laid upon the Papers relating to—

1. (29) Proposed grant in favour of the Postmasburg Village Management Board of Lot No. 90, Postmasburg.
2. (30) Proposed grant of cemetery site at Eerste River, Division of Stellenbosch.
3. (31) Lease of foreshore abutting on Lot No. 30, being Lot No. 4297, Hout Bay, Cape.
4. (32) Proposed grant in favour of the Village Management Board of Oliphants Hoek of Lots Nos. 110-116, Block B and Lots Nos. 117-126, Block E, Oliphants Hoek, Division of Kuruman.
5. (33) Proposed disposal of “Des Duivels Speelplaats,” Division of Uniondale, Cape.
6. (34) Proposed sale out of hand of two blockhouse sites with buildings thereon, formerly portion of the farm “La Plaisant,” near Wolseley, Division of Tulbagh, Cape.
7. (35) Proposed sale out of hand of certain small piece of land adjoining Lot No. 13, Little Brak River, Division of Mossel Bay, Cape.
8. (36) Proposed grant for educational purposes of Lots Nos. 54 and 74, Barkly West, Cape.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Crown Lands.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

As the House knows, the original Land Settlement Act has been amended several times of recent years. It is principally due to the fact that land settlement is a comparatively new part of the national undertakings, not only in our country, but in all other countries of the world. As hon. members know, the first land settlement law was enacted in 1912, thereafter the Act was several times amended, but in general it appeared that the Act was a very good Act. The amendments which became necessary from time to time were required by the great distress which we had to fight against in this as in other lands. As hon. members know, the parent industry of South Africa has been in a very despondent state, especially during the last few years, so bad indeed that even well-to-do farmers with capital of their own have, according to the notices in the Government Gazette, gone insolvent. It follows, therefore, that farmers with little capital had to be assisted by the State to make a success of their holdings. Where we have to do, therefore, with the state of affairs where even farmers of many years’ standing have gone insolvent it has become necessary, owing to the position during the last few years, to bring in this Bill in order to give farmers an opportunity to make a fresh start. May I just give a few figures in connection with what has been done since the passing of the Land Settlement Act in 1912? Since 1912 the ground in the country has been given out under section 11 of the Land Settlement Act measuring 3,825,337 morgen of ground to the value of £2,648,323. This includes 369,484 morgen which has been bought for settlement worth £1,433,535. Then there is other ground which is given out under section 11 of the Act. Under that section people can buy ground upon payment of one-fifth, the State taking responsibility for one-fifths upon itself. Under this scheme 474,885 morgen have been given out to a value of £1,783,962. Under the first scheme there are 3,862 settlers, and 1,525 settlers fall under the scheme of section 11, total 5,387 settlers. Those were the figures up to 31st March, 1924, just a year ago. I have not got the figures from that date until to-day, but since that time the number has considerably increased. Hon. members will understand that because much ground was bought by the Government from 1919 to 1921, i.e., after the war, especially for returned soldiers, the price of the ground in many instances was too high. They were “boom” prices. It is true that the settlers at that time also got fairly high prices for their produce, but after 1921 prices came down and the position became such that the State had to meet them because otherwise they could not make a proper living. Many settlers are in arrear not only with their purchase price but also with interest, refund of advances, etc., and they will have to leave the country if the State acts strongly. If my department insist that all the money must be paid then more than half of the settlers I am certain will have to leave the country. I will just give the House a few figures with reference to the persons who are in default. Upon referring to the book we find that the number is fairly high. Of a little more than 3,442 accounts 2,346 are in arrear. The figures for the four provinces are proportionately fairly equal. In the Transvaal 1,473 of the 2,044 are in arrear. In the Cape Province 450 of 716, Free State 112 of 228 and Natal 311 of 454. The total amount that the settlers owe is £260,197. That includes everything, advances, etc. The figures show that it is necessary to give the settlers a fresh chance. If this is not done many of the people will have to disappear from the land. Now hon. members will possibly think that it is only with us that conditions are so bad but that is not the case. I have seen the reports of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and it appears that the same conditions prevail there. Anyone reading the reports would think every now and then that he was reading a report about the condition of things in South Africa. The settlers there seem to have the same grievances as with us and they ask for the same assistance. I will just give hon. members a few figures from a report relating to Australia. In New Zealand the total amount in arrear up to 31st March, 1924 is £751,556. As I said the amount in arrear with us is £260,000. It is true that the number of settlers there is somewhat larger but the figures show sufficiently clearly that they have there to do with the same conditions that prevail here. In Victoria an amount of £2,083,635 is in arrear in connection with the returned soldiers settlement and £515,332 on the usual closer settlement. Now it is true that the number of settlers there is very large but it appears plainly that they have the same difficulties and in general the state of affairs with us is not worse. Our settlers are not treated worse by the banks than in other countries. It is true we have weak people but we have also extraordinarily good settlers. We have a large number of very good settlers who will succeed but they have, especially in the last few years, had to fight against so many difficulties that it is impossible for them to continue without assistance. After having given these figures to the House I would just like shortly to say something about the provisions of the Bill and how we will meet these people. The first and most important provision is contained in section 18 of the Bill. There it is provided that a longer time will be given to the settlers to pay their arrears. It is proposed in the section to give people who have got ground and to whom 20 years time used to be given, a period of 40 years to complete their payments. In this way the amount which is payable every six months becomes less and the position of the settler becomes much easier. I wish to add that where people have already exercised their option of purchase, the time which has already run will be deducted. If persons have already had an option for four years they will get 36 years to pay off in place of 40 years, and no further extension for payment will be given but that from the moment that the extended time is granted. Those who come under section 11 also get 40 years, but as section 11 differs, namely, that they have the land free for the first two years and only begin to pay interest on capital, etc., the third year they must accordingly pay off in 76 half-yearly instalments. These provisions are necessary, because otherwise the administration will become impossible. Then there is a further important concession with regard to interest. The interest now charged is from 4 to 5 per cent. The former Minister of Lands sent out a circular when money was so dear, and in some instances interest is row 5 per cent. In this Bill it is proposed to bring all the interest on purchase price down to 4 per cent. That is as low as is possible, and no settler can surely expect a still lower rate. There is an amount of £41,676 outstanding on which 4 per cent is now paid, £228.265 upon which 4½ per cent is paid, and £337,679 upon which 5 per cent interest is paid. We now propose to bring all these down to 4 per cent. In the case of the purchase price and to capitalize all the arrear moneys, payment on account of capital, water rights interest, etc., and to spread it over 40 years, the interest will also be 4 per cent on the capitalized amount, but the granting of the privileges will only be granted according to circumstances, and after investigation by the Land Board. If there are persons who can pay, but who do not want to pay, who are unwilling to pay, who regard it as only a debt to the State, then the Land Board will order such a man to pay. Time will only be given in cases where in consequence of drought, locusts, etc., it is necessary and desirable in the opinion of the Land Board. A second very important alteration is made in section 17 by which land boards can recommend the enlargement of the ground. It has appeared that many of the lots issued are too small and of bad quality. Originally the present custom of analyzing the ground before it is thrown open did not exist, therefore it was not previously quite possible to know what the quality of the ground was. It has therefore happened that ground was issued which was brak or stony or unsuited in another way. Recently the Department of Agriculture got a man who has studied in America, and he was sent to the settlements to make a report upon them. In his report he says that there are places where it is impossible for the settlers to make a living. Not alone is the ground in some cases of an inferior quality, but the lots are too small. Now it is proposed here to give me authority, upon the recommendation of the Land Board, and with the consent of the settler, to cancel the agreement in certain cases and to give him in place thereof another lot, so that the old lot can be added to a neighbouring lot in order to form a larger lot in this way. In this manner provision is made for a settler to make a proper living, but there is still another provision, and that is when such a lot has been valued too high I may, upon the recommendation of the Land Board, be able to reduce the price so that the man can make ends meet. The amendments are of the greatest importance, and they are a great concession. If the land boards properly inspect the various settlements and see which lots are too small and which lots are unsuited for agriculture, then alterations can be made so that the settler can work under such conditions that it is possible for him to make a living. A further concession is one concerning the Free State and Transvaal, if a lessee does not exercise his option of purchase of a farm until five years have expired he shall be relieved of land tax. There was dissatisfaction that the people paid their land tax while they were mere lessees, and had not exercised their option, and the Minister could come and cancel the lease. It was not fair. As soon as the person exercises the option he is the owner, but I think it is not fair to make him pay the land tax for the five years. After the expiration of five years he will now have to exercise his option.

What about the Cape Province?

The Cape Province has not got this land tax. Then there is another big concession, and it is this. At the moment the provision exists that if the holding of a person is cancelled and he has made improvements, then he can get compensation according to existing statutes. He can only get this if he can find someone to take over the ground who will then pay him out for the improvements made thereon, but in the very large majority of cases it is not possible to find such a person. In this Bill provision is now made that the Minister of Lands, upon recommendation of the Land Board, can permit payment for such improvements, and it is also applicable when a contract over a holding is cancelled. The Land Board will naturally always take into consideration how the man has behaved and whether he was indifferent or not. Then hon. members will see that there is a further provision which is pretty drastic. In the past, persons borrowed money from the department to buy cattle, and if they sold the cattle we could do nothing. We consulted the legal advisers, but they say we can do nothing because we lent the money to these people and they could thus do what they liked with the cattle they bought with it. In this Bill it is now provided that although we are not responsible for the cattle, that is for the damage they may possibly do, we still possess the condominium with the farmer. The Government retains its say. But we grant the concession that if the settlers improve the holding the value of the improvements can be taken as security for the cost of the cattle, and in this way he can get sole control over them. The amount of the advance for cattle is then added to the purchase price. If he then sells cattle, or if he loses them, the department has the value of them. Then there are further provisions with reference to smaller matters which assist the settlers; they are for those who are already on the land. Regarding future settlers, I may say that these provisions will also apply to them, but then there are others which in my opinion are going to be of great importance and weight in their case. I refer to section 11 of the Bill, The provision at present is that the Minister of Lands, upon the recommendation of the Land Board, can advance four-fifths to the buyer of a holding or farm if he can pay one-fifth of the purchase price. I have met many people who are in the position that the payment of one-fifth of the purchase price so reduces their capital that they cannot go on with the farming or they must shortly after come again to the Government for an advance. It is noticeable how many people there are, especially in the Cape Province, and also elsewhere, who possess horses, sheep, etc., but no ground and who are not in a position to pay that one-fifth share. It is now proposed in this Bill to alter this to one-tenth of the purchase price. Apparently it seems as if this is a concession, but if we look at the matter well from the other point of view that is not the case. In the past the State bought ground, often big mistakes were made and too much was paid for it. This ground was then issued to settlers in the ordinary way, who possibly left after the first two or three years and the State got nothing for it. Under this new measure we have the position that the State has actually guaranteed the interest for two years. The old kind of settlement cost much more than this system because there were always advances made for necessaries, etc., while under this system, we help the man on to the ground and he sees to it from the very commencement that he goes on unaided. He is jointly responsible for the ground that he chooses and there is a greater guarantee that he will make a success of the undertaking than in the other cases. I am convinced that if this provision is adopted it will not result in 50 per cent more settlers but 75 per cent. more. The position is therefore that instead of our going on purchasing ground we shall stop doing so and the people will buy it under section 11. Only in the cases of lots which are too small, as I have said, it will still be necessary for us to buy ground. But it admits of no doubt that it will be much less necessary to buy ground if this provision is adopted. The person has to pay one-tenth, and if he is a progressive man the Bill provides that he can come to the Land Board for an advance.

How much is given to such a man for the purchase of a farm? Is it still £1,200?

Yes, but it differs in the various provinces. It is £1,200 in the Transvaal, in the Free State, it is £1,400, in the Cape it is also £1,400, and I do not know exactly what it is in Natal. It will now of course have to be increased because a person only pays one-tenth. It is one of the points upon which I feel very strongly, and the department has come to the conclusion that it is the soundest position we can have. It is a provision which exists in no other country except in Denmark and it has answered very well there. I feel convinced that it will also be the case here. As I am meeting the settlers in such a generous manner, hon. members will not be surprised that I have made the provisions of the Bill a little more drastic in certain respects. In the first place I have defined what beneficial occupation means. If hon. members will look at the Bill they will see that in section 7 it is provided—

This is a very necessary provision because the settler neglects the holding, especially if he thinks that he will not stay there but will go away. We can then do nothing to him. According to this section it can be regarded as a contravention with a view to cancellation of the contract. Then article 7 (b) reads as follows

This is also necessary because we find that the settler sometimes does nothing but ploughing till the ground is completely exhausted and worth nothing. Then we have (c)—

This provision is also necessary. I can say that we have here to do with provisions regarding occupation which I am going to carry out strictly. We find that people at the moment are living far from the ground and do other work and simply have a native living on the ground. If people do not wish to live on the ground then I shall cancel the contract because then it is no settlement. In some areas a man cannot live on the ground during eight months. On the other hand an absence of four months is again too much on the high veld. It is therefore provided that the respective Land Boards shall decide how long the period of occupation must be in each separate case. In parts that are affected with malaria it is perhaps impossible to remain on the ground for longer than five months. Upon the closer settlements it may be 10 or 11 months. The Minister of Lands will have the right upon the recommendations of the Land Board to extend the period of absence allowed in the case of extraordinary circumstances, but it is provided here in the Bill so that anyone who applies for ground will know where he stands. Permit me to say further something in connection with the extension of the period of payments to 40 years. It must be understood that the privileges under the old provisions must be continued under this Bill. The Bill does not provide that if a person gets money under this Bill he must wait for his title deeds until he has eventually paid off the purchase price. The Minister can, if he, upon the recommendation of the Land Board, thinks that improvements of a certain amount have been made and that a fixed amount has been paid off, decide to give the title deeds to the settler. The law is that he can get it after 5 years if he has made the above improvements and if he does not do that he must wait at least ten years. This Bill does not make any change in this respect. He has 40 years to pay for the ground and retains the same rights.

Do they get mineral rights?

It refers to ground which is bought under sections 10 and 11, i.e., those to whom nine-tenths of the purchase price has been advanced. Where they pay back the full amount the mineral rights vest in them. As I have said there are other details. I will only say that portions of the Bill are not entirely new. My predecessor had already in several speeches announced that he would make some of these alterations. The Bill tends to make the settlements surer and better and to make the conditions more acceptable to the people. There is a tremendous desire amongst our people to obtain ground for farming. It is almost impossible to believe how many applications we receive. For one farm we have had 92. It is never less than 10 except in far off places such as the Kalahari. The average number is between 30 and 40 and as this desire exists and as we are convinced that agricultural development is the best means to bring about the welfare of the State we must make the conditions as easy as possible, and it is with this object in view that I introduce the Bill. My intention is after the second reading to refer the Bill to the Select Committee for Crown Lands. I hope therefore that the discussion on the Bill will not be too long.

seconded the motion.

