laid upon the Table—

Papers relating to—

1. (37) Proposed disposal of the farm “Waveney,” Klip River.
2. (38) Proposed waiving of certain condition in title deed of certain church land at Mostert Bay, Stellenbosch.
3. (39) Proposed grant of Lot “Uit Ry” 3a to Uitenhage Municipality.
4. (40) Proposed grant of Lot 29 to Tabankulu Village Management Board.
5. (41) Proposed withdrawal of certain portion of East London Coast Forest Reserve from list of demarcated forest lands.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Crown Lands.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.—

Wage Bill.—The Minister of Labour, Col. D. Reitz, Mr. M. L. Malan, Sir Drummond Chaplin, Messrs. Madeley, Giovanetti, Kentridge, Heatlie, E. H. Louw, Nicholls and Rood.

Admission of Attorneys Bill.—Messrs. D. M. Brown, van Hees, Swart, Nel and Pirow.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

That the petition from J. E. Magraw, a stenographer, Supreme Court, Grahamstown, praying for legislation to meet the special circumstances of his case, presented to this House on the 8th August, 1924, be laid upon the Table.

seconded.

stated that the petition [No. 125—’24] was upon the Table.

I move—

As I do not anticipate anything in the nature of a lengthy discussion, I do not propose to take up much time in submitting this motion to the House. I am prepared to leave the real debate until the amending Bill, which I hope will be introduced as a result of the deliberations of the proposed Select Committee. Certain hon. members will no doubt recollect that early last year I submitted a Bill to amend the Public Holidays Act of 1910, and I was foolish enough to imagine that I would be able to present a revised schedule of public holidays that would meet with the approval of at least a majority of hon. members of this House. I know better now. No doubt this realization was largely due to the fact that there are many hon. members who are entirely opposed to anything in the nature of a change, and those who are not opposed to change are worshippers of the God of things-as-they-are. The inconvenient dates on which many of the present one-day public holidays usually fall to be celebrated has been criticized adversely for some time, and it is contended, especially outside this House, that a more evenly distributed calendar of public holidays could be devised which would be in the interests of the people most concerned. At present there are eleven one-day public holidays, and between the 10th of this month and the 31st of next month, a matter of seven weeks, no fewer than five holidays fall to be celebrated, viz., Good Friday on the 10th instant, Easter Monday on the 13th, and, next month, Victoria or Empire Day on Sunday, the 24th—of course the Public Holidays Act of 1910 makes provision that if one of the statutory holidays should fall on a Sunday, the following Monday is the day on which it will be held— Ascension Day will fall on Thursday, the 21st, and Union Day on Sunday, the 31st. That will also mean that Union Day will be celebrated on June 1st, which, I may say, was the date on which I desired it to be observed in the Amending Bill which I introduced last year. This means that five out of a total of eleven holidays fall within the period of seven weeks, and the remaining six over a period of 45 weeks. There is a desire on the part of the commercial community of South Africa for a change to be made in that respect. At the various congresses of the Associated Chambers of Commerce this matter has been discussed frequently, and they have unanimously come to a decision that some change should be brought about. At the congress held in Cape Town in November, 1923, it was unanimously agreed that it would be in the interests of trade and commerce and of the general community if legislation were introduced, establishing a fixed date for Easter. Then, again, at the congress at Harrismith in October last year, another motion was carried to this effect—

