doing so, but if I was stupid enough to do so, then I was, in any case, clever enough not to accept that advice, because we are to-day still in two separate political camps. I am, however, glad to hear that he is also in favour of using as many white labourers as possible, and that there should be settlements to put people on the land who are fitted for it. I want to bring to the Minister’s notice that the irrigation troubles at the Great Fish River will probably be solved during the present session. Provision is being made for the people who are already on the ground applying for their plots under Section 11 of the Act. That matter has long been pending, and I hope the Minister, who is sympathetic towards the establishment of a separate office for the Cape Province, will see that those applications are put through as quickly as possible. When Parliament is not in session then the offices here are empty, and I want to suggest that the Minister should appoint officials in Cape Town. When then he comes here they will be available. I appreciate the difficult work the Minister has to do, and I hope he will continue his policy of training settlers to put on the land.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Lands if he can give us any further information as to the position of the land which was to be transferred in a certain area to the Pretoria municipality, over which there is a dispute. I should like to ask the Minister if he is in a position to state what he is prepared to do to meet the Pretoria Town Council’s wishes in the matter. Arising out of that question, there is a question I tried to raise the other day as to the policy of the Government in connection with the transfer of land to municipal bodies for certain purposes, and when the councils endeavour to carry out the wishes of the inhabitants of the various towns concerned, they are prevented by the Administrator’s veto from carrying out such wishes. In one particular case there is a memorandum of agreement entered into years ago, whereby land was given by the Government to the municipality for the purpose of building a town hall. The agreement was entered into, and now they are faced with the position that the Administrator to-day, for some reason, refuses to give his assent to the building of the town hall. I should like to ask whether the Minister has considered the position which arises there The Government entered into an agreement with a body, and then you have a minor body, the provincial executive, practically overriding the decision of the central Government, and I should also like to ask whether the Government will consider taking such measures as will enable their will to prevail.

I can inform the hon. member that I have decided on the question of transferring the land referred to to the municipality. The land is now being transferred to the municipality. Generally speaking, I may say in regard to the question of vacant erven in a municipal area not required by the Government for public purposes, that these open spaces are generally transferred to the municipalities. So far as Pretoria is concerned, this was the only square, although, I believe, there is a small one in Pretoria West. These were the only two that had not been transferred. So far as the agreement is concerned, this is not a matter which concerns us. The provincial administration, the Administrator and his executive council, have certain rights which we cannot interfere with. One is that a square cannot be closed without their consent. The objection in this case is that they objected to the square being closed. I told a deputation that I met that I felt very sorry, and I would help them as far as I could, but I could not instruct the Administrator to give them the right to close the square. That is outside of my functions. I do not know how far the matter has gone. I have seen the Administrator about it, and the last time I saw him he told me he was considering the matter, but I do not know what decision he has arrived at.

I suppose there is no association of individuals which takes a greater interest in land settlement than the Royal Empire Society in England. It used to be called the Royal Colonial Institute, and it has recently changed its title. This admirable institution of patriotic people has done, I suppose, more than any other institution to further the principles of land settlement on a broad, comprehensive and satisfactory basis. Within the covers of its monthly journal known as “United Empire,” a new idea of land settlement has from time to time been advocated, which I should like to refer to in brief, and ask the hon. Minister whether any approaches have been made to him with regard to the settlement of people in this country on the basis mentioned there. Briefly, the scheme outlined consists of this: It was suggested that co-operation between the British Government and various dominion governments could be entered into by which comparatively large tracts of country might be acquired and settled on a modern cooperative basis, ample provision being made for roads, schools, hospitals and, I think, carefully selected and properly trained settlers were to be put upon these settlement farms. There would be co-operative ownership of large implements such as threshers, reapers and binders, and things of that sort, which would be conducive to the cheaper establishment of settlement on the land. It was said that the representatives of the British Government were approaching the Colonial Governments, or rather the dominion Governments, with a view to settling people along these lines. I wish to ask the hon. Minister whether any approaches have been made to him with regard to settlement on this modern method.

I notice there is an item in vote 21. B showing an increase of £50,184, and I presume it is brought about by the transference of the trainer scheme of the Labour Department to the Land Department. Can the hon. Minister tell us exactly what effect this will have, and why the transfer has taken place? I should like him to explain it fully. The effect of the transfer of the trainees from Labour to the Minister of Lands appears to a net increase of £15,000 in cost, which increase is unduly large.

The point is this: apart from the Hartebeestpoort area where the Labour Department was training people, I have taken over about 100 of these families, and that has incurred an extra expense of £50,000. We are adopting quite a different system from that followed by the Labour Department. Each settler has 10 morgen of ground and advances for the purchase of implements, the erection of a house and fencing. The settlers keep two-fifths of the crops, the department receiving three-fifths. It is difficult to say what the Labour Department has spent on these people, and you cannot make a comparison, because we did not take over all the people at Haartebeestpoort.

†*I have forgotten to reply to the question of the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster). I am sorry that I cannot allow any further writings off. The farms originally cost £13,800, and £7,067 has been written off, i.e., more than half. To-day the value of the ground in all with improvements, tools that were supplied, arrear monies which must be added, etc., comes to £6 15s. a morgen. We cannot write off any more, nor would it be of any use, because the payments in past years were so few that even if the homesteads had been cut down to £3 each, the payments would still have been insufficient to meet the obligations.

The Minister said that he was too soft hearted, but in connection with the class of settlers that come under Section 11 we have already frequently argued that his heart is as hard as stone when it comes to writing off.

It would be a fine joke if we were to write off there.

I see it is no use discussing the matter with the Minister to-day. I, however, want to draw attention to a few matters in my constituency and to suggest that some alterations or other should be made. I am thinking of a few cases where the people have always paid regularly, but they had difficulties in two successive years. Their harvests were an entire failure, and they are some of the best settlers the Minister has. They all had a few sheep, and last year were able to pay the payment out of the wool, but wool has dropped to such an extent that in many cases it does not even produce half as much as last year, and the people cannot pay their instalments. The request is that the Minister should consider writing off the instalments for one year. I told the people who asked me to put this request before the Minister that I did not believe he could do it even if he wanted to. The settlers point out that it is no use granting a postponement inasmuch as if they do not pay this year they will have to pay four instalments the following year instead of two, and that that would be impossible. They are some of the best settlers, and therefore they are concerned about it, and say that they will not be able to meet the obligations. Other settlers might possibly think that postponement was a good thing, and leave it to Providence to provide for the following year, but these people see that it is not possible. I want to suggest whether it is not possible to alter the instalments. The people got the ground against repayment over a period of 40 years. If such persons were £50 or £100 in arrear, would not the Minister then be prepared to divide the arrears over the rest of the period, so that they paid 10s. or £1 more every year instead of them being required to make up the arrears in one year? I do not know whether this is contrary to the Act.

Yes, it can only be done by amending the Act.

Then I want to suggest something else, and ask whether the Minister will not give the people an opportunity by making an estimate of what they possess, and to say that it is realized that the people cannot pay this year, so that some other arrangement for the payment can be made.

I have always taken a very keen interest in Haartebeestpoort, where the Minister has embarked on a very large expenditure in connection with probationary lessees.

I have just explained it.

I happened to be out at the time. From what part of the country did the Minister draw the probationary lessees?

The Minister told us nothing.

I am very glad I was not here to hear nothing. It cost in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000.

I will tell my hon. friend. They were trainees under the Labour Department, and I have taken them over—about 100 families—and I cannot say what success there will be, but I hope to make a success with the greater number of them, because their training under the Labour Department will stand them in good stead.

Before the vote is passed I would like the Minister to reply to my question.

No, they have not approached me at all, besides the scheme seems to me a hopeless one. Supposing you can get the land, you cannot just put them there; you need roads, schools and hospitals. You have to prepare the land.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

What is the position between the Minister’s department and the Land Bank? Crown lessees are experiencing considerable difficulty in getting loans from the Land Bank, although the value of their farms may be very high. The valuation may be £10,000, a lessee goes to the Land Bank and asks for a loan of £1,000, but does not get it unless it is underwritten by the Minister.

The matter is still in dispute, and we have not settled it yet. I have spoken to the new manager, who is considering the matter again. I do not know what the upshot will be. I am afraid, from my past experience, we will not arrive at a satisfactory settlement, but there is a chance.

The Minister will realize it is a serious position indeed for hundreds and thousands of Crown lessees, who cannot make use of the Land Bank at all. These are debarred from obtaining a loan, because of the dispute which has taken place.

I was not in my place when the Minister replied. May I ask him to give his reply now?

I must say that I am, unfortunately, not able to do what the hon. member requests because legislation would be required for the purpose. It would confuse the whole administration if a man’s contract were to be altered every year. The Act laid down that debts could be consolidated up to the 30th June, 1925, therefore I cannot alter it now, nor can I write off anything, because that requires parliamentary approval. We cannot make an exception in a few cases, otherwise the whole country will, of course, apply for writings off. But I am always ready, if it is necessary, to give a year’s extension. What happens now is that an inspector goes round, and the state gets a certain share of the proceeds of the produce which is sold. The hon. member will, however, see that it i? not possible for me to accept his proposal.

I see the Minister has the emblem of his department in his hands.

What is that?

Red tape. The Minister understood me to suggest that the Government must provide roads, schools and hospitals. The country supplying the settlers is going to provide that.

Let them come along, then.

I rose only to correct a misapprehension.

As the Minister has been so willing to answer, I hope he will not condemn me if I ask one more question, and that is with regard to the experiment at Zanddrift. We know this scheme was started five or six years ago by the Labour department, and in June, 1929, we had a very interesting description of it outlined in the Social and Industrial Review.

That question can be discussed only on the Minister’s department.

I want to ask the Minister the reasons for the Department of Lands taking over that scheme.

I explained that already.

I am afraid I did not quite follow the Minister. From all accounts —I mean by the account in the Social and Industrial Review—this scheme seems to have been a great success. It says—

I want to ask the Minister whether it was at the instigation of the Minister of Labour that he took over control of this scheme or did he see fit to come to the rescue of the Minister of Labour; because it seems extraordinary to the outsider, who has no knowledge of the inner working of departments, why so successful a scheme—if it was really a success—should have been taken over by the Department of Lands. I want to ask the Minister whether he personally approved of this scheme and whether he thinks it does provide a means of getting at the very root of the unemployment problem in South Africa. There is no doubt we cannot get to grips with that problem unless we can initiate a “back to the land” movement. A large number of the unemployed in the towns—

The hon. member cannot discuss unemployment here.