May I offer a certain amount of commendation to the hon. Minister, and a word of welcome to the Bill he has introduced this afternoon. It indicates that the Minister is sensible of his duty as Minister of Lands and evidences his desire to do the best he can. Whatever legislation you have on the statute book, and whatever it pretends to deal with, its success inevitably depends upon its wise administration. It will depend on how this Bill, when it becomes law, is administered by the powers that be, what its real success will be in the country. The policy outlined by a Minister is indicative of a Minister’s intention in the future. I want to lay before the House certain views on this question, that will be looked upon askance by some members and by others aghast. I want those members to give it their serious attention and consideration. The first thing I want to deal with is this. In this Bill the Minister retains the old pernicious system of looking upon the State as a land company. He has my support but underlying all our land legislation, and it is not removed in this Act, is the retention of the principle of the State looking upon its citizens as a good sort of person to whom we may sell land. That is entirely wrong. The whole object of land settlement in this, or in any other country, should be the settlement of the people on the land, not the disposing of the land or getting rid of it. The object should be to look upon it as a case where, having so many acres that are not being developed in the interests of the community, it is therefore time that we got the citizens on the land. That should be the principle underlying legislation. I regret it is not so at the present time. The Minister, by his proposals, makes it easier than in the past, for citizens of the State to get land. He is making the repayment easier, and he is taking power to lighten the burdens in other ways. He is taking power to revalue land under certain circumstances. In our former legislation, dealing with land, the State has purchased land at enormously inflated prices and the whole of the price has been saddled on the individual purchaser in the end, until it has become like a mill-stone, making it impossible to make a success of the land. You insist upon the interest being paid on the money, and it is therefore practically impossible for 1 per cent to make a success of it, and in the end they lose the land. It goes back to the State and the State begins all over again. It is well the Minister should tell the House frankly that the State must shoulder the burden. We are not estate agents or an estate land corporation, out to sell land for the highest figure to the people of the State, but a Government resolving to make it possible for the land to be used beneficially in the interests of the whole of the people. Our object should be to get the people on to the land and then to keep them there. I am afraid all our efforts have been in the past in the direction of once having given or sold the land to one of the citizens to try and get him off it again, because of some financial delinquency. I was sorry I was unable to follow the Minister’s speech. It was my fault, I don’t blame him for introducing it in his own language, but I was unable to follow the arguments. I hope the Minister when he replies will do me and other English-speaking members the favour of replying in English, and deal that way with some of the criticisms I am presenting this afternoon. I am sorry, because I heard him mention Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and I presume that he was referring to the land settlement legislation of those countries. I would suggest that between now and the next session of Parliament—I hope he does not think this will be the last word in land settlement—he will obtain the land settlement legislation of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so as to get the standpoint from which they view it. All three have adopted principles of free land to their own citizens, and not only to their own citizens, but to emigrants from overseas. In giving them free grants of land, it is limited in amount, and quite rightly. I suppose the Minister even in his sales under this Bill makes some limit of size. The survey and transfer fees now in operation in this country are very high indeed, and I may say, incidentally, that the party with which I am connected has ever since its inception laid it down that one thing you ought to have is easy and cheap transfer of land. Canada lays it down that the only qualification for making a free grant is that the land shall be occupied personally by the recipient and shall be beneficially occupied. I desire to congratulate the Minister upon having defined in his Bill what shall be beneficial occupation. That should be the only qualification. These countries lay it down that you must cultivate so many acres each year until the number of years that the settler is under probation, so to speak, have elapsed and then the land is granted without any qualification whatever; I suggest that to the Minister. What has been the result of this policy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand? I ask whether this land legislation of theirs, under which they give the land and recognize that the citizens have the right to the use of the land, has not met with complete success so far as those countries are concerned? Now you have the example of these countries competing in the world’s markets with all the primary products which it is possible for those countries to raise, handicapped as they are by their distance from the central markets, except in the case of Canada, and yet competing successfully not only with the other products of the world, but with the products of the home country, where the market happens to be situated. Not only are they competing successfully as regards both quality and price, but, above all, they have enormously increased their white population, to the advantage of their own States. I do urge that that is a thing very much to be desired in South Africa. The real test of a settler is his own determination to work hard, his capacity to learn, and to put into practice the theories of successful farming. We want the men of brawn and intelligence, not the men who can write a cheque for £500, £1,000, or even £2,000. Financial assets of that kind are certainly useful, but we are in this position, that, if you narrow down the source from which we are going to draw our supply of settlers to that little circle who can draw a cheque for £2,000, it is going to be a very sorry day for our country. It is not mere money that develops your land; it is the brawn and muscle and intellect of the men you put upon it. What does New Zealand do? I do not know what its practice is to-day, but I do know that when I was investigating the position they were handing out land to these persons in the same way as Australia and Canada are doing. But New Zealand went further, and I think you will find in that country the most liberal land settlement laws that it is possible to conceive. The State gives the land and it hands out seed to the man, too. The man who does not understand farming can go to New Zealand and start farming practically right away. When harvest time comes round the State is prepared to give the man the market price for his produce. The settler is thus assured of success because the State is behind him—gives him his land, helps him with the seed, and then for the first few years buys his produce from him. I would urge the Minister to consider the matter in all its bearings and get the legislation of these Dominions to guide him. I regard the principle of the sale of land to its citizens by the State as fundamentally unsound. It is not fair to the citizen himself, because you are instituting a selective method which is not applied to the qualifications of the man himself but to his financial ability to meet these obligations to the State. In that way you tend towards and actually do shut out a large number of deserving men, some of the most promising types of settlers. There is another very serious and, I consider, inevitable aspect of this, and that is the danger of the man to whom you have sold your land ultimately losing it again and not to the State. It is bad enough if the land has to come back to the State again, but the position becomes much worse if the land goes to somebody else. I frankly tell the House that what I desire is that the State shall not part with its land to these citizens, shall not sell it outright to them, shall not give them transfer, shall not hand over to them the deeds of the land belonging to the State.

No freehold title?

That is so; perpetual lease.

Who is going to take land on those terms?

Everybody will take it.

It is foreign to South Africa.

What I want is that the only condition in the granting of land shall be the man’s beneficial occupation of it. The Minister could lay down in his legislation precisely what he means by beneficial occupation and could insist that these terms shall be adhered to. If a man beneficially occupies land in terms of the Act he should be secured in his tenure.

And when he dies?

When he dies I am prepared to secure the land to his heirs, subject to the same condition. If his family should desire to carry on, they should succeed to the land just the same as you do now under the freehold system, but they would succeed to a perpetual lease, which is subject to the one condition that the land shall be beneficially occupied. When you hand out land under freehold to any person that person can do just as he likes with it; he may neglect it and let it go to waste and the State suffers through the non-use of the ground. That is not right. Is it not well from the point of view of the State that the land of the State should be worked in the interest of the people? It will cut up your tremendous estates of thousands of morgen lying idle with a homestead in the centre or one corner of it. A man gets up in the morning and strains his eyes looking for the boundary of his farm, forgetting that he has to cultivate it. We have had a very unfortunate experience in South Africa of the land passing out of the possession of the holder, and that brings me to this clause where the Minister proposes to depart from the usual practice of insisting upon a man not getting his title until he has paid to the State the whole of the instalments due upon it. That is in clause 12. The Minister at any time during the sale period can grant transfer to the man who is purchasing. I think it is a dangerous thing to do, and I hope the Minister will reconsider the position. After all, if a man can pay his half-yearly payments and can keep them up after the land is transferred, he can keep them up before he has transfer, and we certainly should have this hold over the land that until he has paid up all the instalments the land belongs to the State. It might pay any person, when he takes power to hand over the mineral rights to the grantee—it might be a great inducement to an interested person to buy up that bond himself; advance him the money to release him from the grip of the State, which grip I wish to see maintained, then squeeze him out of the ownership of the land and use it for his own nefarious purposes. We should hold on to State land as long as we can, not only in the interests of the state, but of the individual. A man may desire to build a house on it and some building society may be prepared to advance the necessary money to build the house provided they can get the deeds into their possession—it is hypothecated to them. That is the only circumstance in which it is likely to be of benefit and that is possibly a somewhat doubtful benefit. I have had some experience of land settlement myself, and I can assure you that it would have been a most dangerous thing for my peace of mind if I could have hypothecated to a building society, and had a more or less fine building on it instead of pisa de terre. It is a very good thing to make the man rely upon the land to produce everything he requires as far as possible and my experience has strengthened my opinion in regard to this matter. I put it to the Minister that is not good for the land to be used as a fundamental security for building a house and thus distracting the attention of the man by financial worries on the one hand and the necessity of working his land on the other hand. He is too much taken up with his house and too little with his land. Then in regard to Clause 16, the Minister may rely upon it that I shall take a certain definite line in committee on this clause. The Minister proposed to depart from all our previous outlook on this question. For years members on these benches struggled to get it recognized that the minerals below ground belonged to the state, and in one little clause in the Land Settlement Bill, he proposes to alter the whole thing. When he grants the land to a settler, land which is presumably suitable for farming and for farming only, which is cut up for that purpose and advertised for that purpose, and you might look for farms in such a Bill as that; but the Minister proposes to hand over the mineral rights to the man concerned. Don’t you think that is a dangerous course for the Minister to embark upon? There is great danger of his Bill being wrecked, because he is not going to get a House so complacent as to fall in with his views immediately on this important question. We hold very strong views on this question on these benches, and we are determined that the mineral rights shall still be retained by the state. I do suggest to the Minister that this is not the place in which to deal with that question. Let him deal with it by bringing in a comprehensive clause in another measure. Do not let him come along and throw the apple of discord amongst us through this Bill when we want to get as close together as possible in this matter of the settlement of the land in the interests of the people. There is another point, and here again I may be accused of heresy for my views. In regard to the method of working it is not a bit of good arranging for the individual to get his land either sold or leased to him and then leave him to battle with all sorts of adverse circumstances. I know that in some circumstances you advance him money, but that is not the be all and end all of our existence. It may be a dangerous form in which to assist him. I agree with the Minister in this, but on the other hand it may be a useful way, but are we finished when we have handed the land over to the settler? Surely the Minister can realize that there are other ways of making land settlement, and there are ways that are a natural corollary of handing the land over to the man. You take power under this Act to make advances, but you have not gone one yard on your way in the direction of making land settlement in this country when you have merely given or sold the land and made advances for the purchase of stock. Land settlement to my mind depends first of all upon the man having the opportunity and ability to produce crops or something else, but you give this land generally to a small man and ask him to get to work with his own implements, which you advance money for, to buy his cattle, which you advance money for, and leave him to his own devices. That is somewhat illogical. The state ought to enter the preparatory business of farming. The Minister took power in a very small way under a Bill last year to put probationers on the farm. He should get that organized so that implements would be purchased and the ploughing and the harrowing, and I think the sowing done for, at all events, the first season. What I suggest is that he make that the general practice with regard to all his land settlement schemes. You will say at once that there are practical difficulties and lack of money will be mentioned. There is no lack of money. It is time we stopped this talk. The credit of this country is enormously high. If you can get money for all sorts of things that are not development, how much easier should it be to get money for this development work. You could apply the system to whole tracts at once and charge the products of the land with the cost pro rata. The work would be done more cheaply and scientifically, and everybody would be advantaged. It means that many a man who is held up for one, two or three seasons would be able to go on. I appeal to hon. members who have been so prone to laugh at anything that is new—I suppose that is the history of the world, to laugh at the inception of a thing and praise at the conclusion of it—to give my views consideration. There is the question of land settlement schemes within municipal areas.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

The House is indebted to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, which is generally commended from this side of the House. As the Minister is going to send the measure to a Select Committee we do not intend taking up much time in debating the matter now, but there are one or two points which I would like to call attention to. I would ask the Minister to keep an eye on the Land Boards, otherwise there is a risk of cheap land being bought. I think the Transvaal Land Board has done exceedingly well considering the difficulties it has had to contend with. Very often it bought land at too high a figure, but now prices must be reduced. The Bill will be a tremendous impetus to land settlement. A man who has something to lose, and can put something into a farm, should be encouraged. I was rather led to believe that the view of the department and the Land Boards was that in some cases too much had been paid for land, and that the Minister is taking power to reduce the purchase price, and that where ground was bought under section 11 of Act No. 12 of 1912 there should be no reduction in the purchase price. I hope the Minister will reconsider that. Some of our settlers are in great difficulties, and when a man has paid one-fifth the purchase price he should not be told that the price is not to be reduced.

He is responsible for it.

The Government should take a long view of these things. All things being equal it is not fair to say to a settler that because he bought under section 11 Government is not going to reduce the purchase price. When, however, Government pays nine-tenths of the purchase price a man should not be given further assistance unless under exceptional circumstances. Under section 7 of the Bill it is stated that every lessee shall personally and beneficially occupy the holding, but we have instances of two or three young men taking up a holding between them. At the time the land may not be sufficient to give them a living, and one of the men goes to work on another farm in order to assist in paying the instalments. He should not be penalized for doing that. I hope the Minister will also take into consideration those districts in which farmers trek. I was rather glad when the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) began to speak, but in the end he came back to the old subject and said Government must stick to all the ground. The hon. member is rather fond of putting Australia forward as an example to South Africa, and in Australia settlers’ farms are freehold.

I don’t believe in following Australia in this respect.

We merely advance a man money with which to buy land, and when he has paid off the purchase price the land becomes his absolute property. I hope the Minister is not going to be frightened by the threat of opposition of the hon. member for Benoni. As to the question of giving a man transfer after five years, if a man has beneficially occupied the land for that period, and he can show that he has increased its value, why should he not have an opportunity to raise more money in order to buy additional ground? The State will be just as sure of its money. The hon. member for Benoni has accused the Minister of quietly slipping in a new principle as to mineral rights, but this principle became law in 1917. Surely when a man has paid for his farm he is entitled to the mineral rights? I hope the Minister will stand firm on the two clauses which the hon. member for Benoni threatens to attack, for the Minister will have the whole-hearted support of the Opposition. Generally, we commend the Bill, which is very largely the measure foreshadowed by the Minister’s predecessor.

I am glad that the Minister has introduced this Bill. In 1912 the first Land Settlement Act was made, and since that time amendments and improvements have been made in the law, and I want to say that the old Government also did its best to make a success of the Act. I have myself had great experience in connection with the Act, and the amendments which are now being made are all alterations that we felt were necessary. I was, inter alia, chairman of the Land Board in the Transvaal, and had much to do with the purchase and the giving out of ground. Much ground was bought under section 11, and thereafter we felt in connection with the giving out of ground to settlers that the law should be amended. I am glad that the Minister to-day is making various provisions to remove the difficulties which exist in connection with the Land Settlement Act so that the settlers in South Africa can make a success of the settlements. The first and most important provision of the Bill is where Government ground has been obtained on a 20 years’ basis, the period of payment will now be extended to 40. This will give the settlers a great deal of encouragement, and many of them who have already been 10 or 12 years on the land will be very glad about the reduction of the half-yearly payments by the extension of the period of payment. I now come to another great improvement. The Government has bought ground and given it out in small lots. It was chiefly to make experiments, and we often felt that the lots were too small and that it was impossible for a man when his family increased and his sons grew up to make a living on the ground. I urged the previous Government— there are some of these cases in my own constituency—to allow two settlers who were neighbours to take over ground one from the other. I am glad that this Act makes provision for it. I never could get the provision made. Regarding section 11, the Minister has made a great improvement. As the old section stood it was a good provision, and I do not think that that 5 per cent, of the settlers who bought ground under that section have turned out failures. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has said that much ground has not been bought because it was thought that when a settler buys ground and has paid for it the mineral rights remain with the Government. I can give the hon. member the assurance that much ground has been bought, tut we, and also our board, have always felt the difficulty, and so also in this House. The subject of mineral rights has been discussed. In 1917 the law was altered, and the person who had bought ground and paid for it got the mineral rights. Now the hon. Minister has explained the Bill to us very clearly. I believe that every representative from the countryside, and I think also people who do not represent country districts, are glad about this Bill and will vote for it. I was very sorry to hear the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) talking here and arguing that settlers must not be landowners, but that the Government should keep the ground and that the people should only be lessees. I am glad that under the existing laws, and also this new Bill, every man who is put upon the land or in whatsoever manner he gets the ground from the Government, he can become the owner of the ground, because if the man knows that the ground will become his property as soon as he pays for it he will work so much the harder and he will use all his forces to become the owner. I will never be in favour of altering the system that when a man has paid off he shall be the owner. Regarding mineral rights, a man who buys Government ground only buys the surface. The Government retains the mineral rights, but the ground that people buy under section 11 and pay for with their own money becomes their property. I think it is a very good Bill, and I am also glad that provision is also made to allow the people to become full owners, because it seems to me that we are more and more finding out that nearly every farm in South Africa contains minerals, and this will further encourage the man to work hard to pay off the ground to become the lawful owner thereof. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will go very quickly through the House, and I am very glad to hear from the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) that they will also co-operate to get the Bill through as soon as possible.

It is very refreshing to hear the hon. member for Benoni congratulating the Minister on introducing legislation which originated from the Opposition side of the House. This legislation is welcomed by me, and, I am sure, by a large majority here. I shall be glad if the Minister will inform the House when the report of the revaluation commission will be laid on the Table of the House, because much depends on that report. A large number of settlers are awaiting the issue of that report before deciding whether to vacate their holdings or continue in occupation. There is no doubt that much of the financial stress which settlers have endured of late years has been due to the fact that land which was allotted to them was purchased at excessive prices in times of inflation—prices which made it quite impossible for settlers to meet their obligations to the Lands Department and to make a living. The excessive price paid for the land is one of the main causes of the comparative failure of our land settlement policy. Another drawback which the Minister proposes to remedy in this Bill is the smallness of some of the holdings. I speak as representing a constituency in which there are a large number of settlers, and the trouble there with allottees of small holdings is the difficulty they have experienced in securing a sufficient and efficient labour supply. For instance, on a holding of 500 acres it is impracticable for a settler to take an adequate number of native tenants because of the lack of grazing ground for native stock; and so the settler has to depend largely on outside labour, which is not dependable, and thus he suffers. I am very pleased that the Minister is taking powers to extend the area of a holding where it is not possible for a settler to make good on account of the smallness of his holding. Another difficulty which the Bill seeks to remedy is the largeness of the instalments. Since a lot of the lands were settled we have had bad seasons, and the settlers have found it impossible to pay their instalments. This Bill, by extending the period of payment, should do a great deal in the direction of making it possible for settlers to duly meet their obligations to the Government in the future. It is a fresh start by which they should be able to make good. It is perfectly clear in the Bill that all arrears of instalments and interest are to be capitalized and added to the purchase price.

Only those that are recommended by the Land Board though.