I think I am entitled to take credit that, whoever framed this motion, must have studied the Bill introduced last year; because I am in favour of having as many of the holidays as possible on a Monday. I desire to serve the people in whose interest I am sent to this House, and these are men and women who generally celebrate a public holiday by losing a day’s pay. However, I intend to claim the support of hon. members who represent the commercial community. During the discussion last year, it was suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) that I would be likely to achieve more success were I to introduce this matter in the form of a motion for a select committee. I have accepted his suggestion, and I understand he is going to support me whole-heartedly. I have not the slightest doubt that many of my friends on the South African party side of the House are awaiting an opportunity to rise and say that the whole object of this motion is for the purpose of including May Day as a public holiday. I intend to be perfectly candid by expressing the hope that the select committee will take into consideration the inclusion of May Day as a public holiday. The last Government permitted the observance of May 1st as a half-hearted holiday by public servants, a circular being issued stating that any servants who could be spared would be relieved from duty on May 1st. I submit that the present Government should go the whole hog and declare May 1st a public holiday. To those who would assert that May 1st would be a sectional holiday I may state that May Day is not a trade union or a Labour Party day, but is essentially a workers’ day, and therefore it is Labour Day. I do not intend to suggest any other alteration for I know that is dangerous ground, but I would like to say— and the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong—that in Ireland for a considerable time there was a divergence of opinion as to the particular day on which St. Patrick’s Day should be celebrated. Half the population contended that it should be March 8th, and the other half contended that it should be March 9th, and they fought over the question for nearly a hundred years, until finally someone suggested that they should add the eight and nine together, which was done and since then St. Patrick’s Day has been celebrated on March 17th to the satisfaction of all concerned. I do not suggest, however, that compromises of that nature should be arrived at in this proposed select committee, but that the present holidays should be re-arranged, and that a new calendar should be submitted which would be more beneficial to the general public. If most of the holidays fell on a Monday, it would be possible for working people to leave their occupations on Saturdays and return on Tuesday mornings, which would give them the full benefit of the very few public holidays they are able to enjoy. This is also a memorable day, for it is the anniversary of the date on which the late Prime Minister intimated to the House that he was going to the country. It has been suggested that I should propose that we should have one perpetual holiday in celebration of that great event. I trust the House will support my motion, for I am sure that a better calendar of holidays could be framed without interfering to any great extent with religious or historical sentiment.

I second the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) with the greatest pleasure. I commence with the reasonableness of the motion. The hon. member does not say that we must alter the public holidays, but he asks for the appointment of a select committee to investigate the matter and to see whether it is possible to amend the Public Holidays Act of 1910 in order to get a more convenient calendar of holidays. The hon. member who introduced the motion had great difficulty last year at the introduction of the Bill. I, therefore, advised him that it would be better to introduce a motion rather than a Bill, and he accepted the advice, so that we to-day have the proposal before us. The hon. mover has said that we to-day have 11 holidays, one in January, none in February, none in March, two in April, namely Good Friday and Easter Monday, and three in May, namely, Ascension Day, Victoria Day and Union Day. Then there are five days for the rest of the year. Then comes the King’s Birthday. This is actually on the 3rd June, but it was postponed until August, because otherwise four holidays would come together. We, therefore, celebrate that on the first Monday in August and it satisfies everybody. It is, therefore, easy to so fix the holidays that the public can appreciate them better than at present, thereafter we must wait until October for the next holiday, and then to the 16th December. Finally, we still have Christmas Day and the day after. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) wants an enquiry to be made. I think it is fair to give an opportunity therefor. We had a long discussion last year on the Bill, and apparently the feeling was that certain days must remain as they are, because they are religious remembrance days, and also of an historical nature. It will not be possible to alter Ascension Day and Dingaan’s Day. Probably the ultimate report of a select committee will also disapprove of a change with regard to those days, but other holidays can easily be altered to another date. In his Bill the hon. member proposed ten full days and two half days in place of the 11 days that we have now. He did not succeed with his Bill. I hope the hon. member will succeed better with the motion before us to-day. There may be various opinions about this Bill, but I think that not a single hon. member will be opposed to the matter being enquired into by a select committee. I think we can regulate the holidays better than they are to-day so that they will be more appreciated. We sometimes get a holiday now in the middle of the week, but the work remains and one cannot properly enjoy it. We can, perhaps, arrange in select committee to get a better calendar of public holidays. That is why I second the motion.

I only wish to say that the Government is prepared to accept the motion.

On behalf of the hon. member, I wish to propose the motion standing in his name.

Has the hon. member been requested to do so?

No.

I regret that the motion will then have to lapse.

Is a motion once it is put on the paper the property of the House for anyone to speak on?

The practice is so in regard to orders, but not in regard to motions.

The hon. member asked me to second the motion, and I therefore think that I am entitled to move the resolution.

What is the hon. member now speaking about?

I am speaking about the motion in the name of the hon. member for Victoria (West) (Mr. du Toit).

I am sorry, but that motion has lapsed.