May I discuss state-aided land settlement as providing one solution of the unemployment problem? In the towns we have to bear the burden of men coming in from the rural districts. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister has not explained why it is necessary to spend £15,000 more in connection with the Hartebeestpoort settlement which is now a probationeer scheme under the Minister of Lands. I am referring to the transfer of men from the Minister of Labour to the Minister of Lands.

I have taken over about 100 families, and supplied them with implements and cattle. It is quite a different scheme. The two things cannot be compared. If my hon. friend had the slightest idea of administration, he would not make such a comparison.

In the one case, men are being trained, and in the other, you call them probationers.

I will explain once more, and I hope my hon. friend will listen carefully, because it gets on one’s nerves to say things three times over. The Minister of Labour has given a certain amount of training communally, but these people could never become the owners of the land. He is not the Minister of Lands. He cannot allot land to people. He can only employ them from month to month. I have taken over some of them, and made these people probationers under the probationary Act, which is an Act of Parliament. This scheme is quite a different thing. Is that clear to my hon. friend now?

Yes, but the Minister did not explain that in the first place.

According to the reports of the auditor-general and the Lands Department large sums axe being written off the purchase price of properties acquired for settlement purposes from time to time. These write-offs come before the Select Committee on Crown Lands, and before the House, and are approved. I know of a case where, under land settlement, the purchase price of the ground had been reduced, and the man subsequently sold his holding at a considerable profit. Is the Minister aware of cases of this kind? What is the policy of the department? Does the Minister inquire very carefully before he consents to transfer of the goodwill in the case of a holding of this sort? Because it does not seem right that the state should suffer and that private individuals should benefit.

When the land is allotted in the first instance, the lessee gets a certain period in which to exercise option of purchase. After he has exercised his option under the Act of 1925 there is a provision that, for a period of ten years after he has exercised the option of purchase he cannot sell the land without my approval. If, for instance, he had the farm on lease for three years before exercising his option, he would have to wait thirteen years before he could dispose of the land without my approval. In cases of cession all that a lessee can sell are the improvements he has made on the land, and the land board goes into that question, and finds out what they are worth. If an incoming lessee is willing to give the price fixed, then he can secure the holding with the approval of the land board.

Must he satisfy the Minister with regard to the price he gets for the goodwill Does he make a profit?

We do everything possible to see that he does not make an undue profit over and above the value of the improvements.

With regard to these probationers, are there still people occupying land on a month to month tenure?

These people knew from the beginning that they could not get the lands, because they were only there as trainees of the Labour Department. They were dissatisfied; about the matter, and the question was put to me whether I wanted to take them over. I made representations to my colleague, Mr. Boydell, and in the first instance he was not prepared to allow me to take them over; but later he said I could buy the farm, which was leased from a private owner.

Are there any more of these institutions?

The other claim relates to my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour.

Vote as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote 22, “Deeds”, £51,294, put and agreed to.

Vote 23, “Surveys”, £78,552, put and agreed to.

On Vote 24, “Defence”, £940,315.

I move—

I do this in order that I may deal with the question of staff appointments. I hope the Minister of Finance will also pay attention to what I have to say. It is not my fault that year after year I have to ask the Minister of Defence to give us some clear indication of what he considers to be the functions of his department. I can, of course, supply him with the usual platitudes on that question, but I would like to know from the Minister in what way he considers the security of this country is threatened, and the means he proposes to adopt in order to counteract any conditions that may tend to upset our peace. I put this under the head of staff appointments, because it is through the staff that an army verily lives and moves, and has its being. I know the Minister’s duty is to co-ordinate their efforts; but we know there are serious demands on his time and he must largely depend on the advice tendered to him by his staff. We want to know what means the Minister proposes to adopt in order to see that he shall be served by an adequate staff. Hitherto a vote on defence has attracted little attention unless there has been some minor scandal, such as the price of ammunition or the appointment of a commandant, and I congratulate the Minister and his staff on being free from many irregularities commented on in the past. This is where I want the attention of the Minister of Finance. I see he has issued a circular to his department that rigid economy must be observed in the coming year. He evidently anticipates the need of it. This is an age of reduction of armaments, and it seems to me the time has come to take stock of what we are doing in regard to our defence expenditure in order to get value for it. Now, in Australia they have a total military vote of £1,000,000. I am excluding the naval and air services for the purpose of comparison. The actual figure is £1,013.000. Our total defence expenditure is £940,000, and deducting naval and air services, it is £735,000; not so far distant from the Australian vote. But let us look at the results achieved. In Australia it provides for a well-trained citizen force of 50,000 men for an expenditure of roughly £1,000,000. Here for £735,000 we claim to have an active citizen force of 7,980. I refer the Minister to his own report. Australia, also, has a permanent force of 1,748, and South Africa has a permanent force, including officers, of 1,398. These permanent forces do not greatly differ and they are the most costly branch. You cannot have such a large number of permanent force units without the active citizen force suffering considerably. Australia has roughly five times the number of our trained men. These figures are suggestive, and require careful examination I simply want to arouse a train of thought so that further investigation may be made into these matters. In Australia the administrative staff is 277: in South Africa the administrative staff is 225 per cent, plus 62 natives, and again we see that these numbers approach each other very closely, and it would seem that the administrative staff of South Africa is rather redundant in view of the smaller number of troops. It may be interesting to the Minister to know that the minimum wage for the Australian privates in the permanent force is £3 15s. a week. In South Africa the figure given to me is £1 15s. so there is obviously a good deal of room for thought even on the figures I have given. I will ask the Minister not to make debating points of this as he has done on one or two occasions. I want to guard against this. There is nothing personal against any member of the staff. I think in our chief of staff we have an officer and a gentleman who has done grand service to South Africa, as far as I am capable of judging from his record. There is nothing that will affect that gentleman’s personality at all in the matter. But he has held the appointment for nine years or more. In any other military force in the world it is a cast-iron rule and law that no staff appointment shall be held for more than four years. Therefore, the question of the number of years for such appointments also requires investigation. In the royal navy a staff appointment lasts for two years. The reason is that with the ever-changing conditions of war, it is absolutely necessary that officers should not be kept continually in their appointments but should be frequently moved and transferred to other departments, and have refresher courses. The Minister will remember that some years ago a rule confined the commands of officers of the citizen force for periods of four years. There were good reasons behind that rule. Surely there are more powerful reasons that should induce him to make such arrangements that there will be a constant change of office after certain definite periods of the officers holding the higher staff appointments. It is not fair to them and it is not fair to the country. So far as I can see at the present time there was no intention, except in a few instances, to do otherwise than let these officers who are filling higher commands, these appointments of vital importance continue where they are until they are retired under the civil service or other regulations at the age of 55 or 60 years. That is entirely bad for the training of our defence force. Furthermore, look at the enormous disadvantage these officers are placed under. If they were serving in Europe, where the period of office is limited to four years, they would also have the opportunity of coming into contact with other armies, and of seeing what is done there, and keeping up with the trend of military thought elsewhere. I am aware that certain officers are sent to England to go through the staff college, and are given certain opportunities by the War Office, which experience is of great use when they return to this country. It is, however, an impossible position to have one officer, however eminent he may be, in the position of chief of the general staff for a period of nine years. I only hope that something will be given to him, perhaps an even better appointment, for the good of the force, for it is time he vacated his office. Is it any wonder that we see very few signs indeed that any thought is being directed by the staff who served the Minister and their country so well as to what the future conditions of war will be. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the modern trend of thought, that rifles and bayonets in the next war of any size will be as obsolete as assegais and knobkerries and bows and arrows. I can assure the Minister that that is the trend of modern thought in regard to military matters, but it is not clear here that it has penetrated into the brains controlling the defence force of this country.

Do you advocate scrapping rifles and bayonets?

If the hon. Minister will follow my argument he will see what I am getting at. In the wars of the future we ought to be prepared for considerable changes, and one of the changes will be that the weapons we have now will be as obsolete as knobkerries and assegais. I want to see some indication that this department is alive to the changes that are coming about. Another Minister of Defence, not the present Minister, when he found himself in a difficulty through criticism took refuge behind the troops. He wished the House to assume that because someone was trying to get conditions into a better state that he was reflecting upon the service and devotion of the officers and men who gave their time and energy and thought in the service of the citizen defence force. No-one has anything but the highest admiration for all they are doing to make the defence force efficient. I am sure the Minister who has recently returned from the training camp at Potchefstroom will endorse the statement that he found an excellent spirit prevailing at Potchefstroom, and that the men were determined to give the best of their services to the country. Surely that is an argument that they deserve better forethought and consideration at he hands of the staff. Is it right that they should continue to be trained in that particular way, and in formations that we are told will be as much use in the wars of the future as a Sunday school procession, and to be allowed to go on in the old way without any thought of what will happen in the future. That may introduce a sense of false security in this country, that we should seek to avoid. If I am critical I do not want to be a destructive critic but a constructive critic as well. Neither the Minister nor myself knows what the future conditions of war will be, but we do know that they will be utterly different from the wars of the past. The hon. Minister may probably know that towards the end of the war in France in 1917-’18 an officer in the line was considered to be obsolete if he had been away on leave for three months. The conditions changed so rapidly. In wars of the future we shall be confronted with conditions that will be utterly different from anything we had before. So it is a little disappointing to find that there is no provision—very little beyond the ordinary. In regard to defence rifle associations, the system of compulsory training has not proved to be the success anticipated. The system ought to have been scrapped. “The period of training”, the report states, “is not sufficient to give the members the discipline and training essential to a well-organized force”. We had this admission that the defence rifle associations cannot, in any way, be considered to be an effective portion of our Defence force. A longer period of continuous training is necessary and that means much extra expenditure, so we must take stock of the situation. If the Minister were candid he would tell the country that these huge numbers of members of defence rifle associations are very little more impressive from a military viewpoint than the number of male adult voters would be. All we know from this report of the Minister is that the chief of the staff is not satisfied that they showed anything like military efficiency. A great deal is said in the report about the dearth of horses, and there seems to be no doubt that there is such a dearth, for even in peace time police and military are unable to obtain suitable remounts. Every country develops the particular method of locomotion for which it is most suitable. In view of modern requirements where the horse is eliminated for civil purposes, it will be of very little value for military purposes in the future. There is nothing to indicate that the Minister is alive to the necessity of rapid motor transport. Ordinary motor cars have come through the Sahara from the north to the south of Africa. The Union is a country pre-eminently suited for motor transport on and off the road, but nevertheless we are bemoaning our fate that we can no longer rely on a supply of horses to meet our military requirements. If a little vision were used it would be realized that horses will not be extensively required in future wars. These are matters which show that apparently there is neither the time, opportunity or vision to take in the changed conditions. At all events the armies of the future will be quick moving and quick hitting so we may cease to worry about our supply of horses. As I wish to be constructive, I will say that in my opinion the security of this country from a military point of view can best be built up by the development of a thoroughly sound cadet system. The Minister says it is not at present bad. I want to express my appreciation of the improvement that is going on. We want it to be good enough for the requirements of the country. In this country the state is practically responsible, more or less, for the education of all our youths. On economic grounds alone they are entitled to demand from our youth that he shall qualify himself up to a certain point to defend his country. We have the familiar contention that cadet training makes for militarism. Against that I will quote the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that it makes for discipline, good spirit and initiative and there was no trace of militarism likely to be developed. What I would like the Minister to consider is bear in mind that warfare in future will be far different from anything we can imagine now, and, therefore, it is necessary to have boys receiving such a training that they can readily adapt themselves to the new form of warfare, whatever it may be, and they may be imbued with the necessary discipline and loyalty that are simply invaluable to the forces when they come to be trained to take the field.