Yes, I understand that. I have a letter from the Natal Settlers’ League, who urge the advisability of taking over Land Bank loans for dipping tanks and fencing and capitalizing them also. That is a proposition which I know has been put to the Minister, and I hope he will reconsider his attitude on that point, because the settlers have found that these Land Bank loans are more than they can cope with while at the same time they are required to make provision for the payment of their annual instalments to the Lands Department. Their desire is to consolidate all their debts under one head, recognize the Lands Department as their only creditor, and make their payments to the Lands Department instead of, as at present, having to meet their obligations to the Lands Department and to the Land Bank. I am also asked by the Settlers’ League to request the Minister to invite two members of the Settlers’ League from each province to appear before the Select Committee and offer suggestions and criticisms on this Bill. Another request they have asked me to bring forward is that this Bill shall become law before the winter, because they want to decide on their future course of action after they have reaped their crops and before a new season sets in. I have already told many of them that I have no doubt the Bill will pass the third reading during this session, and I hope the Minister will do all he can to expedite its passage. Then they raised the question regarding section 11 of the amending Act, and want to know why it is made applicable only to the Transvaal and the Free State. The explanation why Natal has been omitted is, I presume, that the Land Board redeemed all quit rents before allotting land. I anticipate that is the explanation, and have written them to that effect. I am not going to offer criticism of the Bill to-day because I welcome it, and I have no doubt the Bill will be productive of much good and will decide many who have been dissatisfied with their lot to settle down and make their homes permanently on the land. These settlers are a great national asset, and it behoves the House to do all it can within reason to help these people to make good. I am satisfied our Minister is sympathetic, and I feel sure nothing will be advanced in Select Committee to minimize the benefits which the Bill offers, and nothing will be done to retard the expeditious passage of the measure.

It seems to me that the Bill is meeting with great approval in the House, and I do not wish to occupy any time, but I cannot omit to add my little bit of congratulation to the Minister in this connection. The cry in the past always was that the people should go back to the land to reduce the number of poor whites, and I think that this Bill is a step in the right direction to attain that object. There are various kinds of farmers, and we can actually divide them into three classes. In the first place we have the well-to-do man who is well off and requires no help. In the second place we have the middle-class man, who can still help himself a bit. In the third place we have the lessee, and then besides these we have a fourth class which we can call the poor whites, and which must go to the land settlement. I would like to emphasize the point that the Minister of Lands turns off the tap which was increasing the number of poor whites. I know that in my constituency where the farmers are mostly cattle farmers, although a great deal of grain is sown, a number of people who own cattle and who hire ground are in difficulty. He must trek around and can later on get no ground, or it becomes very difficult because the ground is becoming dear. He must have it, because he cannot remain between heaven and earth with his cattle. The consequence is that he sells his cattle and goes to the village, where he buys an erf. He is no tradesman, and can consequently get no work. He sticks it for a while, but in time the erf is sold from under him for debt and he becomes a poor white. If we advance him nine-tenths of the purchase price, this class of man will be assisted, and he has had a bad time. One-fifth is too much for him to bear, but we think that he will be able to pay one-tenth. It may be that there are people who say that the contributions of the State are too high, and that the Minister had better give the ground to him, but I say that the man who has overcome half the difficulties which those people have survived, and who is still in a position to pay one-tenth, is a man upon whom we can reckon. He will win through, and the State will suffer no damage, even if the whole capital sum were advanced to such a man. The Minister helps the people who really require help. The people who are succeeding to-day have had a helping hand, for instance, by a legacy, but where a man has to win through by himself from the first shilling he has a heavy task. To-day conditions are such that it is impossible for that man to go on to the land without help. It will improve our people and raise their character and ideals to become landowners. It will encourage these people to struggle on. If people are to remain lessees they will never make efforts to improve the farms and the ground. They become disheartened and lose their property and will be a burden upon the State.

I only want to say a few words about the matter, and do not wish to oppose the Bill. I am glad that the Minister introduced it; it is one of the Bills which the old Government intended to introduce and which the Minister has now succeeded to. I wish to congratulate him that he is following in the footsteps of his predecessor. I wish it to be clearly understood that I ask nothing better than that these people shall be brought back to the countryside, and therefore I am glad that the Minister is assisting people who previously went to unhealthy areas by giving them an extension. I would, however, like to tell the Minister that he should not induce the people to become accustomed to such amounts being written off in future. The Minister proposes in the Bill that amounts shall be written off, and I would like to have something definite hereon. Section 5 reads as follows—

In such circumstances the person will be entitled to have the arrear monies written off. It is proper and quite right that the Minister has power to do something to assist the people. We must, however, let the people understand that if a contract is entered into, then the two persons who sign it must try to comply with the provisions thereof. I do not want these people to be rooted out, but we go a little bit far in writing off everything. I do not think that it will be right as against the other settlers, who have done their best to fulfil their obligations. Is the Minister also going to give his concession to the people who have fulfilled the conditions? What is he going to do for them? They will say that they are not treated fairly and that the people who have not fulfilled their obligations are assisted by the Minister. The Minister has said that about 5,300 settlers are on the land and 2,800 are in arrears. There is thus a considerable number who regularly pay the money and will they now be returned a portion of the amounts they have paid? I hope the Minister will consider this. We must try to encourage the people who are progressive. We see only too often that where the Government assists—I speak of the Transvaal with which I am acquainted—that a spirit has arisen amongst the people that they do not need to pay back the money that has been advanced to them. This is wrong. This does not improve them, they retrogress. They should feel that where they conclude such a satisfactory contract with the Government everyone should try to fulfil it. I should like very much to bring the people on to the land and particularly I should like to help those who live in unhealthy regions. I do not however go so far as the hon. member for Benom (Mr. Madeley) who has said that the ground had better be given to the people. The Government has not got land for the purpose today and it would have to be bought. Perhaps if he would bring his true politics into the light he would say that the ground should be expropriated. He is certainly afraid to say that. The Government have not got any longer sufficient suitable ground. The State must advance the capital and therefore if the State gives 20 years time it is fair. The Minister must be careful that where monies are written off that it is not done by favour and affection so that even people who have suffered no damage can obtain a release. The Minister must exercise careful supervision about this. The Minister must also give his attention to the people who have fulfilled their obligations and carried out their contracts. Let them be treated exactly as the others because then we are helping people who are anxious to progress.

I have had considerable experience on this question in my constituency and I think it wrong if I do not voice some of our difficulties in this division. There has always been a great deal of trouble with regard to land settlement. The private settlements have given practically no trouble in that constituency but there are a number of difficulties arising in regard to settlement which the Minister has met in this measure, and also a number with which the Minister was out of touch, but has now got into touch with. There are also a number of improvements in the Bill which is before us and I hope that this is not going to be the last word in amending settlement legislation. The Bill leaves a good deal to be desired with regard to redressing these troubles. One of the grievances that we feel to-day is that there is a want of touch between the settler himself and the department. At the present time the Minister has largely attempted to fill that gap by allowing the land boards to carry on those duties. The private settlements are to-day out of touch with the Government. A number of grievances which are existent in these settlements would, if there were a permanent body functioning which could deal with the difficulties under which these settlements labour, be swept out of the way and we would then probably be in the position of having more applicants for land than there are at the present time. I do not think anybody would dispute the fact that land settlement is not over-popular in South Africa at present. There seems to be something rotten in the state of Denmark as far as settlement is concerned. That is a state of affairs with which the conditions in South Africa may have largely to do. South Africa probably is a country of great variations, climatically and all the rest of it, and the settler probably has greater difficulties to contend with in South Africa than he has in other countries which have been quoted to us here where settlements have been more successful. At a recent conference the late Minister of Lands stated that there were something like 9,000 settlers on these outside settlements in South Africa. With the revenue which has been set aside for this purpose the question arises whether we are on the right track in South Africa so far as our irrigation and settlement schemes are concerned. The Minister has met one of the great drawbacks which we have had to encounter in the past in regard to the periods of payment being made easier for the settler. I think that is also a step in the right direction. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how many settlers have, up to the present, been able to pay their settlement taxes during the first four years that they were put on the land. There does not seem to be any provision made in this Bill for people who are to-day, in private settlements obtaining the Government assistance which they are asking for. In my constituency there are something like 106 settlers on the two private settlements that have never come to the Government for a sixpence of assistance. They are carrying on a colony which to-day is prosperous. Occasionally, when a man wants assistance from the Land Bank or anybody else, he finds himself in this position that he can get nobody to assist him. The Minister of Lands takes no responsibility for private settlers, and the Land Bank won’t assist them. Another way in which the Minister has gone in the right direction is on the question of mineral rights, as far as the settlers’ holdings are concerned. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has misinterpreted the terms of the clause there. The settler is not being put on any special footing in regard to minerals discovered on his ground. The clause will only enable a man who is living on that ground to compensate himself for any loss when minerals are discovered on his ground. He will get one-fifth of the precious stones or precious metal which is discovered. He can also give out prospecting rights. For the development of the country, as far as mineral wealth is concerned, it is highly necessary that this clause shall be carried into force, where an owner who has the right to develop his land shall have a right to a portion of the minerals. There is one point to which I would like to draw the Minister’s attention. There appears to be no differentiation made between a settlement situated on the outskirts of civilization, where you are practically pioneering and ground which has been given out in irrigation holdings, centrally situated and of high intrinsic value and which can be practically capitalized as regards value by its proximity to civilization. I think the Minister should provide some differentiation with regard to those two classes of settlement. I contend that if this Bill does not empower the Minister to treat those people most liberally who are opening up to civilization remote and unsettled parts of the country, there is a shortcoming in this measure. I have gone through the Bill carefully, and I do not see that power is given anywhere to discriminate between those two classes of settlers and settlements. There is one phase of the Bill which I think we shall all welcome, and that is that the Minister insists upon personal occupation and beneficial occupation. I think it is highly essential that these clauses should be embodied in a measure of this nature. That gets rid of the question of tenant farming. Tenant farming will now have to cease, and people will have to make up their minds when they go out as settlers that they have to build up a home for themselves, and thus become an asset to the state. Then we come to a question which was referred to by the Minister, and that is the period during which the instalments have to be paid. In this respect I do not think the measure has reached finality. I think when the Minister receives the report of the commission presided over by the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie), he will find that there is a crying want to-day in so far as irrigation areas are concerned. We find in this measure that there is practically no provision made for the taking up of irrigated areas for settlement in the Union of South Africa. I hold that our future development lies in the allotment of those areas, which will be readily productive ground. We expect our young people to be placed on the land in small holdings. Large farmers in the Free State and elsewhere, who are looking round what to do with their sons, will look to this class of settlement for the future. We have two big rivers, the Vaal and the Orange, where the late Minister carried out surveys, and we have the possibility of big irrigation schemes there. We have no scheme that we can go on so as to give out these lands to our future farming population. It is in that connection that I think the Minister should consider a new policy in regard to these farms. It has been proved in America, after 100 years of experience, that no matter how long you extend these periods of payment, these payments are always unsatisfactory between the settler and the Government, and that the only basis for these payments should be an assessment by the Government in accordance with the crop-producing capacity of the soil. The reply offered to us is that you must have a time limit in regard to these payments. Why should we have a time limit? The only time limit is the productivity of that particular soil. Our trouble has been that in periods of drought, depression and distress, the unfortunate settler has been called upon to make his payments whether he is producing or not producing. The extension from 20 years to 40 years is merely begging the question. We do not get to the root of the evil; the root of the evil is the productivity of the soil. South Africa has conditions peculiarly adapted to that basis of computing your payments. If we want to make settlement popular in South Africa, and if we want to assist in getting the people back on to the land, our object should not be to take the unemployed population, whether they know any farming or not, and put them on to the land. We want men who are trained, we want ground that will carry them, and we want the ground put in such a condition, and the payments made in such a way that there is some hope for the future of these people when once they get on to the land and settled there.

I have no doubt the Minister will be more than satisfied with the sympathetic manner in which his Bill has been received by all sections of the House. I would also like to add my congratulations to the others that have been given to him for bringing forward an important measure of this character, because I believe the principles enunciated in this Bill will be of material assistance in developing land settlement in this country. I am sorry the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is not here. I do hope that his eloquent words are not going to have much effect on the Minister, because whatever may be the political imperfections of the Minister, I am perfectly certain he holds the sound doctrine of individual ownership, if the land is ever going to be developed. It is foreign to the nature of all sections of this country, the tenant system. The people desire to have absolute ownership of the land they cultivate, and if the Minister were to accept the doctrine that the State shall be the landlord and that the people are to hold the land on the good feeling that the State has with regard to them, I think he would find that the land would not be very well developed. Anybody who knows this country and goes round and sees where the land is held under tenancy will find that very often the tenant, if he thinks that in a certain time he is going to vacate the holding, will take everything possible out of the land and leave it impoverished. On the other hand, if a man is the owner under the fair terms of payment in this Bill, every effort will be made to improve it in every possible way. As stated by the Minister, the policy embodied in this Bill was to a very large extent the policy of his predecessor in office, and I am glad that on a question of such vast importance there is no difference between his policy and that of the late Minister of Lands, who had drafted a Bill on much the same lines. Perhaps the Minister in replying will tell us how he proposes to deal with the different classes of settlers and whether in dealing with settlements he is going to carry out the wise policy in a country like this, which has large tracts of irrigable land undeveloped, of giving every possible assistance to settlers from overseas, just as he is going to do to the present inhabitants of the Union; because I think in a matter of land settlement, where we have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres crying out for development and the building of homes upon them, it should be the policy of the Minister, while naturally making a first provision for people in this country, to encourage the right sort of settler to South Africa, to assist us in building up our agricultural resources. I would also like to know the policy the Minister proposes to pursue in regard to the large amount of irrigable land held under irrigation schemes which have been financed by grants from the Treasury to various irrigation boards appointed, and where he knows as well as I do, men have unfortunately committed themselves to irrigation rates which it is impossible for them to pay, because they have not the capital necessary to develop these holdings. We have heard a great deal about the impossibility of meeting irrigation rates, and the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie), has no doubt heard a lot on the commission over which he presided. When the question is gone into it will be found that the difficulty of meeting irrigation rates is due to the fact that a man has unfortunately under the scheme an area of land which will take a large amount of levelling and developing, and he has not the resources to do it. While he might develop 50 or 100 acres and meet his charges, it is impossible to meet the charges on the 500 or more acres which some men hold, and I would like to hear from the Minister whether it is the intention, where men are only too anxious to hand over that land to the State, to take it over and let the Government bear whatever the rates are and thus have an opportunity of putting it out for settlement purposes. The Minister makes provision that where, after a full investigation, it is found a reduction in the rates should be made, he has made that provision. I am at one with him there, because I do think this is a question that requires to be very carefully looked into, for after all, the idea is to have successful settlement upon the land. I am also at one with the Minister in extending the periods of payment and I agree with the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), in regard to the mineral rights. My experience has been the same as his. Wherever a man holds a property, the mineral rights of which are reserved to the State, as that property is his own, nobody can come and prospect on it without his authority. That is one of the reasons, I think, which prompted the Minister to continue the practice that a man has the same rights to the minerals as to the surface rights. The hon. member for Vredefort said he did not think the extension of payments from 20 to 40 years would be of any use, and that the experience of the world was to that effect. That is not correct. I daresay the Minister has looked into the question, but if he will study the later phases of land settlement in the United States, especially in California, he will find that Mr. Edmund Mee, one of the great American authorities on irrigation, who was for five years chairman of the Australian Water Board Commission, was greatly impressed by the difference in the system in Australia to that which previously existed in the United States, and when he came back again to California he was instrumental in establishing two irrigation settlements, one called Delhi and the other Durham, and the extraordinary thing about this is that there has hardly been a case of failure. On the Delhi settlement, where there were a couple of hundred people, there were one or two cases of failure, but owing to the time they got to pay off the land, they were all coming out, and this settlement was becoming a success. The principle of co-operation in buying implements, etc., and selling produce was applied. In this country, where you would have thought that co-operation would appeal to the people in connection with our closer settlement, there is difficulty in getting the people to co-operate in buying their necessary requirements and selling their produce in the best possible manner, which a small settler is not capable of doing without assistance. I would also like to ask the Minister if there is any possibility of introducing into this Bill, and into the system of the Lands Department, a system which I understand has lately been working very well in Australia, and that is, when a settler gets a block of land, say, 50 to 100 acres, or 200 to 640 acres, in the case of dry land, they have introduced a principle that when a settler develops he gets assistance from the Lands Department as in South Africa, and I think our assistance is liberal. But this assistance is not limited to the 250 or 500 they are limited to now. When he gets a grant and develops his holding and has expended that money wisely, the department values not what he paid for it, but the market value of the improvements, and to encourage him to go on developing the whole property as quickly as possible, they advance him 60 per cent of the development he has already made. I am certain that would be a very good system in this country, that is, if the Minister were to lend the settler for implements and improvements a certain amount of money, and if it could be proved that that money was used to the best possible advantage, and it was only sufficient to develop a quarter of his holdings, he should have the improvements valued, and if satisfactory, and if the settler himself were satisfactory, the Minister should be prepared to consider making him an advance on a 60 per cent basis, as I understand has been done with considerable success in Australia. The Minister makes provision in the Bill that in future payments shall be on a 40 years’ basis, 80 or 82 payments spread over 40 years. Is he going to make that retrospective? Because the idea that struck me was in many cases of settlement you may have people who have paid one-fifth and are meeting their obligations. They may have advances from the Government for implements and stock, but if you do not make it retrospective you might make it retrospective in a manner whereby the extra payment of the one-fifth they have made could be utilized for writing off the other advances that have gone from the State for providing implements and animals for the development of their holding. My experience has been that you must not encourage the settlers to make too much debt, but so long as they are using the money profitably and really developing their land, it is in the interests of the department to assist them in any possible way. I think that in committee we shall have a better opportunity of discussing the various clauses of the Bill, and I can assure the Minister that he is going to get every assistance from hon. members on this side of the House; because the settlers, whether imported—and many are doing good work—or whether young South African settlers, the more homes you can make upon the soil, and the smaller the area upon which a man can build up a home and make a living, the better it will be for this country. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has referred to free grants of land in other countries. I think Canada and the United States. In Canada and the United States free grants are made to encourage people to settle on the land, but there is very little land in South Africa belonging to the State, which is suitable for settlement of that character. Canada and the United States are pre-eminently suitable for the growing of cereal crops, and settlers can make a living in this way. But here it is useless trying to establish settlements in waterless areas and in districts where the settlers would be miles and miles away from one another. We must put people on reasonably sized allotments, and they must be located in communities so that they will be able to have a certain amount of social intercourse. I have always advocated with regard to Kakamas— where the Dutch Reformed Church has done exceedingly good work—that instead of being used as a settlement where people make their homes for all time, it should be utilized for training purposes, and that after being taught there, people should be encouraged to go to the north-western districts, where they should be given free grants of land. But to send an ordinary settler to the north-western districts and expect him to make a success of it is to court failure. I think there is a great possibility of forming successful settlements, either on irrigable areas or in districts which have a fair rainfall, but very little indeed could be done on the homesteading lines so successfully carried out in Canada and the United States. I hope the Minister is going to carry out what his predecessor had very strongly in his mind, that is, the continuing of boring operations in dry areas, the cost of the boring to be added to the price of the land.