May I ask the leave of the House to propose it?

Mr. du Toit here came in.

I only wish to point out that hon. members must be in their places when they have a proposal to move.

I am glad of the opportunity of discussing this matter. I apologise for my absence. This is the first time that it has happened. It is a matter of the very gravest importance to the country and the people. I am certain that not only am I in earnest about it, but many members would like to push the matter through, because, if Prof. Schwarz’s scheme succeeds, and I have no doubt about it, then it will not only be an escape from the drought, but also a solution of the poor white question. If it succeeds, the Karroo will flourish again like a rose, and we ought to be thankful that a possibility exists that our country and people can be saved. What I regret, however, is that although Prof. Schwarz published this scheme as long ago as 1910, nothing has been done in the matter since then. I regret this the more because the House gave the Government power in 1922 to make a survey and nothing has as yet been done. Our country is in a serious condition on account of the drought, which is ruining the people. Bad years are more frequent than good years. Good years are alternated by a series of bad years, and this is the cause of people flying to the towns and villages. If we take the 46 years since 1877 and we divide it into two periods of 23 years, we find that the bad years are much more plentiful in the second period. In the first period there were seven good years, eight normal and four bad years. In the second period there were many more bad years. If we take a couple of separate places, then we find that the rainfall diminished as follows—

If we take Bloemfontein, then we find that in 19 years the decrease has been 56 inches. The drought is therefore increasing in a startling way. In 1919 we had a terrible year, and it caused a loss of £16,000,000 in cattle, etc. It is remarkable to remember that this was the year that the Zambesi was so low that a person could walk through it. In 1917 we had a good year. We had a splendid year, and it was the year that the Zambesi was so full that it over flowed its banks. We all know that if the Transvaal and the Free State get good rains, then we in the Cape Province are also fairly well blessed with rain. The cause of the drought must be looked for in the drying up of the three great lakes in the interior of South Africa, namely, the Etosha Pan, the Makarikari and the Lake Ngami, because the beds of the rivers have changed. There are lakes with a surface of 50,000 square miles dry, and this is exactly the size of the surface of the three greatest lakes of Central Africa. If these lakes get full again it will exercise a wholesome influence on the rainfall of South Africa. To remove the cause of the drought Professor Schwartz suggests that the Chobe River and the Kunene River should be dammed up with bushes and branches, etc., so that the rivers can resume their previous courses. He alleges that in that way our rainfall will be increased by 10 inches per annum. Besides this, our country will also be released from the terrible thunderstorms that wash away the ground, and we shall again get the soft eight days’ rains which are extremely necessary for ploughing. South Africa will thereby be greatly benefitted. The irrigation works that cost millions will then no longer be necessary. Irrigation works have already been a failure in America, and here in our country they are already being silted up. The large dam at Beaufort West is becoming silted up. The large dam at Bloemfontein is in the same case, and I understand that it will cost £60,000 to clean it again. Our rivers bring down much ground. The Weichsel brings down 2 per cent, of earth. The Mississippi 33 per cent., but the Fish River brings down 33 per cent, and, according to calculations, the dam there will be filled up within 10 years. We must do something before that position arises. The question of brak ground will also be capable of solution or at any rate of being improved. The air is now so dry that one cannot prevent the increasing of brak places. As a consequence of this scheme we shall then again get the soft rains and it will help us in our fight. There is no danger that these lakes will become brak. The Etosha Pan has no salt. There are hundreds of thousands of square miles of land which can be irrigated, and where the poor-whites can find deliverance. If that territory again becomes occupied it will do a lot to assist the extermination of locusts. Birds will increase and they are the natural enemies of locusts. Another difficulty is the position in Ovampoland, where the inhabitants are retrogressing and if we do not soon face the matter we shall get to the state that we shall not only be saddled with the poor whites, but also with the hundreds of thousands of Ovampos. Our mines are being worked out. The dams are silting up. We are enclosing our farms well, but the sheep will die in the droughts if we get no more rain. I am convinced that the Government is not only sympathetic in this matter, but I hope that the House will support me. The farmers that I meet have all said that we should try to see what can be done with this scheme. This is why I propose the motion. I move—