The hon. member is deviating too far from the particular question of policy.

I am sorry, because that was one of the points on which I think the staff failed to advise the Minister. Just think of the great saving to this country—I do not mean in money. The defence force cannot be very popular with young men of 18 or 19 who are learning their trades or professions and have to undergo military training; it is the wrong time. It is as foolish to defer teaching them the goose-step till they are 19 as to defer teaching them to read or write at that age. I assume, and experience shows it, that if cadets are thoroughly trained under the ages of 16 or 17, when they are drafted into the forces, they have no difficulty in adapting themselves to discipline and instruction; and that is one of the secrets why Australia is able in peace times to have an army of 50,000 men, because the elementary training has been done much sooner as cadets, so that the young men can take their places in the ranks. Let me read a forecast, which is the view of a high German authority, who says—

That summarizes, to some extent, the character of war in the future, and surely we are entitled to expect some sign of foresight by our Defence Department. It does not do to look backwards. Lot’s wife tried it, with an unfortunate result. These are matters on which the country is entitled to be enlightened, and there is nothing I can find that indicates that much attention has been given to them. I would very much like to see the air service entirely, or almost entirly, divorced from the military side. To me it is as reasonable to have a military air service as it would be if we were in peace time to put our railways and posts and telegraphs under the Department of Defence. We have an atmosphere in South Africa that every aviator has said is ideal. Aviation will be more and more extensively used in this country, but it should be encouraged on the civilian side more than on the military side. If civil aviation were encouraged and developed, it would pay its own way, or nearly so. With civil air services you would have an immense reservoir of pilots to fall back upon in case of war. The wastage of pilots in war is always enormous, and with the very meagre funds hitherto slotted to air service, it would be impossible to keep up the supply of reserve pilots. There should be a sufficient provision for the training of pilots in military duties for a certain period of the year. We are very proud of our air force personnel, but we want to see them pass on their knowledge and skill to a larger number of young men, who would be available if our country, at any time, should need their services. Fortunately, we are in a time of peace now. I am quite sure that if we could ensure ten years of peace we should have a body of young men at that time better fitted for what may be before them than under our present system.

Would you stop at the cadet system?

No, not for a moment. First of all you discover a certain proportion of them who have a definitely military attitude. You mark these down for non-commissioned officers, instructors, etc. There is another point and that is in regard to health statistics. There are a number of rejections year after year; let us see the reason for these rejections. The largest number are rejected on account of defective eye-sight. The number is 396. The next largest number are rejected because of defects of organs of locomotion, 363. Then comes heart trouble, cardiac disease, etc., 286, and poor development, 119. The others are not so important. Under a good system of cadet inspection it seems to me that a good many of these defects could be discovered in time and put right before the adolescent stage. That would be a great advantage. I base my plea to the Minister on several grounds. I think I am justified in asking the Minister to go more thoroughly into staff appointments in the future in order to avoid stagnation. It is absolutely necessary to keep the whole military body politic healthy. I will endeavour not to criticize except in a constructive way. I think the whole thing at this stage deserves a thorough investigation which would result in a great saving of money and in a much greater degree of efficiency in the future, and above all, the troops would feel that they were being prepared in a more rational manner than is the case at present.

I should like to say a few words on this question of our defence force. I feel that this is not a party question. It is a national question and we have to look at it from that aspect. I feel that we have now come to a time in the history of the world when we will have an era of peace on earth and goodwill to men. We have to look to the League of Nations. Some optimists think that an era is coming when there will be no more war. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not share these views. Human beings being what they are, the one coveting what the other posseses, there will be war. But with regard to South Africa, when we speak about the defence force we have to deal with an asset in our country of which every citizen ought to be proud. We feel at the present moment that we must do all in our power to make the defence force as good and efficient as we possibly can. At the same time, there are certain grievances which have come to me and to others who have taken an interest in the defence force. When we were students, we were members in our volunteer force. We went through war and we had our own experiences, but now what is the present position in South Africa? We find in this country that as soon as troubles arise we have to fall back upon the defence force. That is our greatest asset. The burgher forces of the country have to bear the burden of everything. What is spent on them? To-day we spend on defence rifle associations 18s. 1.7d.; on cadets we are spending £1 4s. 8d.; on the active citizens defence force £10 11s. 3d. and on the permanent field force £231 13s. 10d. That is the cost per unit. What is the position of the active citizens force? How many of our young people are capable of handling a gun, riding a horse? Every Dutch-speaking and English-speaking South African ought to be proud of our defence force. I have a letter here in which the writer says in Afrikaans—

That is the trend of mind in which he writes. I know that my hon. friend from Port Elizabeth is satisfied, seeing that the instructions are all given in English. He may laugh at the question, but to us Afrikaans-speaking South Africans it is a question of the greatest importance.

The Minister of Defence has not replied to the speeches on his vote, but I understand he is now prepared to do so. Will the Chairman put the vote again?

I gave ample opportunity for everybody to speak. I put the question twice very clearly.

Mr. Chairman: I admit this is an extraordinary position, but it has happened before, when, by an inadvertence the Minister has not risen. [Cries of “Order !”] I again address myself to the Chairman, and do not intend to be deflected by any cries of “Order !” On this occasion the Minister of Defence was in his place prepared to rise and to reply, and I quite agree with you, Mr. Chairman, put the question clearly and distinctly. When this has happened on previous occasions, the Chairman has been allowed, by common consent, to put the question once again. I now merely ask you to take the sense of the committee, whether you should do so on this occasion. We have put our views on the votes shortly and concisely, and we are entitled to have a reply. If, by an inadvertence, the Minister did not reply, why should we be penalized? We did not rise on this side when the House assembled, because we were waiting to hear the Minister’s reply to the criticism of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I would ask if the Minister of Defence is willing to reply.

May I ask if there is not a motion before the committee to reduce the vote? That motion has not been withdraw.

I moved the reduction of the Minister’s salary.

[Inaudible.]

I am astonished at the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nicholls), who was not here when the sitting commenced. Twice the question was put, after a very considerable interval in between. I wish to point out this: that it is becoming a practice of the Opposition, instead of being here in time, in order to do its duty and to assist in forming a quorum, the members of the Opposition intentionally stay outside in the lobby, until there are sufficient members in the House to form a quorum from the Government benches only. Now I put it to my hon. friend that if, on an occasion like this, they have to suffer by it, who have they to blame but themselves? I wish to say quite distinctly that had not the Chairman complied with the formality, I would, in order, not to teach them, but in order to have the Opposition in a position to teach themselves a lesson, have been against it.

May I put in all seriousness to the Prime Minister that there is a motion which the Chairman did not put, and he proceeded to rush the vote. May I also point out to the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it is the invariable practice for the Minister in charge of the vote to reply to the criticisms which have been raised.

May I say, in fairness to you, Mr. Chairman, one cannot accuse you of rushing the vote. What happened was we sat here expecting the Minister of Defence to reply. Now that you have been reminded by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Mr. O’Brien) that you did not put the amendment, I think it you will allow the matter to be resumed at the stage we started at 8 o’clock.

I understood the hon. member to withdraw his amendment after his speech.

I am sorry if I left that impression, but I did not.

I would like the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) to understand that I did not intend any discourtesy. The principal points the hon. member raised are really connected with and to some extent inseparable from the smallness of our forces. With regard to the occupancy of high staff positions for a long period, it has happened before. The late Sir Henry Lukin was in command of the Cape Colonial forces for eight years, and thereafter for six years was inspector-general of our permanent forces. When the hon. member compares our small establishment with the larger establishments of much larger countries, we are under this difficulty, that the number of our senior officers is very small. The chief of the general staff holds a higher permanent rank than any member of the forces. In other armies, a man goes over to other commands. You have only one way of curing that, and that is by considerably reducing the ages of retirement. As the hon. member will see, that is a matter which is occupying my attention to-day, to see whether one cannot obviate something which leads to considerable disadvantages, such as the long time it takes for a man to reach a certain rank. I come to the hon. member’s remarks on cadet training as the foundation for our forces. Again, he will be interested to know that is a subject which has also been studied by us; in fact, it is a matter of study for us now. Since the Defence Act was passed in 1912, there have been very great changes in the social and industrial life of our people, which make the working of that Act at present in many respects inconvenient. We have by our industrial legislation placed certain obligations on apprentices, and by the institution of our technical colleges, trade classes, and so on, these boys of 19 and 20 find that these more and more clash with their training. A few years ago I appointed a committee, consisting of Gen. Bird and Gen. Taylor and one or two other officers, to investigate the matter and make suggestions. They could not put to me any reasonable suggestion under the Defence Act which would do away with the difficulty. There is another phase. A boy can enter before 21, but when he is 21, if he is called up, he has got to enter. That is just the age when a man probably has emerged from his apprenticeship, when he is a journeyman, and when he may have to leave a place to get work as a journeyman. There are many inconveniences. Furtheremore, take the average boy who has been a cadet and is keen. He leaves school about 16 of 17. He joins up at, perhaps, 19 or 20, and he goes through his drill and training. I contemplate during the recess going into these things, which I have asked my department to study, with a view to the introduction of an amending Bill, if I find it practicable and prudent to seek amendment of the Act. I agree with the hon. member that cadet training could be made of greater use. The idea that cadet training is going to instil in the youthful mind bloodthirsty thoughts, and lead to the formation of brutal habits is—well, I do not wish to be too severe upon people who think so, but it is nonsense. The training altogether apart from its military value is a most excellent one. I may say that our cadet force is something that we have a reasonable right to be proud of. If any hon. member saw the yearly display, say, at the Witwatersrand, and the competition tattoo of cadets, I think he would agree that he would have to find a very smart crack infantry regiment to do any better. This year it must be for the fourth time, I think, that South Africa has won the King’s Trophy of the interempire competition. I may say that it is only in the last two years that we have been able to resume cadet camps. I ask the hon. member to place all the blame on me for delinquencies. I can assure him that my staff is continually impressing upon me every point tending to efficiency. But my idea roughly as to the way in which we might improve things is that, instead of a boy registering in his 17th year, and coming up when he is 21, it would be better for him to register in his 19th year, and come up then, instead of our having to keep track of him for the intervening years. I believe that would be an improvement. I think the hon. member will be the first to admit that neither drill nor shooting makes the entire duty of a soldier. A boy is taught how to drill as a cadet; he is not taught how to fight. Instead of the long continuous training, if I could confine that very largely to specialists, such as machine-gunners and signallers, and so on, and to non-commissioned officers, and try, if I can, to get enough money out of that in order to increase the length of the yearly camps. I believe that would add very much to efficiency. I think we will all agree that if we can avoid spending money over these things, so long as it is compatible with reasonable security, it is not right to spend more money than the actual necessities of the country require. On the question of the cadets, I can assure the hon. member that his ideas are very much in line with my own, but it is necessary that you should have your young men once a year in camp, because that is the most valuable part of the year’s training. Then the hon. member wants the air force divorced from the military service. Hé hinted, I think, that, instead of keeping up the very small active air force we nave, we should rather spend our money on an air force doing civil work.