I go a little further.

There are many areas in which this policy could be carried out. The Minister is doing the right thing in connection with land settlement and I welcome the Bill. In very few cases is settlement going to be successful, especially on irrigable holdings, unless the land is prepared in advance for the settler. If a man has to break up and plough his land before he can sow, the long delay leads to discouragement before the producing stage is reached. There may be certain amendments which it may be necessary to introduce in Committee, but generally speaking I think the Minister is doing a very wise thing in extending the period of repayment. We want thousands and thousands of people on the land in South Africa if we are going to develop this country as it ought to be developed. Unfortunately we have not been going as fast as we might have done in this direction. Even if the State does occasionally lose a little money it will be well repaid over and over again by the establishment of successful settlements. As to the suggestion of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) I think the Minister and those who sit behind him are too conservative to agree to a proposal that valuable land should be given away.

I am in the same position with regard to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) as he is with the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). It is not very often that I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. I agree with him in congratulating the hon. Minister that he has introduced this Bill. I have very carefully studied the provisions of the Bill. At the first blush I thought that it was a pity that the Bill should now be introduced and that he did not wait to have the report of the irrigation commission, so that if the recommendations in the report were adopted a Bill could be drafted that would treat simultaneously dry land settlements and irrigation settlements. But after I had read the provisions I came to the conclusion that it would be better that this Bill should go through as it is on the basis of dry land settlements and that the irrigation settlements should be dealt with in a separate Bill. I think that it would be most troublesome to mix them in this Bill, and I also think that the Select Committee would have the greatest difficulty in doing so. It is obvious that there are points on which the two sorts of settlement differ considerably but perhaps the Minister will nevertheless consider not sending the Bill immediately after the second reading to a Select Committee but to keep it back a bit until he has considered the report of the irrigation commission to see if it is at all possible to prepare a Bill for both dry land settlement and irrigation settlement, but so far as I can judge it is better that we deal with this Bill irrespective of the irrigation settlement and that we send this to a Select Committee for further consideration and we can then deal with irrigation settlements by a separate Bill. As a member of the irrigation commission I may say that the first report has been handed in to the Government. I hope that it will soon be printed that this first report only deals with the desirability of appointing a permanent irrigation commission. It does not deal with the various irrigation schemes that we investigated. It was unfortunately not possible to get the two reports in together but I think it will be best if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will agree that this Bill shall be dealt with as is now proposed. The provisions of this Bill I think are very unfortunate and with the very little experience I have of dry lands, I think I can say that the provisions will be of inestimable value. There is only one section that I would like to call the Minister’s attention to. I may have read it wrongly but if not then I should like to ask him to give his attention to it. It is in section 6 where the word “forty” is deleted and “eighty” substituted. It is that persons who come under section 11 must make 80 half-yearly payments instead of 40, but then I read here—

It seems to me that it follows that when anyone has bought under section 11 since 1917 but before 1925 he cannot ask to make his payments in 80 half-yearly instalments in place of 40. I hope I read wrongly but if that is the intention then I hope that the hon. Minister will reconsider the matter and agree to an amendment. It is naturally not necessary to go into other provisions because the matter is being referred to a Select Committee. But that the question of land settlements has become of very great importance to the country both with regard to dry settlements and irrigation settlements can be inferred from the fact that of every ten farms that are bought in the Union one is bought under the Land Settlement Act. This has been so since the commencement of Union and perhaps it was the case before that. It is thus a big business and we must give our best attention thereto. I hope further that it will also be possible for the Land Boards to keep a stricter control. I do not say that they should be people who are out to ruin anybody but we must help the settlers to progress, and again help them when they once have their farms. It is necessary that the people when they have once got farms should be further assisted. We cannot leave a man altogether to himself, further supervision is necessary. He must be taught how to farm. We do not to-day require so many technical farmers but under the new methods of farming our farmers must be educated how to farm. If the land boards can have a better system of supervision it will be a great benefit to the country. I hope the hon. Minister will also give attention to this question in order that when he is creating land boards to give them more authority as regards this supervision. Perhaps this can be introduced by the Select Committee.

I also welcome this Bill, and commend the Minister for bringing it forward. I should like, however, to see it go much further. The trouble with land settlements throughout the country is that the land which has been acquired for this purpose is too poor for land settlements and it is absolutely unreasonable to expect beginners to make a living on poor land where experienced farmers could not do so. I am glad the Minister has taken power to revalue this land. I know cases where land has been bought during the boom at three times its normal value. How can settlers be expected to come out on land which is so highly valued? I hope the revaluation will be retrospective, and I also hope that the time is not far distant when the Minister will embark on a policy of State settlement, because I think South Africa is ready for it and for immigration from overseas. The conditions of farming are changing, and South Africa is advancing, especially as regards mealie-growing. If the Minister hopes to be successful it is imperative for him to have an efficient and reliable Land Board in each province. In the Free State and Transvaal we find many large farms which are not being fully utilized to-day, and I would suggest that the land boards be given the power to purchase large blocks of 50,000 to 100,000 acres and embark on communal settlements. We have had a striking example of a successful settlement in Zululand, in communities where social life was preserved and co-operation was easy to work, and where the land was ploughed for settlers with the much-despised steam ploughs. I challenge anyone to contradict that this settlement is the most successful in the whole world. I am sure that in the Free State and Transvaal we could also have successful communal settlements. Even if a higher price than the market price was paid it would be a success with this long repayment system. In the past the settlers have always encountered difficulty with the South African trek ox, but the trek ox is vanishing in the distance now, and will be replaced by the modern tractor, which is cheaper and more efficient. It is largely due to the tractor that we have advanced in growing maize this season. I have heard it said during this debate that we have to settle the poor white question in regard to land settlement, but I fear we are never going to do that, I think the solution of that question lies in another direction—industrially, because, taking the world generally, even under the best conditions, 30 per cent, of settlers turn out failures. If that is the case, what hope have we with poor whites on the land? Some of the finest settlers in Natal were artizans who had courage and muscle, took up land and were very successful. To-day the world is looking to South Africa as a country to settle in. We are the lowest taxed country in the world, and there are people in Europe with a limited amount of capital who are looking yearningly to South Africa because they know the purchasing power of money is greater here. Is it not time to embark on land settlement? Our credit stands high. I feel that a great deal of this land settlement under private enterprise is doing South Africa a great deal of harm, and it is for that reason that I hope the Minister will proceed on the lines I have indicated.

I also wish to congratulate the Minster on the Bill. I think that if there is one measure which will be welcomed by the farmers then it is this. It is the desire to come back from the town to the country. But the means of doing so are lacking. I am sorry that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) is not present in the House because I want to tell him a few things in which this Bill is an improvement upon the previous laws. He always comes and states here that the previous Government wanted to take the same measures, but this, unfortunately, the previous Government never did. In the first place that wiping off of arrear interest and instalments of purchase price. Previously it was so high that people could not pay it. We know that if a man made a commencement and he had to throw his holding up he was in a very difficult and desperate position. Another improvement is that power is given to the Government in time of great visitations such as locusts, and when the farmers suffer great losses in consequence of drought, to relieve the settlers of the payment of instalments. Agriculture is a fickle jade, and sometimes great losses are suffered. This can happen to the best farmers. It is therefore a great improvement that the Government can make a concession in such circumstances and I hope that my friends opposite will admit this. Take now the reduction of interest. What an astonishing improvement will this not be. We know that the settlers must produce a great deal to put these people in a position of paying the amount of the interest. Then there is also the extension of the period of payment to 40 years. I do not think that many people will make use of it, but it will at any rate be a great encouragement. A man who is progressive can make use of the opportunity of paying more. On the other hand, I am very glad that the Minister is taking more power with reference to the cattle that the people have bought with money the Government has advanced them. I hope he will stick to that. There is another matter that I welcome, It is that the mineral rights belong to the owner when he has once paid for the ground. This is in many cases a great nuisance and obstacle. I see that we have here another principle which the Minister accepts and which is in every way commendable. For 10 years the purchaser shall have no right of disposing of his ground without the consent of the Minister. The hon. Minister knows that the spirit of speculation has been the cause that many people have lost their ground. I think it is a good thing that he is preventing it.

I wish to congratulate the Minister, in regard to this Bill, on having continued a policy where it is generally for the benefit of the country, and I am glad to think that such a policy is likely to receive proper consideration at his hands, although originated by his political opponents. I do not think there is anything derogatory to the Minister in pointing out that the last Minister of Lands, on page 974 of last year’s Hansard, distinctly promised that he would introduce such a Bill, and I think I am right in saying that the present Bill is really in almost every particular the Bill as drafted by the late Minister. I hope the present Bill is only a foretaste of other sound legislation. I think the reception that this Bill has met with from this side of the House has clearly knocked the bottom out of the charge that we have opposed merely for the sake of opposing. The farmers, irrigation farmers, and other settlers on the land are going to welcome this measure as a ray of hope, and I am sure the Minister could not have given them a better Easter-egg than this Bill. There is one provision, however, that I think is rather unfortunate. The men settled under clause 11 of the Act of 1912 are not going to benefit by the reductions and revaluation which is proposed in this Bill, hut to my mind they require just as much consideration—

To whom do you refer?

Contributory purchasers. I understand they will not have the advantage of revaluations and reductions. I think at the time they applied for, and the Government advanced them four-fifths of the purchase price of their farm, we knew that prices were high. Land had to be bought, and if they were prepared to face the difficulties and rigours of farming, and at the same time risk the investment of their money therein, they are just as much justified as any other body of settlers to have consideration of their cases for relief under this Bill. They at least had the courage to invest some of their money in the land, knowing that they were faced with an immediate outlay of one-fifth of the price and were responsible for the repayment of the loan over a period. Now the Bill provides for a period of 40 years, and I think that is a reasonable time to allow them to pay it off. I am in favour of the Minister’s alterations of the original scheme by allowing settlers to pay only one-tenth of the purchase price and get the advantage of the larger balance of their capital for improving their holdings and carrying on farming operations. Irrigation schemes of small holdings in this country are going to be made a success mainly by the men of small means, who are going to get down and work the plots. I think the irrigation schemes where the holdings are small will be worked more successfully that way. The men may not have the capital, but they must have the character and other qualifications to make good in that regard. I am glad to see a provision in the Bill, probably the outcome of the opposition to another settlement Bill last session, the provision of extra land boards, but only by the consent of both Houses of Parliament. There are a large number of irrigation farmers who want to see established here an irrigation commission which will control the irrigable lands, but I think we want a body of control, on the lines of an irrigation commission, which will take charge generally of the question of land settlement, both dry land and on irrigation schemes. The two questions of lands and irrigation are so interwoven that I am sorry to see them divorced. They ought to be under the same head in the Ministry, and I would like to see the Minister of Lands consult with his colleagues and make provision for a central controlling body to deal with irrigation and land settlement generally. Then the clause providing for the exchange of bad land for land that, is suitable for irrigational work, is another wise provision which we welcome, knowing how much “dud” land has been given out to or bought by settlers. I want to see land settlement a success, whether the people who have made the errors are private people or the Government. The Bill provides for 11 months’ residence on the land. Is that not too long? I agree that land should not be given to men who merely own it but do not work it nor live upon it but 11 months’ residence in the year is going too far in the length of time to qualify. If a man had to go away for longer than one month for health or family reasons, it gives no loop-hole. If he does not sit on the land for 11 months annually he loses his home. I do think it is too long a period. I would like to see it reduced to enable a man to go away on leave or take his family without forfeiting his home. In fact, many of the settlement areas are in parts of the country where I doubt whether men could live for 11 months of the year without injury to health. With regard to mineral rights, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that the Labour party were determined that the State should retain the mineral rights at all costs. Anything that militates against a man’s contented occupation or ownership in the land would unsettle him. Let him have all the rights that go with the ownership of the land. Do not refuse him or penalise him as to any of the advantages. The hon. member for Benoni stated that in New Zealand they made free grants of land, then later he said that he and his party would fight to the last ditch in seeing that the State was not going to sell any of its land. I cannot see how he reconciles that statement with his commendatory reference to New Zealand. I ask the Labour party to give this subject better consideration. He states that in New Zealand the “mompara ”—which is kaffir for “green-horn or “half-baked ”—settler was given land and seed. I hope that this country, in addition to giving the “mompara” land, will give him training before he gets either seed or land, and thus perhaps save him being thrown on the mercies of so many people out to exploit him and the elements. Another point. When he said they as a party were going “to fight to see that no land was sold to the citizen,” is that not a step that will lead, later on, to the land reverting back to State ownership, even when it has been sold to individuals? It endorses the theory that private ownership of land is wrong, and having endorsed that principle you would go to the private individual and say that the State was going to resume the ownership of all land. It is quite a logical conclusion, and I warn anybody who has a stake in the country—

Is that the only stake?

I did not say it was the only stake, but it is a better anchor for a man than any which the man has, who only has to pack his portmanteau and leave the country. The man who is tied to the land cannot be a free “citizen of the world.” I do not wish to see “citizens of the world,” but citizens of South Africa, and any man with half an acre of land is a better citizen, ready to come to the aid of the State, than the man who has not got such a tie, which is a safe anchor and a guarantee of sound citizenship. I have every confidence in supporting this Bill, but I am not giving all its details unqualified support, because there are improvements to be suggested which I think the Minister will consider sound enough to be included in the Bill.

I rise to contradict a statement made with regard to the poor land of South Africa. Some short time ago we had Parliamentary visitors touring this country and, from what they said, also statistics and analysis of the land, I think I am correct in saying that the land of South Africa is as rich as any in the British Dominions. I think I am correct in saying also that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) stated this afternoon that the land was poor. I remember him stating on this side of the House that the land in South Africa was as rich as any other in the British Dominions. What has changed his opinion? Is it owing to the change of Government? The point is, we should not de-cry our own country so much as, I am sorry to say, a large number of hon. members of the other side of this House do. I am not speaking from an agricultural point of view, I am not a farmer, but I have read statistics and opinions, and I cannot help but come to the conclusion that in South Africa we have land fit to compare with any in any other part of the British Dominions, and if land settlement is essential in any other part of the world, it is essential in this country.