I second the motion. It is a great pleasure to me to support the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit). I feel that a great service to the country is being shown by the introduction of this important matter to the notice of the Government. I feel certain that every hon. member who has the real interests of South Africa at heart agrees with us that it is an important motion, and I also think that all hon. members will find that it is our duty and that of the Government to at least investigate the practicability of Professor Schwarz’s scheme. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) has very clearly explained the matter. I shall, therefore, not be long. I only wish to say that the first consideration of the Government and of the taxpayers will naturally be what the scheme will cost. I will not argue to-day that we must spend millions and millions before the matter has been thoroughly investigated, but Professor Schwarz estimates the cost at £250,000. For £250,000 the scheme can be brought about. Now what is £250,000 when we think that in 1919 damage amounting to £16,000,000 was suffered from drought alone, and that the recent drought has certainly caused a loss of not less than £10,000,000. If we add up all the respective droughts that we have had in this country we shall, I think, certainly find that more than £100,000,000 of direct losses have been suffered in consequence of drought, let alone the indirect losses. All that we urge is that the Government should appoint somebody to investigate if it is possible to carry out this scheme. I think that anyone who has read Professor Schwarz’s book must come to the conclusion that his arguments about the matter are very sound. Another matter in connection therewith is, of course, that the rivers have taken another course. I will not entirely say that the droughts are the consequence of that. I do not say that is the only cause of the droughts. If we look at the report of the Drought Commission, then we read on page 6—

1. 1. No proof was submitted that the mean annual rainfall of the Union has altered appreciably within recent historic times; nor is it considered likely that such a change has taken place.
2. 2. According to the evidence of many witnesses there has been an alteration in the nature of our rainfall within the last few decades. No measurements have as yet been submitted either supporting or rebutting this statement which is well within the bounds of possibility. There is nothing to show whether this alteration, if it exists, is permanent.
3. 3. While the mean annual rainfall remains constant its economic value has, to a very great extent, been reduced by the alteration in the properties of the surface of the country for which man is responsible. In this reduced utility of rainfall must be sought the secret of our “droughts.”
4. 4. In subsequent chapters it will be shown how improved farming methods and conditions will result in increased rainfall efficiency.

I entirely agree that it is an important point that the surface of the ground is changing, that the ground is being trodden down. Not alone does the water run away to the sea without it soaking into the dried out crust of the earth, but the water carries with it the most valuable portion of the ground. The erosion, the washing away of the ground is a very important point in this connection and if we appeal to the Government to enquire into the matter I want to ask at the same time that they should see how far the measures recommended by the Drought Commission can assist in solving the great problem. The fall of rain is not everything, we must also keep the rain in the country. I myself have been living since 1905 on the same place and I could hardly get through the water due to the last rains to get to my house. The water was running over the bridges. When we remember the plentiful rains that have fallen this year then it looks as if the time had again come when we shall have sufficient rains, but experience shows that it will possibly only be for this year, and that thereafter another great drought will come. I think that it is time to appoint somebody to consider the possibility of carrying out Professor Schwarz’s plan, and when the report of the commission comes before the House it will be for us to decide what is to be done. With these few words I will second the motion of the hon. member.

On the previous occasion I supported a motion of this nature in the House, and I also asked the previous Minister of Agriculture what the Government would do in connection with an inquiry into the scheme of Professor Schwarz. I must say that the hon. member has chosen a rather unfortunate time for introducing his motion. It looks almost as if we should have to drain South Africa at the moment. I regret that the proposer and seconder did not make adequate speeches about the matter. The House is acquainted with the scheme, but the country is not so well instructed, and where anyone introduces a motion it is in my humble opinion necessary that he should give full particulars of the scheme that he pleads for. Professor Schwarz has been busy on it for eight or nine years and nothing has as yet been done to help him, and if we want this scheme to be approved by the public and to be adopted by South Africa, then it is necessary this afternoon to put all the details in connection therewith before the House, and through the House before the public.

He asks for an inquiry.