I said we must have a nucleus.

We have little more than a nucleus. It is a very essential thing to bear in mind that the fighting air service bears the same relation to civil aviation as a cavalry regiment bears to a horse-riding company; in fact, our small force has been rather advancing in the other direction. We have been arranging that in junior ranks the boys are trained together, and that there shall be some interchange between the various arms of the service. It helps considerably that the air force is formed on the short service commission. There are many officers who have been trained as soldiers before being in the air force, and it is exceedingly valuable both to the soldier on the ground and to the soldier in the air for them to know a great deal about one another. I do not think I can see my way to make any change in either the size or the policy of the air force at present. The hon. member spoke of the staff being alive to the future. I can assure him that my staff is constantly studying these problems. I come to the next point. He referred to the growing scarcity of horses in the country, and said that we had to look forward to the growing use of mechanization. In a new departure like this, it is prudent to let the larger countries work out the experimental stage, and not ourselves plunge in until this is done. The hon. member made some comparison between our course and the Australian course for the amount expended. Now he was a trifle unjust to us. He spoke of the whole of our forces as being comprised in the active citizen force. There is regular training going on in the commando forces.

What does your report say about it?

It spoke of the training squadron. As the hon. member will recollect, five years ago there was no training whatever in the country districts of the boys in drill. When I made a commencement the boys were to have four days a year in uniform. That was too hard on the boys and turned out more unsatisfactory. I am going a big step forward, and, instead of this somewhat amateurish sort of training, I am equipping 100 boys in 40 commandos who will be treated, excepting so far as continuous service is concerned, just in the same way as the active citizen force. I intend to give them 12 days’ training in camp, equipped, treated and instructed in all respects as the active citizen force, which, I think, is a considerable advance if I can squeeze the money out.

You say you are going to do these things !

The hon. member is unjust in thinking we are entirely indifferent to these matters. I take a great deal of credit to my staff that the whole organization, both of the active citizen force and the commando system is a great deal better than it was five years ago. So far as the figures quoted by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) are concerned, do not let him forget that in the active citizen force— mostly in the towns—the expenditure is on the youth only. Not a penny is spent on the adult population. You have a population of, say, 500,000, and you have 100,000 adults above the age of 18. On the one hand you concentrate on the adults. On the other hand, it is spread over all ages. Less is spent on training young men, so that the amount per capita spent on the countryside is more than the amount spent on the urban centres, where it is largely spent on the training of young men. I know at the commandants’ conferences which are called periodically, we have had interesting discussions on the commando system. Under the Defence Act there is no population which can be called up for service except in regard to boys of a certain age, and there is a continual complaint that not only the discipline suffers, but there is actual indiscipline as a result. Not only am I getting these men into a disciplined force—and I think the matter requires the fullest consideration—but it is the training squadrons which have advanced the biggest step. The comparison with Australia omits entirely all that enrolled burgher force amounting to 127,000 men. They do attend their rifle drill. There are many commandos which could give a good account of themselves. In the future I agree our attention will have to be increasingly directed to the failing of the young men for this cogent reason; the conditions under which boys are brought up in South Africa has immensely changed in the last generation. Thirty years ago the young man who could not ride or shoot was a rara avis in this country. Today there are a very large number, even in the countryside, who could not stick on a horse, even if you put them on it.

Why this £6,000 increase in horse allowance then?

I will come to that; I am now dealing with the main question of policy. I should like to mention in reply to the hon. member for Wonderboom (DT. van Broekhuizen) when he spoke about a young man at Potchefstroom receiving instruction in English, that you cannot train platoons separately. They must be trained in bulk. If any of these youths wish to get elementary instruction, they can be taken out of the unit and drilled in the language which they know. I would point out that exactly the same thing applies to the countryside. I have attended short courses with officers of commandos, and the medium of instruction is Afrikaans. In squadrons you may have one or two boys who speak English, but they have to toe the line with the rest of their fellows, and be drilled I in the language which the bulk of them understand.

Fifty per cent, of them at Potchefstroom were Afrikaans-speaking.

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions about the training of machine-gunners. Recently, we noticed in the press that the University of Pretoria had decided to form a machine gun unit. I am not clear whether they are provided with guns and equipment. If so, are the weapons of a war pattern type, or drill type only? I should also like to ask the Minister whether this movement on the part of the university has taken place on inspiration from himself or his department. I am anxious to know whether this is indicative of an extension of the training of our machine-gunners in our universities. If so, I welcome it. With regard to remarks made by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) there were two points raised on this subject in which I am particularly interested, namely, in reference to the training of cadets, and his remarks about quick moving and quick hitting. When the hon. the Minister extends the principle of the training of cadets, I hope he will not let them neglect the training of machine-gunners. I hope he will see that their training is efficient, thorough and satisfactory in that weapon. In the circumstances of this country, we have to be very careful in regard to the expenditure of money, and it is necessary to put into the field a small force with a powerful fire effect. The machine gun is the weapon which seems to fill the bill more successfully for many of our requirements, than many others. Drawing on the lessons of the war, hon. members will remember that machine-guns were the weapons which provided the enemy with a surprise. Progress of the enemy was held up by the machine-guns. This was always looked upon as a matter of surprise. The development of the weapon in the war was simply phenomenal. The use of machine-guns in battery form, their use for indirect fire, as well as direct fire, were all new developments which took place then. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether our defence force will profit by the experience gained during that time, and whether it is being made thoroughly familiar and efficient in the handling of machine-guns. Also I should like to ask what is the basis of the machine-gun establishment? Has the Minister equipped our infantry units with Lewis guns or with Vickers guns as well? I would also ask whether Vickers guns are being used as regimental units, brigade units, or divisional units. During the war you will remember that the establishment of machine-guns was completely changed. At the beginning of the war, it was a regimental weapon. The maxim guns were in use then, and every battalion had two. That number was found to be ineffective, and it was increased to four. About 18 months after the war started, these weapons were taken away from regimental control, and given to brigade units. Control was taken out of the hands of the unit commanders, in the line, and put in the hands of the brigadier. The tendency went further six months afterwards, and machine-guns were made entirely a divisional weapon. I should like to ask whether in the South African defence force, the guns are divisional units, or brigade units, or whether they are divided up, and allotted to the various cavalry and infantry regiments. I should also like him to tell me whether facilities exist for training our machine-gunners in the use of these weapons for indirect fire. That was the development I referred to just now, which took place entirely during the Great War. It was found to have a most useful effect.

I sincerely trust the Minister will realize that the remarks I am about to make I am not uttering as criticism. I know from my own experience how I used to look forward to camping out, but the young Afrikaans-speaking volunteers who are attending the defence force camp at Potchefstroom tell me, that they do not receive their instructions in their own language. Then even the forms they have to fill in are only in the English language. This is a very great question with us. We have as chief of the staff an Afrikaans-speaking gentleman, and how he can allow this injustice that his young Afrikaans-speaking soldiers are not allowed to be drilled in Afrikaans. I have figures to show that about 50 per cent, or more of the men attending the Potchefstroom camp are Afrikaans-speaking. Of course, I quite agree that if there are only two or three Afrikanders in a regiment they cannot be drilled in their mother tongue. It is silly to say that military orders cannot be issued in Afrikaans, as we have just as good military expressions in Afrikaans as there are in English. This same spirit of sentiment exists to-day in Belgium over the use of the Flemish language. We here have our own flag—it is a matter of sentiment with us and sentiment rules the world; and if our young soldiers cannot get what they wish, there will be dissatisfaction. There is another point. For many years we have beer, trying to get better weapons for our rifle associations, especially for those on the border. I am not prophesying that there is any danger of war—I hope not, but our border farmers feel this very strongly. We have brought the matter before the Minister and the chief of staff, but nothing is done. We want to build up a defence force which will give satisfaction to the whole of South Africa. We want our young men to feel a pride in it. Dutch and English should come together in the defence force so that they can respect one another and one another’s language. This bringing together of the two races is being done on the football field and in other sports, and that is my ideal. I feel very strongly on this point, my constituents speak about it and in our Afrikaans high schools the cadets are receiving their instructions in Afrikaans. When they leave these schools, and have to do there duty as members of the defence force, the instructions are given in English. This is an injustice.

I do not know whether the hon. member (Dr. van Broekhuizen) speaks from actual experience when he raises the language question; I think he must be speaking from hearsay. I have taken the trouble repeatedly to attend these camps, and I was very much struck with the fact that in the rural camps I heard nothing but Dutch.

I am speaking about the Potchefstrom camp.

Has the hon. member been there? Whenever I am in the neighbourhood of a camp, I attend and I ask the hon. member to do the same. There is a great deal of loose talk about this. The hon. member talks about sentiment, but even in regard to sentiment you must be sure about your facts. I have been very much struck by the fact that in the rural camps of the citizens defence force and not only at rifle association meetings, Afrikaans was the universal language I heard among both men and officers.

I was speaking only of Potchefstroom and not the rural camps.

I asked whether the hon. member spoke from personal knowledge. It is no use badgering the Minister.

The instructions at the Potchefstroom camp were given in English.