I don’t propose to waste the time of the House in unnecessary criticism of this Bill at this stage, but I do congratulate the Minister in bringing this Bill forward as an earnest of his intention to meet the troubles and difficulties of the settlers which have accumulated during the last few years. It is an evident determination to put their grievances right if it can be done, and the Bill goes a long way towards meeting their difficulties, but I hope that now that the Minister has expressed his intention to send the Bill to select committee that opportunities will be given to those settlers’ representatives, who wish to make suggestions or criticisms, because there are undoubtedly certain contentious points. I think if the Minister, on sending the Bill to select committee, will see that this opportunity is given to the settlers themselves to send down a few representative men to meet the committee, it would be appreciated and productive of lasting good. Whichever way you turn with regard to different settlements in the country you will find each district has its own difficulties whether it be in Zululand at Colenso or elsewhere. It would be better if a few representative men were allowed to come down and give evidence and put their views before a select committee, which would go a long way towards securing the peace which the settlers are looking for. We have all had an anxious time in trying to do what we can, and we wish, if possible, to reach finality in this matter. In saying this, I am supporting what the member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) says, because he, like myself, has a great responsibility to discharge towards these people. I would, in this respect, say to the Minister: “Don’t make two bites at a cherry.” If you are consolidating the liabilities of these people, you might just as well go the whole distance and include in it the capitalizing of their liabilities not only in respect of the land, but advances from the Land Bank as well. If you only go half way you are making trouble for the future. Make a clean sweep of it, and put these people on a sound basis and, if possible, improve their, holdings. Many of them are on farms on which it is practically impossible to make a living. Perhaps, in this respect, two holdings could be put into one and some be divided. However, a complete review of the whole position is essential, and I think the Minister has started out in the right lines, and if the administration of the Act is as sympathetic as the wording of the Bill, I look for good and lasting results.

I would also like to congratulate the hon. Minister upon this Bill, and I am also pleased about the good support that the Bill is receiving in the House. In my opinion, this Bill ought to have been introduced ten years ago. Then the circumstances in South Africa would, perhaps, have been better than what they are to-day. A large portion of the settlers have suffered very badly and are still suffering, and if such a Bill had been introduced sooner the position would, perhaps, have been much better now. Nevertheless, I am glad that the time has now arrived that this Bill has been introduced and that it is so well received. I here is one little point that I do not like, and that is with reference to advances under section 11 of the Bill. Formerly a fifth was advanced, but now it is only one-tenth. If I understood the Minister correctly, then the advances in the Cape Province and the Free State will be higher than in the Transvaal. I cannot understand why this difference is made. I consider the ground in the Transvaal is worth at least as much, if not more, than the ground in the Cape Province and the Free State, and we know moreover that the Transvaal is rich in minerals, and sometimes these are worth just as much as surface. Therefore, I cannot understand why the distinction is made with reference to advances, and I hope that the hon. Minister will see to it that the Transvaal is brought on the same basis as the Free State and the Cape Province Hon. members have mentioned here that we do not go far enough, but that we should go to work on a large scale and use steam ploughs to develop the ground. The trek-oxen were of great use for the development of the country and we in the Transvaal cannot see our way to adopt the proposal. We would rather keep our trek-oxen. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has pleaded for the “free ground proposal. I think that it is entirely a wrong principle. We have experience of what has happened in the past. We have had a large number of settlers under those conditions in the Crown Colony time with the result that they are now all gone. They have neglected the ground. It has even happened that they have sent their own oxen to the pound and sown mealies on unploughed ground. We must have settlers here who would become independent and who will help to build up the country, therefore, I hope that the hon. Minister will not listen to what the hon. member for Benoni says. Further, I think the Minister should consider the persons who bought ground under the previous Government and that he will also meet them with reference to the minerals. There are people in the country who have already paid for their ground, and I think that it is no more than right that this Bill should have retro-active force. Then, I hope also that suitable persons will be members of the Land Board, who will be quite au fait and have a good knowledge of farming in general, so that the board will be better constituted than what was the case in the past. I am sorry to say that my experience is that in the past great mistakes were made. I do not know who was guilty, but a great mistake was made. I hope it will not recur in the future, and that everything will go properly, that persons who most deserve it will get Government ground, and that when application is made and the application is recommended by the Land Board that land will be sold to the persons who are suitable for farming purposes.

I am glad to see that the Bill which is now before the House is the acknowledgment of a principle which in any case ought to be the basis of all legislation. The Bill for instance takes account of the causes of the great want in the country side to-day. It was clear to us who take an interest in the development of South Africa and more particularly to those who have long since understood that the future of South Africa for many years more is dependent on agriculture, that it was necessary in any case to institute an enquiry as to what the population of the country side had to go through in order to know for what reasons the Afrikander people who are especially an agricultural people lied from the country side to the towns. It is not necessary now to go into all the grievances which are to be found in the census of 1921 and what we can infer therefrom if we compare it with the census of 1911. We see that the country population has not alone become less but that it has become less in comparison with the town. There are places where it has become less than it was in 1911. It has appeared that there should be a proper enquiry. We therefore welcome this legislation because it had to do with the basis of development of our people, namely, agriculture. In the Bill of last year we did not find the acknowledgement of certain causes of the unsatisfactory conditions and if there is one thing that I am not yet satisfied about it is that the enquiry has not yet gone far enough. We can expect no good results until that has happened. Now I want heartily to congratulate the Minister on the recognition of certain causes in this Bill and upon the steps that he is taking to undo their effects. I would urge the Minister to go still further with the investigation because we admit that the Bill which is now before the House is the sister of the Act of last year, and it would thus have to be followed by more of the same family. In such Bills there will have to be an acknowledgement of the necessity of studying the causes further. We find here that the Minister and the House understand that there are certain causes which must be fought. We felt that there was an unnatural movement from the country in the direction of the towns of Afrikanders who wanted to stick to agriculture and whom circumstances were compelling to leave the country and to become a part of the poor whites. We acknowledge that we want to make an end of that. Here in this Bill we would like to keep the country population who are in difficulties as a consequence of plagues in the country. Of the approximately 6,000 settlers about the half are not able to properly fulfil their due obligations to the State and if this remains so we must come unavoidably to the conclusion that they will one day again go to the town and that they will end up where we are to-day trying to take people from. We acknowledge that the Bill wants to help this. These are not all the causes but at any rate a commencement is made. This question presses so heavily on the division that I represent that I will ask the House to permit me to mention a few cases where people were again pressed to the edge of the abyss and where it is necessary to give assistance under this Bill. Members opposite have said that we must be careful with reference to the writing off of obligations. I will also say that we must acknowledge that we have here to do with Government money but we have also to do with a matter of great public importance in which we wish to strengthen the citizens so that there shall be more to bear the burdens of the State. We acknowledge that the Minister has a difficult task before him but we do want on behalf of the persons concerned and everybody else to request him as far as possible to give effect to the moderate provisions of section 18 to write off the arrear amounts where there has been loss suffered in the past and where the people have almost been ruined. I have here a letter written to me by a person in that position. It is as follows—

He is asked to make immediate proposals for payment. This was one of the cases where the Department of Agriculture felt that the division of the ground was such that no one could make a living and this person is then approached to pay the amount which has been outstanding a long time. That is to say that the department cannot wait indefinitely before taking steps in the matter. We feel that where the Bill acknowledges that the lots have been sold divided that a proper living cannot be made upon them we should treat the people leniently. I would therefore urge upon the Minister to make a concession in such cases. I will give him the assurance that this person is one of the 2,500 who is in arrear with his contributions. Here is another case on one of the settlements. The letter is in English and reads as follows—

The answer came—

I read another letter—

We welcome the favourable provisions of the Bill in granting concessions in such cases, and although we acknowledge that we have to do with Government money, yet we wish to bring people on to the land and keep them there. I am sure that the Minister will weigh this matter sympathetically. Then the Bill provides for encouraging the purchase of ground, and I want to make a request in this connection to the Minister. I want to ask him to give certain concessions in fixed cases where ground in my constituency has been sold and where the purchasers have written to me that it is in the circumstances impossible to cultivate the ground. Although this is a regrettable fact that there are so many who cannot pay their contribution, I am still grateful that it is acknowledged in the Bill that we as a State must take account of things for which the people are not responsible, such as floods, etc., which have destroyed their crops. I am certain that the provision that the State will advance nine-tenths of the purchase price is going to be of great assistance. Our people are all asking how can I get ground? The people are hungry after ground, and we feel that we are acting in the best interests of the country if we give them ground so that we can stop the stream to the town. It appears to me that section 11 is limited to the Transvaal and the Free State; the Minister will doubtless give us an explanation. In Griqualand West it is one of the cries of alarm with which out of have to do. There are four different bases on which quitrent is levied, and because there is such an unusual difficulty it has happened 1 there are about 30 owners who have paid more in quitrent than what the ground is worth. Why, in such circumstances, is the section limited to the Free State and the Transvaal? If it is so that it is only applicable to the Transvaal and Free State, and if there are no special circumstances why it should be so, then I would ask the Minister to make it applicable to other parts.

At the adjournment of the debate I was busy trying to point out the importance of the quitrent in the constituency of Griqualand West. We have here to deal with mineral rights, and in connection therewith the question arises where the owner, or prospective owner, of a lot will have the mineral right or not. In considering this, we have to do with a principle, namely, how far is it sound or unsound that the rights to the lots should belong to the State. It is a question of principle and I do not think that in this discussion we should go into that. There is much to be said either way. But to-day it is felt that there is no uniformity so far as this question is concerned. The general feeling is that the State is to-day the owner of the mineral rights under the ground, and to avoid all difficulties and litigation and to avoid such in the future it is necessary that there shall be uniformity, that all owners of ground shall have the same rights, whether the ground is obtained now or in the past. With a view to what has already taken place in the past, I should like to ask the Minister to give his attention to this uniformity. I said in the beginning that this Bill also is only a step further in the direction of meeting the necessities of South Africa, and a matter with which the Bill does not yet make provision with reference to a certain class of people who must also in the immediate future thought of and who must be met. The Bill of last year made provision for people who had no capital but who were willing to make a living on settlements. They were a burden on the country and the State had to support them, therefore that policy also meant a reduction of the burdens upon the State. This Bill makes provision for another class, namely, small citizens who have a small capital Provision for them is also made in the 1912 Act, but there is a class of citizen who are not landowners to-day and have no inclination to become such. It is particularly these citizens who form the chief burden upon the State and probably they will always remain so. For that class provision must also be made in the Land Settlement Acts, but I do not know if it is the duty of the Minister of Lands or of the Minister of Labour. But one thing I know, that the citizens of the country who do not own land and do not wish to, but are still physically fit, the class who will not work and will not support their families and children, must be forced to do so in one way or another. What is not directly concerned with the Bill is the consequence of settlement. We take from year to year steps to help the poor people upon settlements and to assist them to become independent. The Opposition have rightly said this afternoon what a splendid work the church have done in this connection. We feel one thing. If we take steps to bring the landless citizens upon the land and that is that we take measures for the present but not for the future. We do not provide for the children who will be born and will grow up. It seems to me an inseparable part of the land settlement schemes that we shall come to it to not only provide for settlements but that we shall develop the young generation on industrial and other lines. I feel very strongly on this point. Settlements are created, but the lots are so small that if those of one generation must devolve upon the next that it will only devolve from one to one, and that for the other children, two, three, four, five or six or more, there will be no provision.

I do not wish to introduce a jarring note into the chorus of praise which has greeted this Bill. Nothing is further from my intention than to introduce such a note, and I trust that nothing I say will be taken in that spirit. If I understood the Minister aright he described the position of many farmers and settlers as being exceedingly precarious. He was quite right, and he might have gone further, and described the position of South Africa as precarious. And while this Bill is to be welcomed, and while undoubtedly we shall have done something towards assisting the farmers and settlers when this Bill is put on the statute book, I cannot flatter myself that we shall have done very much. It is a necessary Bill, and its passing cannot be postponed without causing much inconvenience; but when all is said and done, it has only the effect of cementing, I do not say puttying, up the cracks without going to the root of our problem. And the root of that problem is that the European population is not holding its own with the coloured population, either in numbers or in quality. We are apt to forget that undoubtedly about one-twelfth of the white population are poor whites and I believe it is equally true that another one-twelfth are on the verge of indigency, with the prospect of becoming poor whites before long. It is a very serious state of things, and we have to look earnestly for a remedy. If this is not to be continued indefinitely something has to be done to stop the progress in this very undesirable direction. There is no doubt that the stable population of a country, and therefore the stability of the country itself, must be based on a sound agricultural development and policy; and there is no doubt either that that must be developed from our European organization; it will not be argued seriously that the native population are capable of the necessary organization for the development of agriculture. Why is the position of farmers so precarious? I do not think the speeches this afternoon have touched on that. It is because on the whole, farming does not pay in its present unorganized state. It is true that a few individuals, favoured by inheritance, fortune or natural ability, are doing fairly well. But we have it on an authority which I respect that at least 75 per cent, of our farmers are heavily in debt—I had almost said hopelessly in debt—to the storekeepers: And the fact that so many are in debt means that those who might be prosperous are not getting on because the burdens of the unprosperous ones are apt to fall on them, and the storekeeper and trader have to give such prices when they buy, and charge such prices when they sell as will enable them to come out clear. This means that the 25 per cent. who are prosperous are carrying the 75 per cent. on their shoulders. That is bad enough, and we ought, I think, before embarking on the needed comprehensive scheme of land settlement to examine the causes why farmers are not prosperous. Then perhaps we can apply the remedy, and then we shall have less difficulty about land settlement. When farming people are prosperous there will be no lack of enterprise on the part of others to join in that prosperity. This is a very difficult country indeed to legislate for. Has anyone ever thought of the varied conditions that will be encountered in following the same parallel of latitude from west to east—say from the mouth of the Orange River to the mouth of the Umfulosi. The rainfall in the different districts traversed varies from less than one inch on one side of the subcontinent to some sixty or seventy inches on the other; the height too varies from sea level to 4,000 or 5,000 ft. above it. There will perhaps not be quite so many varieties on a north and south line, say from Mossel Bay to Messina. Nevertheless, it is impossible to frame one detailed scheme for land settlement to cover all these different conditions. Members have alluded to the fact, which is not sufficiently appreciated, that South Africa is essentially a patchy country, patchy in soil, in climate and in the many varying conditions of soil plant and animal life. There are very few large areas of uniformly good land in the Union, and there are often great varieties of soil even in one district. In view of these factors it is no wonder that, with such an absence of detailed knowledge amongst us of all the conditions varying as they do in different localities and settlements, land settlement in the past has proved very largely unsuccessful, and I submit to the Minister that whilst the settlers are in a very precarious position the causes are imperfectly understood and should be comprehensively investigated. I understand from the figures he gave this afternoon, that nearly half of the men settled on the land since 1912, are now in arrears with their proper dues to the Government, That fact must be faced. To come back to the precarious condition of South Africa, I was very much interested and a good deal astonished by the report of the director of census, and I commend to hon. members paragraph 38 of his report, in which he deals with the future position of whites and non-Europeans in this country. We must remember, too, that South Africa is the only country in the whole world that has not yet solved its colour problem. The director of census gives us the rather disquieting view, after sober calculation, that at the end of 50 years the European population will be about 4,000,000 as against the non-European population of 24,000,000. This is an age of ever-increasing democracy and the principle is that numbers must tell, so that black heads are bound to be counted for political purposes and the modern practice is to count heads irrespective of their contents. It is not very cheering for us to look to such a state of things; and what is the remedy? The director investigates other figures and estimates a normal increase for the Europeans of 2 per cent, per annum and for the non-Europeans of 3 per cent, per annum, assuming that nothing very startling occurs to check native expansion, such as the influenza epidemic of 1918 when about half a million non-Europeans died. The inference is fairly obvious—that we cannot depend on keeping up our European numbers with the cradle alone and, therefore, we must depend on the steamship to maintain a safe proportion, but even then the position will not be as cheering as one would like it to be. Assuming that everything is in favour of the European with fairly vigorous immigration, the number of Europeans at the end of 50 years is estimated at six and a half millions, as against nineteen millions of natives. This would mean that two and a half millions of the six and a half millions would be due to immigration and the descendants of immigrants. If our descendants are to succeed in this country, we shall have to embark on a much more extensive scheme of land settlement, plus immigration, than in the past, and so arrange matters that land settlement will be prosperous in the future as it has been the reverse hitherto. In this country it is essential that more attention shall be given to the class of people that are put on the land. Formerly, too much attention has been paid to the amount of cash capital that a settler has. While I have always put that down as an indispensable, and I have had some experience, I do not regard cash as by any means the most indispensable form of capital. In the first place a settler must be a man of character. He must be a man having some aptitude for the life he proposes to take up. He must have energy, reasonable health and, lastly, some capital. Now of these things capital is the only thing he can get from outside. It is comparatively easy to give a man capital, but it is impossible to supply him with the necessary character. The aptitude may be developed. Capital can be lent to him, but the other qualities are more essential, for, without them, success cannot be acquired easily or at all. That shows, in placing settlers on the land whether from our own ranks or from overseas, the greatest care and discrimination must be made in their selection. A great deal of failure in the past has been through want of discrimination in the selection of settlers. In the case of the 1820 Memorial Settlement Scheme it is undoubted that nine-tenths of the phenomenal success which so far has attended this movement, is due to the great care shown in selecting settlers on the other side before they are allowed to come to this country under the auspices of that association. I advocated, as long ago as 1917, during the war, that no overseas settler should be allowed to spend his money in purchasing a farm until he had spent two years as an apprentice with a farmer; it was adopted and is working like a charm. The settler then finds out whether he likes the country, whether he has an aptitude for the work or what style of farming appeals to him, and what part of the country he likes to be in. We have done very little really towards permanent settlement as a country. It has been left to private individuals and associations to give the country a great start. I hope it will have many imitators and that many similar societies will be formed, and that they will work on the same general lines as the 1820 Memorial Settlement and that they will have the same success which has attended this movement. I must quote the striking words of a great German authority in these matters in which he compared settlement and agriculture to a ship; trade and commerce being the masts and sails driving her forward, not without danger in stormy days, but her cargo, acting as a solid steadying ballast, is agriculture. We have not got that security yet and we are making very little effort to attain it considering its importance. It is undoubtedly the case that the main source of the want of success of the farmers is due to their lack of knowledge of the economic factors. They are not business men, they are unacquainted with marketing and distribution problems. We shall have to reorganize all that, and then develop a system of economic agriculture on a different basis, if we are going to avoid the lack of success which has characterized our efforts hitherto. Farmers and settlers are very like trees. Some trees you can grow well in a plantation where they afford each other shelter, but planted out in isolated places they wither away. It has been the case with many farmers. We must, therefore, pay more attention to co-operation of interests and to the purely economic side of farming, and I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has made that one of his first steps. I congratulate him on introducing a principle which I have advocated for many years past. It was a bad day for the country when in 1658 it was decided to introduce slaves into South Africa instead of white workers. We can trace a lot of our present economic trouble— unemployment and so forth—to that decision. It is a long time since, but the evil effects can be traced to it. I came across a resolution of the Heemraaden of Stellenbosch as long ago as 1750, complaining, even in those days, that there was no work for their children. The same story is here to-day; insufficient openings for the young men and women. But we have an unlimited field in agriculture here in the vast unpeopled lands waiting for development, but the development must be on sounder lines than in the past. I strongly urge, if the country is really in earnest, and realizes the seriousness of the position, and the ever increasing difficulties, that it will be necessary to stabilize this great industry and make it more prosperous in the near future. This Act is to be welcomed. It will go some way towards helping the existing settlers, and helping new settlers, but it does not go nearly deep enough. We have to lay the foundation broader and more securely if we are to build up a people in the country who can hold their and save South Africa for civilization against barbarism in the future.