Yes, but we cannot get the country to agree to a commission of inquiry if we furnish no information. I regret that I cannot now do it impromptu in detail. In considering this matter the discussion falls into two parts. The first is the question whether the circumstances were in that area as Professor Schwarz has told us, and the second is whether his scheme can be carried out with benefit to the country. In connection with the first matter the opinion has already been expressed here that the condition is not as professor schwarz represents. He alleges that about 125 years ago the Okavango and another river, the Chobe, did not flow to the sea and to the Zambesi, but to lakes Ngami and Makarikari, and that sand has silted up the bed of those rivers so that they later flowed in a northerly direction to the present courses of the Okavango in the Zambezi instead of to the Tsaa Pan, and out of the Kunene in the north of the south-west territory flowed into the Etosjapan. Professor Schwarz states that he is convinced that in the case of one of the rivers it has silted up. There were two people who in those years lived with a kaffir chief in those parts, and they recommended him to have the bed of the river opened up. He refused, because the pools of water that remained made it very convenient for him to capture the game at the water holes. But with the lapse of time the water holes dried up, the game disappeared, and the king had troubles with drought. Here in our galleries hangs a painting of the biographer of Livingstone, in which he shows how Livingstone arrived at Ngami and how he and the natives used to go on it with boats. There is no doubt that the three lakes were filled by this river. The farmers who subsequently trekked through there state that all the pans were full of water, and I have this statement from a certain Isaac Bosnian, who was there in the year 1893. He is acquainted with those parts, and found that the natives in those years travelled on the lake with boats and carried their wheat to islands to protect it from the Matabele. Having this evidence, it is likely that Professor Schwarz is telling the truth. Now I come to the objection to the scheme. Persons argue that Professor Schwarz has not seen what he there alleges.

Who was that?

It was Major Leipoldt, who said that Professor Schwarz was not there at that time. The second objection mentioned is that the rivers silted up and that they are for miles under the sand, with the consequence that if we dam up the Chobe the water will not be able to go over the sand which has blown there. In one of the letters of Mr. Bosman he says that he is acquainted with the country. He caught fish and shot birds in those parts, and he states that 500 kaffirs can open up the river within two years. Another difficulty mentioned is that the river will disappear in the sand and never reach lake Ngami. This is an idea upon which we need waste no time. If the water can be dammed up, then all is well. It may take five or more years, but the water will certainly go to the bottom of our country, which is very sandy there. Another difficulty mentioned by Major Leipoldt is that the configuration of the ground has so altered that the water can no longer run downwards. I think, however, that this is no reason why we should accept that when once a commencement has been made that the water will not go further and return to its own old natural course, so that it will flow on to Lake Ngami. The second great question is: When the water has run into Lake Ngami and we have that area of 50,000 square miles under water, will it then increase our rainfall and change our climate? Let me here say that in this connection it is used as an argument against Professor Schwarz’s proposal that the Caspian Sea is an inland one and that the shores thereof are nevertheless a desert, and that accordingly such an inland sea has no effect on its surroundings.

That is the only case in the world.