There is one point which I look upon as of paramount importance— the military college which we have always regarded as the bed-rock of our defence system. There the officers are trained and I have always felt that the South African military college is the very centre of our defence system. I have no particular knowledge of the working of that institution. I know that efforts have been made for a number of years to improve its character, to see a high tone is maintained, and that the best training is given. The country would like to hear something from the Minister about the work done there; its efficiency, and the military efficiency of the men who come from that institution. I am very glad that the Minister has adhered to the old practice, started years ago, to send limited numbers of our best young men to the staff colleges in England, which is quite necessary for a small force like ours, with a small number of officers, isolated, as we are, from military traditions; it is a good thing to keep up with centres of advanced training in the old world, and it was for that reason that the scheme was started, I believe, 20 years ago.

In that way we keep touch with developments in the old world, and these young men come back to us with the latest information and methods and they help to bring fresh ideas and methods into our system. I listened with a great deal of attention to the statement made by the Minister. I assure him the committee is indebted to him for the information he has given, and also for the points raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), I noted the statement of the Minister that he intends to amend the Defence Act, if possible, and if necessary, next year. I also noted the point he made in regard to the various subjects to which he referred, and I noticed he seemed to be unfavourable to a feature of the defence system to which I always pay a good deal of attention—I mean, the defence rifle associations. The Minister seems to think it is questionable whether the money spent on wapenskous is worth while. Now I do not agree with him there. I do not know if that is his opinion, or he is merely tentatively putting forward that view. To my mind, these associations are a very valuable contact with our past, and represent the traditional system, the old commando system, of South Africa. I remember when the present Act was passed in 1912 the late Gen Beyers condemned its other features, but said this was its most valuable feature, which reconciled him to the Act. Well, ideas have changed a great deal, and we have seen that the training of the young 1s the more important part of the business; still it is very necessary to keep up the old system, and our contact with the past, and keep up the commando system. We have men of much experience in the country, and we pay very little for it. They keep up their shooting, and they come together. Even from the social point of view, it has extreme value, and I believe it has besides a great military value. Our active citizens’ force is so young that we want something else; we also want the old guard which has seen South Africa through all its troubles in the past. What we pay is not too much to pay for it. I hope, whatever amendments may be forthcoming next year or afterwards, we shall not break our contacts with the past, because it will give a great shock to the old burgher, who loves his rifle almost as much as his wife, if we should prevent them from coming together and having their shoot. With regard to the other points that have been raised, I agree very forcibly with the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and with the Minister that cadet training is a most important feature of our system, and I shall not continue to discuss that further, because there was a time when people looked upon the movement as unwholesome, as an attempt to introduce unnecessary militarism in the schools, and as a fad mostly from the towns; but views and opinions have changed, and now it is common ground that the training of the young in schools in their most impressionable years in methods of drill and discipline, is the best foundation for their future training. [Time limit.]

I do not think the right hon. member, in the last part of his speech—

I thank the Minister for giving me this opportunity of going on. To teach boys how to carry themselves physically— quite apart from the military aspect of the question—is a great thing to the modern boy. This loose, slouching habit of walking which we commonly see in our community is most detrimental, and is even morally detrimental to our youth; and the cadet system, by instilling habits of uprightness, drilling, discipline, and physical carriage, is most helpful to the boys, in addition to being a good foundation for the military system of this country. I am glad the Minister is going into this system of extending camps, which is the best training that can be given to these youngsters. There is nothing wrong with the Defence Act; the practice can be elastic, and it is so shaped that in the future we can get something better out of the active citizens’ force than we have had. There is no doubt that the best method is these camps, and the more of them we have, within reason, the better. I should like very much to hear from the Minister a statement about the camp at Potchefstroom. He was there, and the country would like to know what his impressions as Minister of Defence are of the work that was done there. My own opinion is that that is the best work done in connection with our active force. The casual training meets with many difficulties. It bumps up against our industrial system, but there could be no objection to young men having a couple of weeks’ holiday to go to annual camps, and the training there is worth while, and the expenditure upon it is money well spent by the country. The idea of the hon. the Minister of the extension of the training squadrons is all to the good. I hope that idea will be duly carried out. The weakness of the training squadrons is that the training is much too short. The men come together for five days. The first day little is done, and the last day they are packing, and they have three days to go through their manoeuvres and all that is necessary. The Minister knows it, and his staff knows it, and everybody has felt that this is not worth while, but if this system is extended in its scope to a period of 12 days, that will be something much better. I would like to see it extended to 15 days, because in that case I think we should have something really valuable. Let me say a word with regard to the size of our army. We can never aspire to having a big army Perhaps it will be a waste of money, but a small trained army, mechanized and very mobile, is a very good equivalent for the enormous numbers of the old army. In the Peace treaty the German army was confined to the paltry number of 100,000, but the Germans have trained them so well that the high quality and high mechanization have entirely revolutionized the German army. I think we shall have to keep that in mind, for we shall not always be up against the old sort of situation which we have traditionally faced in South Africa. I love the man on horseback, but there is no doubt that if our defence force is to be a practicable thing, and nobody knows what the future will be, then we want to see that the very small army which we can maintain here is as good as possible, and the Minister will from this point of view have to go very carefully into these questions of mobility and mechanization and the like. Take the matter of tanks. My hon. friend behind me was talking of training with machineguns. Training with machine-guns is, of course, absolutely necessary. We learnt, during the war, that our opponents were far more highly trained with machine-guns than we were, but the machine-gunner is now usually put into a tank, and it is a question whether we should not have, on a small scale, a tank section joined to our other arms of defence. It is a serious question, and I would suggest to the Minister that his chief staff officer, a very able and well-informed gentleman, should go into that question when he goes to London with the Prime Minister. I think it is a necessary adjunct to our system. I do not say a word about our air force, because I think that is a very good force. We have men of the highest training, and men of the greatest ability. It is a very small force, but for its size, it is equal to anything that we may have to deal with. I think we might be able to make a move in the directions I have indicated as necessary if our future army is to be up to date, and to be able to cope with the sort of situation which might conceivably arise.

I cannot help remarking upon the change which has come over the right hon. gentleman since he complained that I was going back on the old commando system. I cannot quite divest myself of the thought that perhaps he took me up at that time for the purpose of striking a note of alarm in the countryside with regard to the D.R.A. The keeping of contact with tradition is of immense value, but we cannot eat our cake and have it. It is no good grumbling to me because there are not more rifles in the countryside, and at the same time complaining that there is not more training. It is no use saying that I do not value the services of the officers in the countryside. The country owes an immense debt of gratitude to the officers who give up their time and who work gratuitously in helping and training, but with regard to the country system difficulties continually confront me how to combine the necessary training with the large numbers. Many believe that in course of time we shall have to develop the squadron training system and help the rifle associations, but, in the meantime, extending the squadron training system so that men, when called up on commando will know just the place to fit in. The right hon. gentleman asked for information about the military college. It is doing exceedingly useful work. I do not propose to go into details, but I shall be glad to show any hon. member interested the yearly programme. The work of the college, in giving instructions, permeates the whole countryside, the active citizen force, and the commando forces, giving information of immense value.

How many attend?

There are, in the September course, between 70 and 80 engaged in various courses. I could not give you the total number who receive instruction in the course of a year, but it is a very large one. We send men to the air staff college, and also try to interchange officers and so keep ourselves up-to-date. Regarding the last point mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, mechanization, well, these are all very nice suggestions, but they all cost money. I should like both sides of the House and my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, to be in the mood to give us all the money we want. As it is, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. We are paying attention to mechanization, and I have, after reading very confidential reports at our disposal, deliberately from year to year—as we do with the air force—put off the re-equipment until the experimental stage is passed. With regard to the arms of the B.R.A., we are giving them double the ordinary allowance. Every one of them can get a rifle from our stores at cost price, which is just over half what they would have to pay anywhere else. I want to revert to the question of the B.R.A. Soon after I took office, I remember going down to the Free State, and, in a friendly talk with the officers, we discussed the difficulties, and I suggested that, in order to be able to provide the facilities required, with fewer numbers it might be done. As a result, a little later it was reported that I wanted to abolish the commandos, or to reduce them to exigent numbers. That was not my intention at all, but we are continually confronted with this dilemma, that if one wants the complete training, which many desire, with the means the country can afford, it can only be done by concentrating on a smaller number. If you want to have it widespread, it is no use to complain because a very large number of men cannot be fully trained at the same expense. I should like members connected with the countryside to give this matter some thought. The solution is to extend this training squadron system so that the young men, at least, shall get a measure of complete training.

I just want to say a few words in support of what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) said about uni-lingual instruction in the training camp at Potchefstroom. I had the privilege of visiting that training camp. Although the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) issued a challenge here, and wanted to create the impression that in most cases Afrikaans was also made use of, I only want to say that I attended the sham fight, and it immediately struck me that in not a single case did I hear a word of command in Afrikaans. I thought that they were exclusively English-speaking people who were being trained there, and I then tried to find out if it was so. I spoke to the man, and I do not remember a single case where I did not get an Afrikaans reply. I then got the impression that a large section of the men were Afrikaans-speaking. I asked the officers a question about it, and was assured that even the majority of the Transvaal Scottish were Afrikaans-speaking. I must honestly say that I felt disappointed, because I received the impression that the Afrikaans-speaking section could not feel at home in that force. I was invited to visit that training camp, but it is my duty to say the impression I got there. If we want the Afrikaans-speaking men to feel at home in the defence force we must show respect for their language. I just wanted to say these few words in support of what the hon. member for Wonderboom said.

I want to question the Minister as to the method adopted in selecting the youths for the camps. I want to suggest to him, as he put a good deal of stress on the training and value of the cadets, that when they have spent a period of years in the cadets, that should be counted to them for a certain amount of service. In a certain commercial office, it was suggested to me that the chief clerk in that office was selected to go to the camp, and that other five were left out, who could all have been allowed to go, but the manager of the office was called up. I am wondering whether there is not some method of seeing that this type of man who had already done five years’ service in the cadets, could not be exempted. I want, the hon. Minister to consider that.

A man with four years’ service is not required any more.

That was in the cadets, and he was selected for this camp at Potchefstroom.

No, I am afraid the hon. member has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The cadets do not go to camp at Potchefstroom.

The Minister says that social circumstances have to be considered. Apprentices and commercial servants are not able to give the same time as it was anticipated they should give 18 years ago. In the amending Bill I ask the hon. Minister to consider whether a man who has seen service in the cadets should not be relieved from some service in the camp.

That is a matter which we shall have to consider when the time comes. I hope that hon. members will not encourage people to ask for exemption. I take the view that the less I interfere with the discretion of the commanding officers the better it will be, after full enqiury. Otherwise, I should get any quantity of applications for exemption from people who will try to get on my short side. If I understood the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) he said that the majority of the men in camp were Afrikaans-speaking. I think the hon. member is wrong. I am speaking subject to correction and subject to statistics.