I should like to say a few words, because there is a large settlement in my division and it is my duty. I am going to support the Bill partially, but there are a few points upon which I differ. The reason is that the former Minister of Lands some time ago held a conference with representatives of settlers in the Union. I was there personally, and all the points which have come before the House to-day were discussed there, namely, the extension of the time for payment to 40 years, revaluation of property; then there was another point, the occupation of ground, also windmills, boreholes, etc., almost all the points that have been mentioned here to-day. At that time the Minister assured us that he would carry out the hints given to him. Unhappily this could not be, because the new Government came into office. I accordingly want to support the present Minister. I would like him to give his attention to conditions in my district. In Bethal, ground was purchased in the dear time, also the farming materials; the consequence is that the arrear debts have mounted up, and it is for this reason that they ask for a revaluation. I am a very strong supporter of settlements, because I saw in my constituency that the practical man makes a success: of them. The lots, however, were too small; they can only go a certain length, and no further. The object of the former Government was to make the people as independent as possible, and the Minister of Lands has said that is his object also. I also wanted to ask him if it were not possible to permit upon the recommendation of the Land Board that some people should be bought out so that the ground can be given to others. I see that this is provided for in the Bill, and I agree with it. Then there is another thing which has taken place. The first settlers that were there are not treated in the same way as those who came after them. They got very primitive houses, while the settlers who came later got good and comfortable houses, and they all pay the same. This is one of the reasons why they ask for a revaluation. I should like the hon. Minister to listen to me, because it is a very important matter.

Go on, I am listening.

Yes, but it is an important matter that we are discussing. In Bethal the settlers sank boreholes, but they were a failure. There are some who changed subsequently, but the position remains about the same to-day, and the Minister must meet the people where the boreholes and windmills were a failure. I would recommend him to have an inquiry made by the Land Board to find out what the greatest grievances of the settlers there are with a view to making the necessary alterations and improvements which are being pressed for.

It has already been done.

There are settlers who have made a great success of the undertaking, but they can get no further because the ground is too small. There are settlers who work splendidly, but the position is that they would like to have a chance of development. The size of the ground is from a hundred to two hundred morgen, which is the limit. It goes without saying that the settler has about 60 morgen under cultivation, and then he has insufficient left for grazing and extension. They are, as it were, kept in a kraal, and the Minister should investigate the matter and meet the settlers. I would also recommend him to buy more ground in the high veld. There a success can be made of dry land farming. There are people who can farm, and it is my experience that the best people for settlers are those who know the district, namely, the poor people who live there. I see that the Minister has reduced the amount which the person must contribute for the purchase of ground from one-fifth to one-tenth of the purchase price. This is very good. My experience is that they are the best settlers who buy their ground in this way. The person who has a little capital to assist him in buying the ground in the past was the greatest success, and now that we are going to contribute nine-tenths, things will go still better. I should like to know from the Minister what he is going to do with reference to settlement. We know that it is very dear. We must endeavour to give the man who wants to work the chance of showing what he can do. What has grieved me a little is what I have heard out of that corner, that when we put the people on the land we must not give them the prospect that the ground will one day belong to them. If we want a good citizen in the country, then we must give him ground. Then we shall not hear from him about strikes and all sorts of unnecessary things. I am very sorry that I heard this from that quarter. I would very much like the members on the Government benches to listen to what comes from the cross-benches. I hope that the Minister will take no notice of it, but I know that he will have to toe the line subsequently. My advice is that we should make the settlers landowners as far as we possibly can. Be very careful about that corner. Trouble will come from there. I hope the Minister will give his attention to the matters I have mentioned.

Although the Bill has received blessings from all sides of the House, there has been a long discussion on it, and I do not think the House expects me to reply to all the points raised, especially as, as already intimated, I am going to move, after the second reading, that this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Crown Lands, where all these points can be gone into thoroughly and, if any alterations are necessary, the committee can make recommendations to the House. I do not see the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) in his place. I would have liked to say a few words in reply to his speech. Then the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) I see is not here either. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has made a point that several other members have made and on which I will say a few words later, namely, that this Bill is the Bill of my predecessor. He wants me to take over the Land Bank loans. It may be very desirable, and I can quite understand that the settlers would be very glad if I did that, but it means that I would have to make provision for at least £100,000. I would have to ask the Minister of Finance to give me £100,000 to pay off the Land Bank loans, and I am perfectly certain that he is not going to do that. The settlers get privileges here which are far better than any ordinary farmer gets. If a farmer wants to raise money he has to pay 7 or 8 per cent. I make provision in this Bill that settlers have only to pay 4 per cent on the purchase price in future, and they have 40 years in which to pay up their arrears. As far as the Land Bank is concerned, they are placed on a better footing than all the rest of the farmers. Of course, it would be better if the settlers had only one department to deal with, but there are considerable difficulties in the way of that. My hon. friend also wants the settlers to give evidence before the Select Committee. The Select Committee will have power to take evidence and call for papers and, if it thinks necessary that evidence should be given on this Bill, then it can call witnesses. My hon. friend also spoke about quit rent, which point was also brought up by several other members. There seems to be a misunderstanding as far as quit rent is concerned. The position in the Transvaal and the Free State is that they have a land tax, while Natal and the Cape are on a different footing. In the Transvaal, if a farm is given out, the owner pays the full price, whatever it may be, but after he has paid for the land there is still a tax on the land, a very small tax, it is true. The quit rent system in the Cape is on quite a different footing. In the old days of the Cape farms were put up to public auction and the person who made the highest bid of quit rent got the farm. Now all that he pays for the farm is the quit rent. The quit rent is really the price of the farm; it is not a tax. As the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will remember, the Cape in the old days appointed a commission which went thoroughly into the cases all over the Colony.

A lot of the Cape farms were sold for cash and they paid first 1 per cent. and afterwards one-half per cent. as quit rent. All the 64 farms were sold.

That may be, but I believe that what is called quitrent in the Cape is what I have explained here.

Quitrent is capitalized at 5 per cent.

Yes; if the owner of the farm so desires it, he could take 20 years quitrent and pay that in one lump sum. Another commissioner was afterwards appointed to go into this question and relief was given where it was thought necessary, and I do not think I can go into that question again. I only want to say that the system differs entirely from what obtains in the Transvaal and Free State. In the Transvaal and Free State it is an ordinary land tax, which I do not think is right.

Why?

Because the land does not belong to these people yet. I see my hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) is now in his place, and I will, therefore, reply to a few of the points that he has raised. As a member of the Select Committee, he will have full and ample opportunity of bringing forward his views. He said that we must follow the example of Australia and give the land away for nothing. Let me tell him that Australia is in the happy position that it has got good ground to give away for nothing. We have not got it. We have very little Crown land left. What we have is mostly in places like the Kalahari, Gordonia, and so forth. Fancy giving a man 60 acres in the Kalahari! Australia is not buying land and giving it away for nothing. I have details before me as far as California, Victoria and New South Wales are concerned. In California a fruit farm of 20 acres costs the settler £1,210, a poultry farm of 10 acres £1,445, a diversified farm of 40 acres £2,230. In Victoria a 50-acre farm, plus land and buildings, cost the settler £2,025. In New South Wales a 40-acre farm, plus water charges, cost the settler £2,080, and a grain farm of 600 acres £4,745. That is far in excess of what land costs here.

I do not think that is a convincing illustration.

What I want to point out to my hon. friend is that if Australia gives land for nothing, it is Crown land, and that we have very little left of that description. Land is not given away by the land boards in Australia for nothing. If we had all the Crown land which Australia has now and which Canada had in years gone by, then the question is one that might be considered, but at present we have not got the land. As regards the other point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) about title, let me tell him that I think if he goes through this country he will hardly find one man in a hundred who will agree with him that a lessee should not get title, but should remain a lessee his whole life long. Private possession gives the lessee courage to develop his land, to improve it and to make it an attractive place. If he thinks that he is going to remain a lessee only and never become proprietor, he will probably exhaust the land, get out of it all he can and then leave it. On this point my hon. friend and I must agree to differ.

Why make Natal pay quitrent and not the Free State?

The farm belongs to the person, even if he pays quitrent. He is not a lessee; he is owner of the farm. Instead of paying the price at once, he has agreed with the Government that he will pay a yearly sum of so much.

†*The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) says that section 5 makes provision that certain monies should be written off. Those are not arrear monies. According to the existing law, nothing is paid in the first year. In the second year 2 per cent. is paid and in the third year 3½ per cent. If anyone wishes to give up a farm within that time he is fined by having to pay 3½ per cent. over the whole period, reckoned from the first year. From this they are relieved in those special circumstances. It is a kind of punishment which is abolished.

†My hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) enquired whether the people from overseas will get the same privileges as the people in this country. I would point out that there is no difference in the law between a person here and one overseas. It is a matter entirely for the Land Board. I may say this, however, that in this country we have such a large number of people clamouring for land that our first care is for the people who are here already. Then he mentioned the land under the different irrigation schemes. I cannot go into that matter, as it would be anticipating the report of my hon. friend over there, but I have discussed the matter with him and I have no doubt the general idea is that a recommendation will be made that the land be given instead of paying rates, and this land will then become the property of the Government. It is quite possible that we may have to make some alteration afterwards. My hon. friend has made a very important point in his advocacy of a continuous advance up to 60 per cent. of improvements. He has given me a very good hint, and when the Bill comes before the Select Committee, this point will be brought to notice. He also wanted to know whether the law is retrospective. I have already stated that every settler now on the land gets this 40 years except in the case of section 11, where he will pay the purchase price in 76 half-yearly instalments. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has stated that I wanted extra land boards. I think he misunderstood the clause about land boards. Under the law, the Land Settlement Act as it now stands, there are only four land boards, one each in the Cape, Free State, Natal and Transvaal. The law gives me power to appoint a fifth board, but if I want more than five I will have to come to Parliament for authority. It is highly probable that a fifth board will have to appointed, because in the Transvaal I find that the land board is overwhelmed with work. They have practically become officials, sitting 10 or 12 days every month, and the rest of the time they have to travel in connection with section 11 cases to inspect and report. They cannot get through their work properly, and I think it will be necessary, afterwards, to readjust those portions of the Union which fall under the different land boards and to appoint a fifth board for the Transvaal. In regard to irrigation settlements I am awaiting the report of the Irrigation Commission.

†*The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) has said that I stated that we give smaller advances in the Transvaal than in the Free State. I wish to tell him that the value of the ground in the various provinces is taken as the basis of calculation. In the western portions of the Free State no ground is given out, and in the areas where it is bought the cost of the ground runs to £10 per morgen, while in the Transvaal it only comes to £6 per morgen. The hon. member for Hopetown has mentioned several points. With reference to the letter that he read and the request made therein, I will only say that the request could not be hitherto acceded to, but that at this very moment we are introducing provisions to permit of our acceding thereto. Then in connection with the matter of forced labour, I only wish to tell the hon. member that that is not a matter concerning settlement. The Minister of Labour has a Bill under consideration in connection with that matter. The hon. member for Bethal has asked me to give my special attention to the matter of the Bethal settlers. I can give him my assurance that this has already been done. More than a month ago the Land Board went to the settlement to investigate the matter and I am still awaiting their report about it.

†Several hon. members have stated that this is my predecessor’s Bill. I stated in my second reading speech that, so far as the 40 years was concerned, and the consolidation of arrears, I had an interview with my predecessor 18 months ago, and pointed out that these things should be done, and he agreed with me. That, of course, is not the whole Bill. I do not know what his intentions were; whether he intended to bring in a Bill entirely like this; but that was not done. I do not want to minimize the work of my predecessor.