What is the percentage?

I cannot possibly tell you. I have never had the question raised before. So far as I know, I do not know of anyone who is not given instruction in Afrikaans if he wants it. You must remember that these units from their raising have been drilled in English. In those days, I should think that 90 per cent, of them were English-speaking. I should like to point out that fair play is bonny play. Take a boy in a training squad at Rustenberg. The officer commanding will train him and give him instructions in Afrikaans, and an English-speaking boy is entitled to something. We want to hold the balance even, fifty-fifty in the matter. I have heard of no complaints in regard to this language question. I was down at the camp for two days and I do not remember the question being mentioned at all. We had a whole brigade there, one regiment from Grahamstown, one from East London, one from Port Elizabeth and one from Durban. We had a whole brigade. We had a Johannesburg and Pretoria brigade, and the very great bulk of people in that camp were English-speaking. I do not think there was scarcely a single boy who did not understand English and there was no hardship or complaint that I heard of. There is the best of good feeling amongst these boys. They talk in one language or in the other, and I believe that the defence force camp has done much good to bring the two together. In the countryside I expect to hear Afrikaans and only Afrikaans, but I ask hon. members not to bring forward questions like this when the persons concerned are not grousing at all.

Yes, they are.

There may be one or two who write to the hon. member. I think throughout the country that anyone who has a grouse against the defence department will find a spokesman in the hon. member. In a camp of 5,000 men, such as we had at Potchefstroom, I should like to know how many letters the hon. member received.

That is not the question.

At all events I have had no representations made to me, or, so far as I know, to any of the officers commanding down there. Again, I would like to point out that the two languages have equal rights. When these men are mainly English, surely you will not disturb their institutions unless there is a real demand for it. As far as I know, all instructions are given in Afrikaans in every commando throughout the countryside. I think the camp at Potchefstroom was the most successful in the history of the defence force. It was a well-organized camp and exceedingly well conducted.

I have heard nothing of these complaints from Potchefstroom.

It was an exceedingly successful camp and a good deal of most serious work was done. I noticed an immense improvement over the first camp I went over five or six years ago. It was a well-conducted camp and good feeling existed between the youngsters.

I am the last man who wanted to speak about the language to-night, but as the Minister has dealt with it I went into the matter again and if it is said that notice which I have already done, but upon which I never got satisfaction, viz., the examination paper for candidates of the Air Force. I went into the matter again and it is said that the papers are also set in Afrikaans then it amounts to nothing if the candidates never get them. That is apparently the position. As one who had to do with the Defence Force I can well remember how glad I was about the whole matter in 1912, because I felt that that force would be a refuge for hundreds and subsequently thousands of young South Africans. I continued to take great interest in the history of the force, and I am more than sorry that I cannot give the greatest praise to-night to the Defence Force. When I see that an amount of £940,000 is spent then the question involuntarily arises whether the amount is justified, in view of what we are getting to-day. I think that it is not justified. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) spoke about a small, but highly trained, force. I think we agree with what he said, but when an army is highly trained we expect satisfaction as well. I consider it a sad phenomenon that the satisfaction is not general. Three years ago an officer of the Defence Force told me that if there were 500 vacancies in the Police Force they could immediately be filled up from the Defence Force. One feels inclined to ask whether the position is better to-day, but unfortunately I feel that it is not. As the member for Pretoria (West), I am in the position of having military barracks in my constituency, and Roberts Heights also comes in it. As an old soldier, I am in a particularly difficult position. I constantly hear of the dissatisfaction that exists. I know that the soldier is eternally complaining, but, as one who was accustomed for eighteen years to investigate cases, I can anyhow assure the Minister that many of the complaints are well grounded. I cannot go into details, but will discuss certain things with the Minister. I have always found him extremely friendly and obliging when I wanted to bring something to his notice. Now I just want to confine myself to one point to-night. I can remember how the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) at the opening of the Military College in 1912, when he honoured me with a post on the staff of the college, said—I think in a jocular way—that if the then House of Assembly had understood the full details of the Defence Force they would never have agreed to it at all. I think that he stated that. The whole defence scheme was, in any case, nothing but an experiment, and I think the time has now come to enquire whether it has been a success. Undoubtedly there are certain parts of this scheme that have been successful, but there are also many parts in connection with which great improvements could be effected. I remember that the Minister, at that time, called me in in connection with a scheme about the artillery. He wanted to break up the small corps of about three batteries, and send the guns to various parts of the Union where they could then be used as models for citizen batteries. With all respect I differed from him because my experience was that the secret of the artillery was esprit de corps. It is an extremely technical arm, and by virtue of my experience as an officer of the State artillery I can say that citizen batteries were tried in various parts of the world, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but were a failure everywhere. I am talking of years past, but they were tried and were a complete failure. Much money is spent on this sort of thing, and my question is why the artillery, which is established at Roberts Heights, is not rather strengthened a little, and, e.g., increased to five batteries. Our Air Force, which I do not want to criticize, and which, in my opinion, is excellent, might also get a little more money. During the operations of the coastal heavy guns which I attended as well as the operations of the light cruisers a little while ago it became clear to me that they would put our fort guns of 9.2 inches and 6 inch out of action within half an hour with their 6 inch heavy guns because the former were obsolete. I cannot go deeply into these things, but feel that we must, enquire whether the operations were a success. If a small commission were appointed it would be found that there is much room for improvement, and the force can be made more effective. We have heard a lot about rifle associations to-night. It struck me when I went on inspection duty that when I arrived at places where rifle practices were to be held a quantity of rifles was served out. I can no longer shoot so well, but at that time I was a particularly good shot, and I noticed what poor shots the people were. The people did not know the rifles, and I think that in those days the rifles were served out on the basis of 10 per cent., i.e., ten rifles for a hundred men. [Time limit.]

I would like some information from the Minister as to the training of the artillery, and more particularly on the points raised by the hon. member who has just sat down. I understand one or more of the batteries on Roberts Heights have been split up into sections and placed in different parts of the country to act as a nucleus for the training of our citizen force. The Minister will agree with me that a section of our artillery cannot provide that training which promotes efficiency to those whom it instructs. It gets only a small portion of the training that is necessary. Are opportunities given to these sections to keep up their battery or brigade training? Are the units they instruct given any opportunities for such training? I raise this point more particularly because I see there is an ammunition decrease of about £700 and I cannot see any provision for the training camp. With regard to the garrison artillery, the system is, we have a nucleus of the more highly trained specialists or technical specialists—a sort of backbone and skeleton. I would like information whether the number of men required for manning the force and serving the guns is really sufficient for the defence of the Cape Peninsula. As I understand the position, it does not seem to be nearly sufficient for the time of war. Is it the policy of the Government to bring the Cape Garrison Artillery up to the strength which is necessary to man the forts in time of war? I see no sign in the Votes for such an increase. There is a decrease in regard to ammunition and rations, and an increase of only £200 in allowances over the previous year’s estimates of £2,000. Are sufficient steps being taken to give them the necessary training? I wish the Minister to give us some assurance that the necessary facilities for training are given in that necessary unit of the Defence Force. I want to refer to the proposed sale of the Wynberg camp. Towards the end of last year it was announced that a portion of it would be sold for building plots. Since then nothing has been done in the direction of carrying out that sale and I hope the policy of selling off any portion has been reconsidered. I see the Minister shakes his head, but if he allows me, it appears to me that policy seems to me shortsighted. You must have a force to man the forts in time of war. The Minister or one of his successors may be faced with having a large force of infantry in the Cape Peninsula and no place to put them, and the Government of the day may be forced to acquire further land. I suggest the Minister ought to reconsider, as a matter of policy, whether he should sell off any portion. It is true the camp is occupied only by a very small nucleus of troops at the moment. If he is not prepared to reconsider that policy, I would like some information whether account will be taken of the requirements of Wynberg and of the Cape Peninsula generally in connection with land for schools and hospitals because some of the schools there are very short of ground for recreation and other purposes. The Minister says he is prepared to sell it to them, but I would remind him that when that land was transferred from the old Cape Government, it was on condition that if it was not used for the defence of the Cape Peninsula, it would revert to the Cape; and I make bold to say that in the days of the old Cape Government if the Government had decided that it did not require that land for the defence of the Cape Peninsula it would have given the community concerned an opportunity of acquiring it on the most favourable terms; in fact, it might have given it away to the schools and hospitals if it was not required for defence purposes. Now the Minister is making them pay very heavily indeed if they want land there, and I suggest it should be put to the Government that if that land is not required for defence purposes, it should be devoted to the next best public object, or to school or hospital purposes. At any rate, I would like to know whether the Minister is going to require that before a school board or a hospital board can get a yard of that ground, they have got to pay for it. There is the further question also that in any sub-division of land in the Cape Province, a certain amount of land has to be set aside for school purposes. [Time limit.]

I fear that I should be neglecting my duty to the public and certain members of the Defence Force if I did not at this stage mention what I know about what is going on in the Defence Force. What influenced me to sneak was the speech of the hon. leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts). In it be said that Afrikaans could not fully come into its rights in the Defence Force. Afrikaans was, e.g., not treated on the same footing as the other language in the Potchefstroom camp have got so accustomed to Afrikaans had never been complaints about it. I must say that I can quite understand it. It happens every year and persons who go to the training camp have got so accustomed to Afrikaans being neglected that no one will make a complaint on the subject. I admit that it will be fairly difficult to have orders given in two languages. We must remember the camp only lasts ten days, and the time must be used to the best purpose, and it is possibly not easy to use both languages in the technical branches, e.g., I now, however, want to discuss another aspect of the matter where Afrikaans suffers, and where it is not necessary. It is when we get closer to headquarters, as for instance the Military College at Roberts Heights which the hon. member for Standerton also referred to. With regard to that college I can say that I know from my own experience that not so long ago a senior officer, a major, summarily left the institution because he could not get lectures in his own language. He even asked an officer to give a lecture in Afrikaans, but the officer replied that he could not do so. I may say that the same persons who were in charge at that time are still, for the most part, in charge, and I do not believe that they have changed their attitude. We must realize that that institution consists of quite a number of departments, such as the central department, the signalling section, etc. I am now going to speak more particularly about what occurs at examinations in the signalling section. Candidates were permitted to entirely use their own language and consequently the uni-lingual person could use his language, accordingly bilingualism did not come into its rights. I must go back to the history of the college, and I hope hon. members will not think that I am raking up old stories because the conditions are more or less the same to-day. I remember the case where a non-commissioned officer spoke Afrikaans in the billiard room, one of his friends present criticized him for using Afrikaans in the building, the non-commissioned officer concerned had ultimately to appear before the then adjutant of the college and was reprimanded. This person who gave the reprimand because the non-commissioned officer used certain Afrikaans words is still in an important post at the college to-day. Are hon. members surprised in such circumstances that Afrikaans is still pushed into the background in that institution? There is another point which I want to call attention to, viz., the way promotions are made in the Defence Force. I remember the case of two men who joined the Defence Force, and who were both fairly well qualified from the point of view of school education. One belonged to this party, and the other of the party at that time in office. The first passed a good military examination but he never could get proper promotion, and that in spite of the fact that during the great war he rendered very good service. The other who passed his examination in the third class was subsequently specially selected and promoted far above the first-named, although the last-named had never done any service in the field. The same person who was responsible for that irregular promotion still controls promotions today, and I do not think he has changed his attitude. I think the proverb applies that the leopard cannot change his spots. I do not want to treat all responsible officers alike, but still I think that the Minister cannot be satisfied with that policy. I must say there have been considrale improvements, but even to-day there is not yet equal treatment with regard to the languages. There is a further point I want to refer to, in connection with what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) said about the effectiveness of our Defence Force. If we want to train our Defence Force in view of trouble which may come from outside, then hon. members will admit that it will cost a tremendous amount and that it is hardly possible. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister if he would explain the increased expenditure on items J4, 5 and 8; whether that is connected with certain further development of the defence force rifle association. I notice a large increase in uniforms and a large amount set aside for horses, either for buying or hiring them; I do not know which. I should like to reply briefly to the hon. members for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen), Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) and Lichtenberg (Mr. Swanepoel). I think it is regrettable that questions of language should have been introduced into this debate. The hon. member for Wonderboom when challenged by the Chairman refused to say how many letters he had received. I understand the forces at Potchefstroom were drawn from Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria, East London, Queenstown, Grahamstown, Kingwilliamstown and Port Elizabeth. Those centres are largely English-speaking centres. Is it any wonder that the language used in training should be English? Surely hon. members ought to be content that, where the majority are Afrikaansspeaking, the use of English is not insisted upon? Hon. members should refrain from trying to create discord in a matter like this. I have visited many of these camps, and have never seen anything but the utmost goodwill prevailing. Like the Minister, I have always looked on these camps as being one of the best means of bringing the youths of the country together. During their off time, they would speak to each other in English or Dutch; they were not concerned as to whether names were English or Dutch; they were simply soldiers working together and training together. We must always bear in mind that in the regiments from these particular centres the great bulk of the officers are English-speaking. Here are men who give up a lot of their own time in the interests of the country. Simply because they cannot give the words of command in Afrikaans, they are criticized by members of the House, who ought to have better sense than to create discord in that way. The country owes a debt of gratitude to the men who help to train the forces. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), speaking in the question of leave, suggested that the Minister should take into consideration the question of counting the period of years they spend in the cadets for a certain amount of service. This, I understand, is at present the case, but when it comes to inconveniencing a man’s business by requiring his clerks to go through a training camp, I cannot agree, and I hope the Minister will not in any way relax the question of leave from training at the citizens’ camps.

I just want to say a few words about this matter. The time has come that there must be an alteration in our defence system. In suggesting this alteration, I must unfortunately differ from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who has great experience of military matters. I listened very attentively to what the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) said here. It was instructive to me, but if we take the hint of the hon. member for Standerton we find that it is directly in conflict with the suggestions of that hon. member. The hon. member for Standerton is in favour of the commando system, but he must leave sentiment out of the matter. I have every respect for that sentiment, because I know that the people attach great value to the commando system, and are very much in favour of it. But the question purely is whether the commando system is not a matter of the past). If we want to discuss an extension of the defence system, then we must at once bear in mind the cost of it. I want to suggest something which aims at economy, but which at the same time is also intended to make our defence system more effective. When the Act of 1912 was passed, the commando system was apparently still a good thing for our country, but since that time there has been a change in the method of conducting war. It has made great advances scientifically, and if our country had to deal with the matter to-day that Act would probably not be passed. Under the commando system we have the system of rifle associations and Wapenshaws, but I already explained last year that rifle associations and Wapenshaws do not bring about any discipline, and when there is no war discipline there can be no proper military organization. I, however, do not wish to dwell on this point any longer. I think that what I have said is generally accepted. I want to quote a few figures to show what the position in our country is at present. As the hon. member for Standerton has already said, there are only a small number of able-bodied men in the country. Between the age of 17 years and 60 years there are, according to the census reports, 473,183 men in the country of whom only about 260,000 are physically fit for war. This is a small number, and consequently the quality of discipline and training must be so much higher to make our defence force effective. If we have a small number of men, then we must try to get the best system of training, so that they can get the highest amount of military knowledge and discipline. I want to quote another figure, viz., that there are about 17,000 boys who reach the age of 17 years every year. About 11,000 of them are able-bodied. Now we come to the question of cost, because it is useless making these proposals regardless of their cost. We must abolish the commando system, although I admit that there is great sentiment attached to it, and, therefore, I do not, myself, want the whole system immediately to be abolished summarily. We can abolish the commandos, but let us increase the active citizen force on the countryside, and also the cadet system in the country schools. It is well known that the discipline which the boys acquire as cadets is one of the best influences in forming their characters. There are about 133,000 citizen soldiers in the rifle associations, and it costs the state £127,000 a year. There are about 8,700 units in the active citizen force, and it costs the country £91,070. The members of the active citizen force mostly come from the large towns. What I now wish to propose is that we should take the money spent on the commandos, and we could then train and properly exercise the 11,000 boys who, each year, reach the age of 17 years. They, therefore, get training at school as cadets, and between the years of 17 and 21 training in the active citizen force. In this way we shall get an efficient and effective citizen force. Hon. members will at once ask what about the defence rifle associations. We call, and consider, these rifle associations military organizations, and they do more harm than good. We can allow the rifle associations to continue as private clubs, and the state can supply their requirements at cost price. With the present rifle associations boys are growing up on the countryside who do not know and learn that an officer is someone who ought to be respected, with the result that there is no discipline. I know that there is sentiment in connection with the rifle associations, and therefore we can allow them to continue as private clubs, but let us see to it that our sons are better trained. Then I want to emphasize something else. The boys of to-day have had better opportunities of schooling than their parents, and therefore the position often is that the boys, when they reach 17 years of age, are better educated than their parents. Their parents, unfortunately, let them understand this, with the result that there is a strong tendency amongst those boys to get too big for their boots. Nothing could be better for strengthening this slackness in their character than a military training. Then I also want to say a few words in connection with the batteries, and extensions to the countryside. We are here concerned with something which requires the greatest science and knowledge, and which is much needed in war. We ought rather to locate our batteries near our universities. There we have professors who will teach in one month what the persons on the countryside will not teach in a year possibly. Those people get their training there, and when they are taken in hand we shall train up knowledgeable persons for batteries. I want to make the same proposal in connection with the air force. It is better to place three or four more aeroplanes at each university. [Time limit.]

When my time expired I was talking about the effectiveness of our defence system. I said that it would cost a great deal to make the system effective against attacks from outside, and expressed the opinion that it was not possible. I, therefore, spoke about the effectiveness in connection with external troubles that might arise, and I want to say that although I cannot lay any worked out scheme before the House, the most effective arms that we can use in the country to-day are the aeroplane and the tank. When hon. members talk about increasing the horse artillery then I want to say that it is a very obsolete arm to-day except where motors are used to draw the guns, while small tanks would be an excellent arm in our country, together with the farmer and his rifle in the interior. The tanks, the aeroplanes, and the farmers with their rifles form the most effective defence that is possible for our country. I agree with hon. members who say that the rifle associations on the countryside must not be neglected. We must give them a reasonable chance of developing, and must see that more rifles are made available. Then there is another small point I want to revert to. I spoke about certain highly placed officers who were working in the camp at Roberts Heights. I want to make it quite clear what officers I refer to, they are not English-speaking officers who acted like that, but Afrikaans-speaking officers.

I am sorry that the hon. Minister has not replied to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Borlase) as to his policy in regard to machine guns. This is the most important weapon amongst small arms, and is, I am afraid, in danger of being neglected in South Africa. The machine gun is the weapon of the present day so far as small arms are concerned. It has the three essentials that are peculiarly required for war in this country. The three important points about the machine gun is its extreme mobility, the economy of man power necessary to operate it and the element of surprise in its use. I am inclined to go a little bit further than the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase) and to suggest machine-gun training for rifle associations, and other organizations in the country districts. I would also suggest the establishment of machine gun companies instead of our present machine gun sections. We expend nearly £1,000,000 a year on defence; this money is spent in the supposition, however remote, that hostilities of some sort may break out in South Africa. Suppose that did occur, one of the first things required would be a large number of trained machine-gunners, and trained men cannot be obtained in a week or two. In the remote event of hostilities occurring, not only should we require to use machine-guns in large numbers, but our own forces would have to encounter machine-guns scientifically used. That is why I suggest the possibility of extending training in machine gun work to the rifle associations, for the moral effects of machine-gunfire on troops unaccustomed to face it, are devastating.

There seems to be much heartburning regarding the selection of young men who attend the training camps. All men cannot go to the training camps for various reasons, for the Government cannot cope with all the youths of the country each year. Only some of the men are chosen, and the best naturally are chosen who are going to uphold the dignity and tradition of their regiment. I have been told of a case where two sons in the same family who are helping the father in his business, and who can be spared at great inconvenience, have had to go to camp, while some boys who can be missed easily for a week or two are left at home.

They all have to go to camp.

But there are exemptions, and the fact that one man is exempted while this next door neighbour may have to attend camp causes dissatisfaction. I hope the Minister will consider this and endeavour to amend matters in this direction.

A few years ago I had the opportunity as a young member of the House to say a few words on this vote, and I regret to notice that although it is one of the most important votes about which the people in the interior feel very strongly it is so dealt with here, and matters in connection with it, that the impression is made that little interest is taken in it in this House. One knows that for years one could not go into the interior without finding that the quickest way of stirring up public feeling was to speak about the defence force. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had the opportunity in his time to create such a thing as a defence force for the Union of South Africa. He made a very great effort to become acquainted with all the various defence laws of the world, and to study them, and even went abroad, and in 1912 and 1913 when he created the defence force in the Union he said that the best parts of the best defence laws of the whole world had been adopted. Our small population cherished great expectations from time to time, but they were not satisfied with our defence force as constituted on the basis of the best of all the defence forces of the world. Where is the mistake causing dissatisfaction of the people? They were not satisfied in 1922, 1923, and 1924. The people felt that what they expected had not been done. If the previous Government fell short then I am very sorry to say that the people are not very well pleased with what the present Government has done.