I acknowledge that that Bill of his in 1912 was a good Bill, and received my hearty support. As a matter of fact I seconded the Bill. I have never treated the land settlement question as one on which I knew everything, and I never suggested that the Government did not do their best. What is more, I always went to my predecessors and discussed matters with them openly, and said I think we should do this or that. I always helped my hon. friend whenever he brought in a Bill to improve the position of the settlers. But, on the other hand, I do not think it is right to say that this Bill is entirely his, because that is not the case. I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion put and agreed to; Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Crown Lands for consideration and report.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Listening to the discussion this afternoon on the Bill of my hon. friend which has received such a warm welcome from all parts of the House, I could not help being reminded of the story of Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams of the chief butler and the chief baker of Pharaoh. I fear I may feel rather like the chief baker may have felt, but still hope that the difference between the receptions of this Bill and of that of my hon. friend may not be as wide apart as Pharaoh’s treatment of those two individuals. I hope the House will not mete out to my Bill the same kind of treatment as was meted out to the chief baker. It would be as well, before discussing the details of the Bill, if I place before the House the relation the Bill bears to our other industrial legislation. Except in the Wages Regulation Act of 1918, there has been no real attempt to deal directly with matters of wages, hours and conditions. Broadly speaking, the legislation has left these matters to be fought out between employers and employees in the higgling of the market. The men trying to get the best terms for themselves, while the employers endeavoured to obtain labour at the cheapest rate. The whole of the legislation in regard to this matter has mainly been inspired by the desire to avoid the public inconvenience attending this method of leaving the thing to be fought out between the two parties. The interruption of industries and the various inconveniences attendant on disputes over these matters have called forth attempts by legislation to try and avoid a repetition of the very undesirable state of affairs resulting from frequent strikes. There have been two ways in other countries of dealing with these things. One is the principle of compulsory arbitration by which tribunals have been set up, whose decisions had the force of law, and the other follows the Canadian precedent and has been adopted in South Africa from the Transvaal Industrial Disputes Act to the Conciliation Act we passed last year. That adopted as its guiding principle the desire to provide machinery by which the matters in dispute could be brought to the light of day, the two parties brought together and the dispute discussed in the hope that public opinion would influence both parties to adopt an attitude of trying to meet one another. This principle of voluntary common agreement is certainly best where it is practicable and effective. Forced agreements in the main are resented by one side or the other, and there are various inconveniences attached to compulsion. While that is so, there are two sets of conditions which make that method inoperative in arriving at the broad aim which these laws have in view. We will take one set of conditions. In our legislation we forbid men to cease work and we forbid workers to raise the only possible protest sometimes left to them by an organized cessation of labour until the conciliation machinery has been gone through, thus depriving one side of a very great tactical advantage—the power of putting the other side to the greatest possible inconvenience at short notice, and with the greatest possible element of surprise. It is good that the conciliation machinery should be there, and its principles are sound, but that must fail if one side or the other asserts that it is right whatever any outside judgment may say and that it will stand by its rights, and will concede nothing. That is where your conciliation machine is prone to fail. There is another direction in which it fails to satisfy altogether the objects it has in view. The conciliation machinery presupposes organization on both sides. What has inspired legislation on these matters in other parts of the world is—not altogether or only the object of avoiding public inconvenience—but the general public conscience which holds that the state should not permit anybody of men to be oppressed by any other section of the community. But in industries in which the lowest possible wages are paid, in the sweated industries, organization is almost entirely impossible. It has been said that even a worm will turn, but I think that anyone who has studied these matters will realize that when men and women are beaten down beyond a certain point, and are living on almost a bare minimum of existence, the fear of losing even that bare minimum prevents them from having the backbone which would enable them to take advantage of the most elementary machinery of this kind. That is why the legislation of 1918 has largely failed of the objects for which it was passed by this House. It is almost impossible to get persons to serve on those boards because, as representing the workers, they are greatly in danger of losing the livelihood on which each of them depends. So in these circumstances this conciliation machinery is not a sufficient method of arriving at something like justice in these matters. There is a further interesting point in relation to these matters worthy of attention. Two alternative principles—voluntary and compulsory—have been tried. The voluntary principle tends to fail; mainly on the employers’ side for this reason. Supposing you have your conciliation board, and supposing that by a small majority they have come to a particular conclusion, or sup posing that the two parties ultimately fail to agree, although the balance of evidence and outside opinion is on one side—in these cases the employers have de facto the power of refusing concessions, and the only thing the workers can do is to strike and bring more pressure to bear. I think if there is one thing more than another about which erroneous ideas are often held by those who have not, perhaps, given the matter as much attention as they might have done, it is the impression that the average working man regards a strike as anything but a most calamitous circumstance in his life. When you have a man living on wages with a very little margin, he is by striking placing in jeopardy over an unknown period his livelihood and also placing in jeopardy his chance of getting back to work; so I am sure members will realize that the idea that men like striking or entering into a strike with a light heart is an idea very far indeed from the truth. Therefore it is that the voluntary principle tends to fail on the side of the organized employer; because he has it in his power de facto to say, “I do not care what public opinion is; I am right, and I am going to stick to my guns.” On the other hand, the compulsory principle tends to fail on the other side. While it is possible to inflict a penalty on a small and powerful body of employers, the compulsory principle tends to fail owing to the tremendous difficulty, the practical impossibility, of bringing 10,000 or 15,000 men who go on strike under criminal penalty. These seem to be the two poles in these alternate principles of policy, and I feel that we cannot rely entirely on the one principle or the other; we must accustom ourselves to use possibly a little of both ideas. We have to remember that we want to adhere as far as possible to the voluntary agreement, because of the merits inherent in it, the vastly greater merits in the long run of agreement by two parties over a state of things forced on one party. But, as members will notice in this Bill, we do not desire for a moment to supersede the Industrial Conciliation Act. The first clause excludes from the operation of this Act every wage agreement arrived at under the Conciliation Act; so we give the Conciliation Act and the principle of voluntary agreement the fullest possible play. Let me deal next with the place and use in this Bill in relation to the policy of the Government in trying to guide the development of the industries in this country in a direction in which they would afford the greatest possible field of employment for men who require a rate of wages upon which they can live according to decent civilized standards of life. I want to deal with this matter in as little polemical a spirit as I can, and if I seem to labour this point, although according to some of our ideas it is almost axiomatic, I hope members will forgive me. But there are such matters in relation to this Bill which I think should be laid stress upon. I do not want to be tedious, but it is necessary perhaps to recall to hon. members the development of this industrial wage question. There was a time when the world was in a much simpler state of social organization, when the main pursuits were agricultural and pastoral, and industry was mainly home industry. That was, broadly, the state of affairs in the world until the factory and large-scale-waged production system burst on the world about 150 years ago. And it is worth while recalling what were the effects of that. As everyone knows, Great Britain was the pioneer in this industrial development, and most of the evil effects were there first felt, so that other nations which followed in the wake were largely able to profit by the lessons which Britain had learned. We know the dreadful hardship and almost intolerable suffering to which enormous numbers of population were put when this system of factory wage production was introduced in full force. And this is my point; what saved Great Britain in those days was the homogenous character of the population, and that the conscience of those who were better off was smitten and aroused by the woes of their own fellow-countrymen— men of their own blood and race. It was the trade union movement in the main which saved England and prevented the nation sinking to a C3 level. But it arose and had its strength with the help and through the aid largely of those classes who had not been beaten down to the lower level. It had its beginning amongst the artizans. But everybody admits the tremendous assistance which the trades unions and all those agencies towards better things received from men more fortunately placed, men like Shaftesbury and Kingsley, Ruskin, and a host of others whose consciences were aroused. That was in a country occupied by men who were all of one blood. What is the application of that to this country? Supposing it had been different in England, supposing the inhabitants of Sussex and the southern counties were men of a different race, belonging to a different civilization. You would not have had the same reaction and you would not have had the conscience of the country aroused. It would have been said that the men of Sussex were an asset to the country. Let them do the work at their low level of existence and let us live and fatten on their labours. It is common knowledge that the tendency of modern industry unless controlled and checked simply leads to larger and larger sections of the population being sweated down below the level of dignified life. In South Africa we have not got a homogeneous population. We have two races separated by the wide gulf of history and civilization; a gulf of difference in material wants which are considered necessary for life. The same process which leads to sweating in another country gives a tendency in this country to eliminate those who require the higher standard of life. In another sphere it is in exemplification of the truth of Gresham’s “Law of Currency.” In certain circumstances bad money will drive out the good. In the competitive wage-production system in a situation such as we have in South Africa the lower civilization will gradually drive out the higher civilization. I believe there is room in South Africa for all of us, but I cannot understand any man who can dream that it can be in the long run good for either the civilized or uncivilized inhabitants of South Africa that the civilized population of South Africa should fail to keep their end up and have fullest opportunities of expansion in the country, which is their own. To-day, let it be remembered, the European is just as indigenous to South Africa as the Bantu, his descendants having been residents of this colony for nearly 300 years since the day their ancestors first came to Table Bay. Those who say that we can look forward and run this country on the conception of the European as a sort of race of supervisors only—as a plantation colony, well, let them hold their opinion; we on this side of the House look upon that as a mirage, a false conception that can only lead to the national downfall. If our civilization is going to subsist we look upon it as necessary that our industries should be guided so that they afford any men desiring to live according to the European standards greater opportunities of doing so, and we must set our face against the encouragement of employment merely because it is cheap and the wage unit is low. This Bill is designed as one that will help in raising the status and efficiency of the worker. One hears a good many expressions of opinion in regard to the subject. They seem to me to be a resurrection of long since abandoned economic fallacies. The idea that production is necessarily economical because the wage unit is low has been disproved by the experience of nearly every wage country in the world.

Why do you exclude farmers then?

I am explaining what our views are on that. Many and many a farmer in this country—and there are a good many of them—have found it is conducive to more regular and economical production to use an intelligent class of labourer and pay them more. That is the experience of farmers I have met. If hon. members will examine this Bill they will find it is designed to raise the status and efficiency. Let us not imagine that because a particular low wage-unit is adopted it necessarily implies economical production. On the contrary I think one can generalize and say that as men advance in their wants and in their status, in their confidence in themselves, their efficiency improves and economical production improves. Certainly, America, the highest wage country in the world, is the country of cheap production. In raising status and efficiency we don’t want to do it rashly, but by steady pressure. When we deal with the Bill itself some of my friends of my own party will say it is too much hedged about by restrictions and safeguards for the Act to be effective. In dealing with a matter of this sort however let us be careful to go step by step so as not to have to retrace our steps, rather than go too quickly and find reaction forces us further back than when we started. My friend the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) is not present, so therefore I will not deal with a phase of the subject I intended to mention.

Deal with it.

Well, I was going to deal with some of his figures as reported in the press, comparing the wages of Europeans in this country with the wages in other countries. It is comparing like with unlike. It is comparing men in the position more or less of foremen in this country with the average of the whole lot in other countries, foremen, skilled and unskilled mixed together. If you take the true reading of the same figures that were given by him, you would find that the industry that he was speaking of in this country is probably one of the lowest wage industries of its kind in the whole world. I do not think, when you compare this country and the economy of production in this country, anyone can say who has investigated the matter that our low wage unit is concomitant with economical production. I come now to deal with the terms of the Bill, just reminding hon. members opposite in passing that in this country the European increases and multiplies, and in any family you will find quite a considerable percentage who are deficient in those powers of self-direction, just as it is in any other country in the world, and who would in their ordinary mode of occupation be earning wages; and that the more you allow that field to be restricted the more you are throttling the civilized race in this country. Coming to the clauses of the Bill, in the Wages Regulation Act of 1918, which hon. members opposite are responsible for, the principle of fixing a minimum wage was already introduced. May I remind my right hon. friend the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who, when he was speaking in the country the other day, tried to arouse the alarm of the agricultural population in referring to this Bill as the thin edge of the wedge, that he had already introduced the thin end of the wedge in 1918, even if it were only applicable to juveniles and women? There was another Bill also, which was defeated in the Senate. I think we may leave that aside as far as the thin end of the wedge is concerned. One of the main features in which this Bill differs from either the 1918 Act or the 1922 Bill, is that both those Bills contemplated setting up a multiplicity of wage boards, one wage board for each area, or one wage board for each industry in an area. This Bill departs altogether from that in setting up one wage board alone, which shall gradually deal with the different problems presented in different parts of the country. I expect criticism perhaps on that from my hon. friends sitting on the Labour benches. That plan has its advantages and its disadvantages, and the whole question is on which side the balance of advantage lies. If you have one wage board, I will agree that for a few years the work of that board may tend to be congested. On the other hand, if you have a multiplicity of wage boards, they will all be operating in various areas, and they will be dealing with these things according to the particular principles which commend themselves to these wage boards. I certainly do think, when you consider the chaos which is likely to result therefrom, it is far better, especially in the circumstances of this country, seeing the very difficult questions which that board will have to deal with, that you should set up one wage board. I think that is the sounder plan, and it will certainly mean that in constituting that board a very grave responsibility will rest upon the Government in obtaining the services of the very best men we can. I suppose a dry-as-dust professor of economics will be the worst person in the world for that position. On the other hand, if you take a man who has not versed himself in economic science, you are likely to fall into a pit nearly as deep on the other side, I do not think South Africa is so devoid of brains and learning and common sense that we shall not be able to find an efficient personnel for that board. Another point is that the board will have at its disposal all the information collected by the factory and labour inspectorate and by the Department of Labour, which will greatly facilitate its work, and I do think that the fears of those who believe that the work of the board will be congested for the next few years are somewhat overdrawn. Then I come to the exceptions. Hon. members will notice that no determination under this Bill shall apply to persons carrying on or employed in agricultural, horticultural or pastoral pursuits or in forestry or domestic service. I have no doubt that hon. members opposite will make great play with this, and that the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) will, as he has done before, point out that what is applicable to the industrialists ought to be applicable to the farmer.

Why not?

There are a good many reasons why not. Hon. members know perfectly well that there is a profound and a wide difference between occupation in industrial life and occupation in agricultural life.

It applies in England to agriculture.

England has got a good deal further than we have. It is a great deal more congested country and it has a good deal more complicated system of economic and social life than prevails in this country to-day in the agricultural districts. To return to its more industrial application, no determination in this Act is to apply to any employers or employees who are parties to, or are covered by, any agreement which, before or after the commencement of this Act, has under the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act been made between such employers and employees. Following along the policy of voluntary conciliation, we do not want to interfere in the least bit with any agreement arrived at under the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act. And further, it is not applicable to apprentices under the Appenticeship Act. It is mainly, at all events in its earlier years, in regard to unorganized labour of the sweated industries or where in most instances sweating is to be found, and where men can hardly look after themselves, that this Act will find its main field of work in the earlier years of its existence. I think hon. members know full well that there is such sweating. I have a number of figures here with which I will not weary the House. I have one instance where the wages are miserably low and it is rather far away from other places. There is a big factory, and I am informed that the only shops where the workers can buy anything belong to the same people who own the factory. These things are sores in South Africa to-day to which this Wages Bill will have to apply. Good employers have nothing to fear from this Bill but everything to gain by not being subject to the more unworthy competition of the man who is sweating his employees. In that respect it is a measure which is welcomed by a large number of good employers in this country. Then I come to what I call the safeguards against hasty and ill-considered action. In clause 3 it will be noted, in investigating any conditions, the board in regard to any matter in connection with any trade or section of a trade under sub-section 1 shall take into consideration various things which are specified in a, b, c, d, e and any other matters to which they may be directed by the Minister. Further to that, in clause 6, before the Minister may make a determination in accordance with any advice or recommendation of the board, he may at any time or from time to time, by notice in the “Gazette,” state the time during which any employer or body of employers who have any serious objection to the proposed determination, can place their objections before the Minister, and if they are serious enough, he shall appoint an arbitrator who, with the board, shall examine his objections. I think this is a sufficient security against hasty and ill-considered action in regard to this Bill, and whatever the Minister of the day may do in determining according to the advice of the board, at all events there is ample security that he shall so determine with his eyes open and with the responsibility that he will be answerable to Parliament for his determination. Clauses 4 and 5 lay down the powers of the board, which I do not think require to be dealt with further in detail. If a board like this is to be any good it must have full powers of investigation, and also if it is not to be a sort of inquisitorial body these powers of investigation must be safeguarded so far as the persons investigating are concerned, by forcing the board to maintain secrecy in regard to any particular case, whether of scandalous wages or other matters. In clause 11 the Conciliation Act is again protected. We are particularly careful not to infringe on the legitimate functions of the Conciliation Act, but rather that to provide that any inconveniences suffered by the working of this Act may be minimized by both sides entering into the full spirit of the Conciliation Act. Then there has been a good deal of criticism in the press in regard to clause 13, in which a most necessary protection is taken to employees. If that board is to get true evidence from men who know the facts at first hand, the men who are themselves suffering, the Act must give them some protection and see that these men are not penalized for exercising their rights as citizens, and I do not think you can do that by simply enjoining that no employer shall penalize, dismiss or take action prejudicial to his employees’ position merely because he has given evidence before the board; because a mere injunction like that is futile unless it lays the full onus upon the person accused to show that he acted from some totally different motive, and which the person trying the matter will adjudicate to be a good reason. Hon. members know that if a man is in employment and he does something, for instance, coming before the board, which the employer may regard as most inimical to his interests, but, which it is perfectly right for the man to do and which this Bill asks him to do, that the employer can get rid of him in a hundred ways, but ostensibly for some reason other than that particular action. Although you cannot safeguard against that altogether, you can make it more difficult by throwing the onus of proof on the employer to show that there was good reason for dismissing the man. If there is no clause of this sort the board will get very little assistance from men in sweated industries. Clause 9 gives the Minister power of exemption where men are not able to do a full day’s work for you must “temper the wind to the shorn lamb.” I think I have been through most of the material points of the Bill, and have said enough to make clear the principles on which the Bill is based, and I think the right hon. member will admit that his point about this being the thin end of the wedge is rather pointless. The measure is necessary if we are going to prevent larger and larger numbers of men being sweated down below the level at which men can support themselves as civilized people. There are two alternatives—one being to allow people to find themselves more and more restricted in the choice of employment. During the general election it was said that the Children of Europeans will have to get out of this country, as their parents can afford to send them elsewhere. But we think the children should be able to find a living in South Africa, and we propose to do our best to see that that is done without injustice to anyone, but with a very stern determination and steady pressure to prevent the European civilized man being crowded out of the country. The Bill is essentially one which can be better discussed in select committee than probably fighting it out on the floor of the House, and after the second reading is passed, I shall propose that the Bill be referred to a select committee, and there we shall be able to hear evidence from any group or sections of persons who think the measure will seriously interfere with them, and we shall be able to see whether there are any points we have overlooked which will make it more workable. I think we have met every reasonable objection and point. The main desire we have in putting the Bill on the Statute Book is to help on the conciliation policy so far as organized employers and employees are concerned, and to supply some other method for the help of the sweated man who is sinking down the scale and to enable the state to say to employers that they cannot make a living out of the sweat and suffering of their fellow men. I move the second reading.