What do the people want?

My hon. friend possibly knows nothing about defence. He possibly never bore arms. We can quite understand that the people who have always lived at the Cape know little of the position, and one gets these cheap observations. I have had the privilege recently of examining our coastal defences. I had the opportunity of inspecting all batteries of our Defence Force, and also of inspecting the British fleet, at any rate the portion that is stationed here to defend us, and for which we pay a sum of money every year. I had an opportunity a few weeks ago of visiting the citizen force at Potchefstroom, and looking round a bit there, and I must say that as far as I, as a citizen, can judge of the Defence Force, I am quite disappointed with the whole lot. It is not for me to say that we ought to make the taxpayer pay more, but that £940,000 which is spent for defence purposes is spent in a very remarkable manner. Take, e.g., rifle associations. There are possibly hon. members who do not take much interest in them, and who never attend the meetings of rifle associations, but in the north the burghers attach much importance to rifle associations, and when trouble came in the past the rifle associations were always called up, and at what remuneration? We attached importance to the rifle associations, but as matters are to-day the commandants and the members ask what the Minister intends to do with the rifle associations. I am in fairly close touch with the rifle associations and, according to my information, the people feel that what they expected has not been done for them, and they wish the Minister to clearly say whether he wants them or not. In the past they have stood their ground, and were prepared to do so, and they only ask now what the Minister’s intentions are. The commandant gets £60 a year to-day, and has to look after the whole commando which often embraces the whole district, for that amount. A member of the provincial council does not do the work expected of a commandant, if the latter does his duty. There is consequently a spirit of demoralization in the rifle associations. If the Minister thinks that those men are no longer required for cur defence, let him say so. I visited the coastal batteries, the British fleet at Simonstown, and the Minister’s army at Potchefstroom, and had a good look round, and was bitterly disappointed. I went to all these places, and in not a single case did I hear an order given in Afrikaans, although many of the 6,000 young men at Potchefstroom must surely have been Afrikaners. Hon. members may laugh, but I have two sons myself, and I would not like to send them to Potchefstroom knowing that that is the state of affairs there. [Time limit.]

There is some information which I should like from the Minister. In the past as far as training squadrons from the towns are concerned, they were fully equipped with uniforms, rifles and arms, but so far as the compulsory training of squadrons in the countryside is concerned, they were absolutely minus uniforms, and these young fellows were to be seen at the training camp arrayed in all the colours of the rainbow. That is a very sad state of affairs. If you want to inculcate proper military discipline it is absolutely essential to have uniforms. I see on the estimates this year that a far larger amount is being provided for uniforms as far as the Defence Force Rifle Association is concerned. I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is his intention to equip the whole or the compulsory squadrons with uniforms. There is another point on which I should like information. Commandants have informed me that they consider it a serious defect that commandants and defence officers do not possess disciplinary powers. I need not labour this point, but I think it must be clear to everyone that where you have a military or even a semi-military system, discipline is of the utmost importance. If these officers have no disciplinary powers over their men, these rifle associations do not serve the purpose to which they were intended. I would ask the hon. Minister whether it is not possible in the future to grant to these commandants and other officers the same disciplinary powers which officers in other military bodies possess. I trust, if the Minister considers that this is a difficulty, that he will take steps to grant these very necessary powers to our district commandants.

We are asked to vote the small amount of £940,000 for this important vote, and I should like to bring something to the notice of the Minister which deeply concerns our people. Unfortunately we do not always know what the Minister’s reply is, because we back benchers here are often in the unsatisfactory position of not always being able to hear what the Minister says. The Defence Force is, in our opinion, the vulnerable spot in our national existence, and it is therefore important for us to give our attention to it. I have also seen the coastal batteries, and, just like my hon. friend next to me, was very disappointed. I want to ask the Minister what the object is, and whom, and what the batteries are to protect. The coastal batteries can shoot five miles, but no ship will come so close because the guns of modern ships have a much longer range, so that the whole battery serves no purpose. Assume, e.g., that enemy ships come to within a hundred miles of the coast, and their aeroplanes bombard Simonstown, what is the use in that case of our coastal defences? Those coastal batteries are obsolete, and we may just as well abandon that kind of defence. I would recommend the Government rather to spend the money on aerodromes, e.g., one in the midlands, and one up the coast, so that we can ward off any attack with our aeroplanes. As for the rifle associations. I want to point out that the operations of those associations are not compulsory. I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to make it compulsory to attend the operations. A small commando recently held a manoeuvre in the Free State and out of 500 to 600 men 100 were present. In the existing circumstances that is a farce, and instead of dissolving the rifle associations, the Minister should make it compulsory for the members to attend their meetings, and he must authorise the commandant to punish a man if he does not attend the meeting. I also want to point out that the Defence Force is not popular with the Afrikaans section of our people because Afrikaans does not get justice. Of the 34 officers in Capetown there are 31 who do not speak Afrikaans. Similarly, there are other things, and although I do not want to object unnecessarily, I want to point out that in the towns we have the “Dukes,” and the Scottish regiments. We do not wish to hurt the feelings of the English people, but they must not hurt those of the Afrikaans. We have, unfortunately, had a tragic war in our country, and there are wounds that are not yet healed. When, e.g., I see those men in their kilts or their helmets it always reminds me of the second war of independence. In heavens name then let us get a uniform which Afrikaans speaking people can honour as well. Our existing system is ineffective, un-South African, and too expensive. We cannot continue it any longer. We speak about a motor-car being “overhauled,” that must also be done with our defence system.

I do not want to add unnecessarily to the embarrassment of the Minister of Defence, who is sufficiently embarrassed already by the hostility of speakers on the Government benches. The complaint, however, of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) is not that sufficient Afrikaans is not spoken at the training camps, calls for a passing reference, for carefully analysed his complaint is not that more Afrikaans should be employed but that any use at all should be made of the other official language at these camps. Now I know many of these military instructors personally and I know all of them generally as a late staff officer, and I say that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a purely English-speaking instructor to get into the Defence Force to-day. I speak from personal experience. Take the case of my own son, an artillery officer—he is the son of a South African, the grandson of a South African, and the great-grandson of a South African and the great great-grandson of a South African— and in order to earn his livlihood at his own profession he has to leave his own country and has to live under another Government. The mere fact of his appointment to the South African Defence Force would create an uproar on the benches behind the Minister although this is a fact. The whole trouble so far as members opposite are concerned is that the Minister of Defence will not go even further find will not run his department on the same lines as the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture of course is conducting his department on the commando system in its most virulent form, and he and his supporters glory in the fact, but they know perfectly well that if they want the department of defence to be run on identical lines, they must first get rid of the present Minister of Defence. Now what has been the effect of the policy of the Minister of Agriculture? If you want an illustration, go down to the docks to-morrow and you will see a ship sailing for New Zealand carrying South African boys to that country to learn dairying. They have been to Potchefstroom, but have been unable to follow the course, because the instruction given is almost entirely in Afrikaans; they are Natal boys and don’t understand Afrikaans. That is the Nationalist idea of bringing the two races together as carried out by a Nationalist Minister and the idea is growing that the Minister of Defence should follow on those lines. Having all this in view, a very strong feeling is being propagated among certain sections of the community, by certain members on the opposite side, that we should work towards the appointment of a commandant-general. In fact, there are already four would-be commandants-general in the House at the present moment, but this end will not be achieved as long as the present Minister of Defence occupies his present position, so the end is to be attained by other means. Consequently, there is a movement to bring defence under Justice and make the chief commissioner of police commandant-general for the time being, in other words. Apropos of this I put the following question to the Minister of Defence the other day whether it was a fact that the training of the recruits for the South African police at Pretoria had been changed from a police to a military basis, and the answer was “no.” In the last copy of the “Nongqai,” the official police journal of South Africa, the Minister will read an account of a very successful military field day which took place recently in Pretoria, which was carried out entirely by police recruits; a great feature was made of it and it was called a sham fight. Now sham fights died with Queen Victoria and are not heard of now-a-days; field days and field exercises have taken their place. Has the Minister read that report in “Nongqai”? What does it mean? Has it any significance?

If you raise it on my vote, I will tell you. I am responsible.

I have already raised it and you have said that there is no truth in it, so I will go further to-day, and ask the Minister of Defence for his explanation. In that paper they refer to the police as “the first line of defence.” What does this mean? We want to know where we are and what all this means. If the Minister knows anything about it, let him tell us, and if he does not, let him ask his half section sitting on his right, and find out for himself what is really going on.

I want to ask a few questions about a thing which is not clear to me. We know that all the members are anxious to adjourn because it is late, but this is an important matter affecting the future of our people, and we cannot let it pass in silence. I see from the estimates that £13,000 less is to be spent on the defence rifle associations than was done last year. I pointed out last year that our people on the countryside had to wait a long time in the rifle associations. I do not want to speak about high defence, aeroplanes, etc., nor do I speak about the men of the towns, because they can get to the camps easily, I am speaking for the countryside lads who cannot so easily be trained. We must do something more for them. I do not blame the Minister and the Government because more is not done for them, but the people must feel that our protection depends on our own generation, and the people must be ready to pay more for the training of our sons on the countryside. I agree with the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) who said that we must have a commandant-general. It is not merely a matter of sentiment. Our people want to know who their head is, and we must be prepared to pay the money for it, because a commandant-general is necessary.

The English speaking people, as well as the Afrikaans speaking, want to know who their leader is, and then there will be far less complaints. We must develop our own defence system, and not base it on a foreign pattern. I do not want to go further into this matter, but I should like to ask the Minister a question about the officers of the Defence Force. I should like to know when an officer of the Defence Force is in the service of the State. We have cases when the men are called up; they meet with an accident, and think that they are in the service of the State, and that the Government should do something for them. The Minister must clearly state when such an officer is in the service of the State, so that they can know where they are.

In reply to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) with regard to the Wynberg land, I am in the position of a trustee, and I am going to get the best value I can. With regard to the question respecting our citizen batteries our permanent batteries go in for six weeks’ camp, and the citizen batteries go in for their twelve days’ camp. In regard to the £6,000 on the estimates for horse allowance. I think there are 15 mounted and the rest are dismounted.

I thought you were taking away the horses from the I.L.H.

I should like to turn the I.L.H. into a machine gun squadron; I will when I have the money. With regard to J4, 5 and 8, they are all defence force rifle associations. If there are any other points I have not replied to I shall be glad if hon. members will mention them.

With leave of committee amendment withdrawn.

Vote as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote 25, “Labour,” £221,966, put.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported: to resume in committee to-morrow.