I wish to compliment the Minister on the very clear and lucid, and also very temperate, statement which he has made in introducing this important measure. This is probably the most far-reaching and important measure in the long list of important measures which the Government is introducing this session. This is not merely an industrial Bill, as it appears to be at first sight—it goes far beyond that. There is no doubt that it aims at a fundamental alteration of conditions in this country—economic, industrial and in other respects. Therefore, apart from the details which I am not going to discuss to-night, I think it is right that I should emphasize certain underlying principles of this very grave and important measure. It would be a far-reaching measure for any Government to come to this House and to ask for powers for the State to regulate all wages in all industries in this country. That would be as far-reaching a measure as has ever been attempted, I believe, in any country on earth; but when we see that beyond that the Government on the present occasion asks for powers to establish an equal wage system, to settle wages irrespective of colour, and to regulate that the same wage shall be paid for the same work, or for similar work, whatever the colour of the person, then it becomes clear that we are dealing with a fundamental issue, and the Bill becomes one of fundamental importance.

High time we did deal with it.

I simply want to emphasize the grave importance of the measure with which we are dealing. This is not a mere industrial measure; it deals with something far more fundamental, and whether this Bill is going to be a success or failure, it is going to reach much further than appears at first sight, and it deserves the calm, clear examination of this House, so that people may see the principles at stake and the issues of the great questions raised. To show how important this Bill is, I may refer to a speech made a week or so ago by Mr. Cousins, the Secretary of the Labour Department, at a meeting of the Cape Juvenile Affairs Board in this town. He said it was a Bill of vital importance and one that should be studied by all who had the interests and the future of South Africa at heart. Then he goes on to give well deserved words of praise to Prof. Clarke for his work for the juveniles. He then proceeded: “This Bill is going to be a regulation in the great battle which is to be fought between civilization and barbarism. It is when you think of that that you realize what is at stake.” I ask hon. members to approach the Bill from that point of view. This Bill is, and it is meant to be, a turning-point in South Africa; the author and framer of that Bill has given us that assurance, and anyone who reads that Bill must realize that we are dealing with a matter of first-class importance. Now there are some matters in this Bill which are obscure. At the first sight the Bill seems so wide in its scope that I do not know whether the Government intends to carry out its full purpose. I ask myself the question, is this merely an industrial Bill, or has it a wider scope? Because, if you look at the definitions it has the widest scope possible. If you read the definition of employer, you will find employer means any person including the Government of the Union, a provincial administration, and the Railways and Harbours Administration, who employs other people, and “employees” is defined as any person who does work and is entitled to receive any wage or remuneration in money for his work.

Always subject to exclusions under the first clause.

Yes, agriculture and domestic service are excluded.

And the Conciliation Act.

But the Government and railways and harbours are included. I don’t say it is the intention of the Bill, but I want to draw attention to the wide language resorted to. It means that any body of civil servants or railway servants, in the service of the Government or a provincial council, or in the service of the Railway Administration can come forward and claim to have their minimum wages settled under this Act.

Why not?

I will tell you why not. Because the salaries of civil servants are settled in this country by entirely different machinery. We have instituted a public service commission, which goes into the question and deals with the rates and scales of pay, and we have a treasury in the country which watches the salaries paid in the civil service, and a railway board which watches the salaries paid on the railways. If the provision of this definition is carried out the result will be that the Minister of Finance will not be settling salaries, but the wages board will be settling them. In the case of civil servants, if they should want their scales of pay altered and their minimum pay raised, it is entirely covered by the terms of this Act as it stands. I don’t believe it is the intention, because it would create chaos. But the Bill seems quite clear on the point. The hon. Minister has twitted me for having criticised the principle of the minimum wage and says I have admitted this principle under the Act of 1918 and that I have thus given away the principle already. Let me say at once I am not, nor are we on this side of the House opposed to the principle of minimum wage. Our action in 1921, when we deliberately introduced a minimum wage Bill into the House, proves it. We introduced it and fought it through a good deal of opposition from hon. members now sitting behind the Minister. The opposition came almost entirely from that side of the House. At the third reading a gentleman, who is now a Cabinet Minister, voted against it. Then he strained at the gnat, but now he has swallowed the camel. The Bill was carried by the Government through this House, and it went to another place, where very largely, owing to the attitude again of the Opposition there—of the Nationalist members—

No, thirteen voted against it and ten were S.A.P. Senators.

The prospective member of the Pact is very zealous. So far from being opposed to this principle, we fought it through this House with all the power we could put into it and it only miscarried in another place.

You fought it out in this House and killed it in the other.

No, let me say this that the Minimum Wage Bill of 1922 we still stand by and if a Bill on those lines were introduced into this House, then hon. members on the Government benches would find, as far as I know, almost unanimous support from this side of the House.

What about the S.A.P. in the Senate?

Let us attend to the matter we are discussing here and let the hon. member deal with his colleague who voted against the Minimum Wage Bill of 1922. No, this Bill is a case not merely of principle, but a case of a principle being wrapped up in such impossible machinery, as it is in this Bill, that the whole principle becomes vitiated and impossible. In the Bill of 1922 we proceeded on the principle that minimum wages are questions to be settled by those interested, by boards of employers and employees in each industry. It is their concern, it is their business, and we laid it down in that Bill, as I believe it has been laid down in similar legislation in other countries, that it is a question for the determination of those interested in those industries. Industry is a partnership between the workers and the employers, and that partnership you recognize, so that when it comes to wages, conditions of labour, and similar vital questions affecting industry the matter should be one to be settled between them. That is the democracy of industry. Let those who are directly interested in industry settle these questions for themselves. That was the position in the Bill of 1922. But what is the position under this Bill? Let me point out that the Minister was wrong when he said that among the exclusions under this Bill is contained also the Conciliation Act of last year. It is not so; that is a mistake that he makes. This Bill gives the Government an over-riding power in respect of minimum wages even over the decisions of the Conciliation Boards under the Act of last year. That is beyond doubt. Hon. members will see that clause 1 is framed in that way. “No determination under this Act shall apply to any agreement which provides for wages or rates not lower in any case than those which may be determined under this Act.” The position is that the Act of last year and the work of the Conciliation Board of last year are only left untouched in this Bill so far as the wages fixed under that Act are not lower than those which are fixed under this Act. As soon as there is a difference this Bill becomes the governing and over-riding authority. There is no doubt that under its terms this Bill becomes paramount. It may be that under the Conciliation Act of last year minimum wages may be settled by the industry itself. The machinery of last year was that an equal number of workers and employers could come together in a board and come to an agreement that wages shall be settled at a certain amount. If, under this Act, higher wages in a similar industry are settled, and the minimum is thus to be at a higher figure, then this Act becomes the governing authority and the decision of the board under the Act of last year is overridden. This is, beyond dispute, the plain statement of the position under this Act, and I need not labour it. I am trying to explain what the relation is of this Bill to the Act of last year. One of my principal objections to this Bill is that whereas in the legislation of last year, and in the legislation of 1922, we were following the democratic principle of letting wages be settled by those interested, by boards consisting equally of representative employers and employees, this Bill departs from that vital principle, and introduces an entirely different one. Under this Bill the minimum wage in future will be settled on entirely bureaucratic lines. The Minister becomes a dictator. The state steps in, both workers and employers are pushed aside, and the Government appoints a board: but it is no longer a board with an equal number of workers and employers knowing the circumstances, the facts, and with their peculiar knowledge and ability coming to a settlement with regard to minimum wages. They are pushed aside, the Government board steps in and this is an entirely different procedure and a very dangerous one. Not only is it a Government board—the hon. the Minister may say the workers and the employers may be represented by two members on this board, two against three; but the board still remains in its majority, even when so supplemented, a Government board; a board which may have nothing to do with the particular industry in regard to which it has to decide and may have no definite information in regard to any particular industry, because it is for all industries and for the whole Union. It substitutes bureaucracy and dictatorship on the part of the state. Let us go a step further. Suppose there is objection to the finding of this board. Supposing that, if the provisional notice has been published by the Minister that a certain recommendation has been made to him and he invites information on this recommendation and objection is raised, what happens then? The Minister proceeds to appoint an arbitrator. Under the Bills we had before, it was the industry that did that. The employers and employees would come together and try to settle the matter by agreeing upon an arbitrator; but here they are not even consulted. They are simply pushed aside and you have autocracy, the state stepping in, in a high-handed way, into the vitals of industry, to try to settle things along bureaucratic lines. The most curious instance of all is the clause to which the Minister referred, namely clause 11. As far as I can make out, it says this: That if a matter is before the board for determination and the parties, probably fearing the board, or knowing the award of the board, want to come to an agreement among themselves over a matter which is the subject of determination, they may make an agreement, but the agreement will have to be ratified by two-thirds of the workers. Supposing that is done, it is still in the power either of the Minister or of ten or more workers to upset that agreement. You see, therefore, that the power of dealing with these matters is entirely taken out of the hands of the industry. Under clause 11 the agreement may be made between the workers and the employers, if it is confirmed by a two-thirds majority, but the Bill gives the power to the Government or to ten or more workers, although they may be a very small proportion of the total employed, to object, and the whole agreement then falls to the ground. I cannot conceive that there should be this dictatorial, autocratic rule simply to carry out a new policy—a policy of the dictatorship of the Government in the industries of the country. Under this Bill all wages will become Government wages. I do not believe you have a similar state of affairs in any other country in the world. Other countries try to get bodies representative of both sides to settle wages, but in South Africa under this Bill a Government Board, a Government arbitrator, and finally the Minister, will settle all wages. Because minimum wages tend on the whole to become the ordinary wage.

Certainly not.

There will be a cast-iron system, and there will be nothing left to the settlement of the industry, but the Government will become responsible for all wages.

Why not?

That has been tried in only one country, Russia, and I do not think the hon. member will quote Russia as an example for us to follow.

Did you say that minimum wages become the maximum wages?

The minimum wage tends to become the wage, but in piece-work some men will get more. I think it is the universal experience that minimum wages become the governing wages. This is a young country. We are at the very threshold of our industrial career. Why should we tie ourselves hand and foot by this Bill? We look forward to a great industrial career, and to the starting of new industries for the solution of many of the gravest problems that trouble us. We have the problems of unemployment and poor whites, and they can only be solved by the largest possible industrial development. Now at the very beginning what are we doing? We are going to strangle ourselves and tie up the industrial system of this country by a Government bureaucratic system such as is not known in any other country in the world. I think we should be making a very grave mistake if we were to do this. And I ask how is this system going to work in practice? We have in this country skilled workers and unskilled workers of all grades; we have black, we have coloured, we have white; all these are governed by the terms of this Bill, and if minimum wages are established in any industry these will apply to every grade of worker, irrespective of colour.

Do you want the colour bar put in?

No, this Bill is just the opposite of the colour bar.

Do you want the colour bar?

If the hon. member will listen to me he can make his point when he likes. We have two Government Bills before the House; one of them making an almost impossible provision in regard to the so-called colour bar, and the other Bill sweeping away the colour bar and laying down an equal rule for all colours. But I am not going into the question of principles raised in these two Bills, I am asking how is this Bill going to work? We, in this country, know that all employment in South Africa so far has been built up on a different basis. We have whites of all grades of skill, coloured and black, and we have realized the essential differences for South Africa in industry between them, and paid them different wages. The whole of South Africa is based on that system. It is not only in industry, but in employment of all kinds, that this essential racial and social difference is recognized. This Bill is going to make a vast change and introduce equality where there has so far been difference.

Unjust difference. Equal wage for equal work.

Yes, that is the principle which is introduced here, and what I say is that when we do this let us do it with open eyes; let us know what we are doing. We are doing something which runs counter to the universal practice of South Africa all over and all through the years of its existence. We may be doing a laudable thing, a good thing, for the future of this country, but let us recognize this is a fundamental departure from what has been done before. I even find now that the Government cannot do it. The Government has introduced the policy of what is called “civilized labour,” but it came out in the discussion a week ago that the Government had to differentiate in paying wages. The Minister of Railways and Harbours was challenging everybody here like a fighting-cock to say whether they did not agree to that differentiation. I am not going to answer that point now, but what I want to say is that even the Government with their policy of civilized labour has so far found it impossible to carry out equality of wages for white and coloured employees in the railway service. Different civilized wages are paid to white and coloured employees in the railway service. Now, Sir, let us take the Black labour and see how it will work out in practice, how this fundamental departure will work in the industries of this country. I have been thinking over it to see how it will work. It is an important point. We are groping towards the light. No man is wise enough to see very far into the future. We are trying a great experiment in civilization in this country and no man can rigidly stick to preconceived notions in such circumstances as we find here to-day. I have asked myself how this Bill is going to work. If you pay the same wage to the unskilled worker in any industry, whether white, coloured or black—what will that wage be? Well, I know what the black man is paid and I know the white man cannot subsist on it. I can only therefore conceive a policy whereby the black man is going to be paid more because he must be paid a wage which is a subsistence wage for the white man also. The minimum wage for the black man therefore, must go up. Can the country stand it? Can the country bear it? Take the mining industry. We know what the natives are paid in the mining industries, the gold mines and the diamond mines. Let us assume that the unskilled black labourer is going to be paid a wage similar to that paid to the white unskilled labourer. What is going to be the effect on those industries? Can they continue? Therefore we must ask ourselves this question. We are passing legislation which seems to bring an ideal from the clouds, but it is in direct conflict to all that has gone on in South Africa and with the whole of our experience. We must ask ourselves therefore, will it work? Is it possible? Putting farm and domestic labour aside, can we pay the wages to the black man equal to what we pay the white man? It means this that under this law when applied in this country, many of the industries will shut up because you will level up, you will have to level up, the wage of the black man. Look at it from another point of view. How is the white man going to Be effected? We have in this country been able to pay the skilled white labour a fairly considerable wage. Our wages paid to skilled workers in South Africa are far in excess of what are paid in any other country, except America, and we were able to do it because we paid the black man such a low wage. The native only receiving two shillings a day we could afford to pay 20s. to the white man and more.

How does America pay it?

I am arguing our case here. Supposing a black man in future is not paid 2s., but the civilized wage of 5s. because that figure seems to be the civilized wage of the Government. We have tried to get the figure from the Minister of Railways as to what he considers are the civilized rates of pay, and it seems to be 5s. per day, plus housing. That is the basis. Supposing that is the standard and it must apply to the black man also, I ask: Can we, after that, continue to pay the skilled man 20s. or 25s.? Naturally that man’s pay must come down. There will not be enough to go round and keep the industries going, therefore the tendency will be for black wages to go up and white wages at the top will have to move down in order to leave sufficient to go round. I say that this Bill, so far from achieving the object which is in view, will only have this effect, that it will close many industries, because you cannot, as our industries are to-day here in South Africa, pay the black man a wage which will be a subsistence wage for the white man and still continue to run those industries. Many of these industries will be closed unemployment will be accentuated, great confusion and dislocation will result and in the end I think we shall discard this experiment and we shall see that, forsaking the experience of the past, we have been doing the country a grave injustice, and we shall have to go back. I only want to deal now with one matter, and that is the exception which has been introduced in this Bill, the exception of agriculture. How long will that exception continue? I ask myself again the question of the justice and fair play of this exception, and, speaking apart from all political questions and considerations, and simply as an impartial spectator of the scene, I would say this, that if there is one industry in which we should encourage white employment in South Africa, it is the agricultural industry. If there is one industry which will mean something of tremendous importance as a scope for the white man in this country it is the agricultural industry. We exclude the agricultural industry here, because we cannot carry it. The Minister cannot carry it. He knows it cannot be carried in this country today, and so he excludes it, not on the principle of justice and fair play, but as a matter of political expediency. How long will that continue? It is a very perilous thing to* build up your case and the laws of your country and its institutions on a mere foundation of expediency like that, and in conflict with principles of justice.

Why did you exclude agriculture?

I have never attempted such heroic measures as this.

Your Bill excluded agriculture altogether.

I had an entirely different principle of the minimum wage.

Why did you exclude them from the Compensation Bill?

The hon. member knows I have only forty minutes to conclude what I have to say. My point is that the agricultural industry is to-day excluded, but look at what has happened in England and Australia and in most other countries where this sort of legislation has triumphed in the end. How long, I ask, will the farmer be excluded in this country? I do not think that the farmer need expect a very long respite from this legislation. Again, agriculture, horticulture, the pastoral industry and forestry are excluded, but agricultural industries are not excluded. All the subsidiary industries, the small agricultural industries which are growing up in great numbers all over the country, will all fall under the terms of this Bill. Why shouldn’t they on principle? I only feel this, that in trying to contract himself out, the governing power of this country, which is the farmer, in contracting himself out of these rules and out of these provisions is making a very precarious provision for his future. Conditions will change in this country; indeed, they are rapidly changing, and nobody knows what will happen to-morrow. I think it is a dangerous Bill. It introduces—not the minimum wage, so much as the minimum wage run by the Government as opposed to the industries in this country. That is an entirely different situation. The machinery devised by the Minister is so dangerous and so vitiates the principle of the minimum wage that I find it impossible to vote for the second reading. I therefore move, as an amendment,—

seconded.

On the motion of Mr. Sampson the debate was adjourned until 1st April.