Yes, it is the only case, and there is a reason for it. The reason is that rain requires two things in the air. In the first place, there must be water in the air in the form of vapour, and in the second place there must be factors that allow that vapour to drop in the form of rain. The greatest factor which brings this about the most easily is the presence of a mountain or a chain of mountains which allows the air to mount with the mist and so to come into contact with cold air deposits so that the water drops as rain, because the cold air cannot contain the mist. The instance which has been mentioned along the Caspian Sea is exactly such an instance where there are no mountains to allow the water to precipitate. It can now be said that this is also the case here, and that we have no mountains round the lakes. Let me mention this to prove the opposite. If we take the map of Africa we shall see that we have a range of mountains on the east which begins with the Drakensberg and end in Abyssinia. On the west we also have a range which begins with the Cedar mountains and extends to the Congo, with the result that the interior of that portion of Africa forms a cup or a saucer with the ranges of mountains along the coast as the rim of the cup or saucer. The humidity which comes from the Atlantic Ocean is in the absence of regular west winds not sufficient to go over the mountains and carry rain into the interior. This occurs partly on the east coast as well. The greater part of the humidity comes from the Indian Ocean and rises with difficulty over the ranges of mountains so that we have a larger rainfall along the coast. On the western side very little mist reaches the interior so that the territories we are discussing to-day get very little rain. At the moment Africa is losing enormous quantities of water through gaps in the ranges of mountains, and the interior beginning with the Karroo at the Hex River mountains up to Tanganyika is thus becoming poorer in water. We are drying up, and I am firmly convinced of it that everyone reading the history of South Africa and who gives less attention to the ram-gauges than to his own brain will feel that the land is drying up. My hon. friend opposite has already mentioned that one reason for this is that the water runs off so easily. The conditions are, however, generally so that the water which comes through the air is less than what runs through the Kunene and the Zambezi to the sea. It may take time, but in the end South Africa will anyhow be drier than what it is to-day. Professor Schwarz asks that we shall also dam up the Kunene on the west coast. The claim is that the water of the Kunene used first of all to run in the Etosha Pan. The rainfall on the western side of the mountains is larger than on the east, and in course of time a little river on the west of the mountains ate into them, with the consequence that it has drawn off the water of the Kunene and allowed it to flow along a course which it had made through the range of mountains, so that the water which first used to flow into the Etosha Pan is led off by this little river to the Atlantic Ocean. Then we do not have to do with three pans full of water, but we also have a fourth. We do not then only make provision for the water that flows to the Indian Ocean, but also for that which runs to the Atlantic Ocean which we collect in the Etosha Pan. We will then obviate the loss of water from which we are to-day suffering. I did not intend to go into this point, because I thought that this would be mentioned by the introducer of the motion. I am, however, thankful that I have had the opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the House. One need not be learned to understand that we get rain from the air and that the rainfall will increase if there are factors to allow the water to fall. If we can do anything to further that natural operation then we should do it. Let me bring the following as an argument for this matter before this House. We have spent for many years large sums of money on irrigation works and how far have we got? We have practically done nothing yet.

We will do something now.

Leave party politics alone now. South Africa has to the best of its ability built irrigation works and we have also sometimes tried under political pressure to do this, but we have done nothing yet to increase the rainfall. Professor Schwarz’s point is that we must collect the water that we have in South Africa which comes to us in the form of rain, and that we must not allow it to run away as has happened in the past. We shall then not alone have the water on the earth’s surface, but the water will sink away into the sand, which has been mentioned and the underground water supply will also be strengthened. We can, therefore, also reckon on it in the rest of the country. We know that we have underground rivers in the western Transvaal and in Bechuanaland that flow for miles and then disappear to come up elsewhere as fountains. If we can keep such a quantity of water on the surface our climate will alter. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) will know what I am now going to say. We find along the Orange River that the northern bank is wet with dew in the morning. This is caused by the south wind which brings the mist there. The fog is spread with the consequence that the climate changes. The neighbourhood becomes cooler and vegetation gets better. The ground does not dry out so much with the consequence that the growth is better, and when the rain comes the water does not run off so quickly. It is my humble opinion if we can put the scheme through and keep the water in the country our climate will change and in the second place our rainfall will improve. Our opponents—not here in the House, but outside— must be numerous, because Professor Schwarz tan make no progress and lie has already practically become discouraged. Perhaps the increase in the rainfall will at the commencement be little, but later it will become more, because the water will be collected and this will bring about an enormous change. We can do something big here. It is not a case of a little dam which will silt up again, but of a large expanse of water which will be for the benefit of the whole of South Africa. Let us now take the evaporation of water. About eight feet of water evaporates every year out of the dams of the farmers. What will now happen if we collect that water in the Kalahari? There will be more vapour in the air and there will be less evaporation from the farms in the country. This is an important advantage, because eight foot of water in a dam means about two-thirds of the total quantity of it. There are few dams that have more than twelve feet of water. The evaporation from the ground will also not be so great, I intentionally mention the ground because we have only to look how dried up the ground is and how the level of the dams fall after a wind. The farmers will know this, but not only this. The damp is drawn out of the ground and if we can now manage to get the air wet as well so much water will not be drawn out of the ground. I wish to recommend the scheme. I have not the least doubt about it. Our irrigation works are just as useful as sending a child with a jug to water the gardens of Cape Town, If we want to save South Africa from drought and guard the future for all races, then we must do something of this sort where we can provide something big for the land. The Ministers become frightened when they hear of the big expenditure. I do not know if it will be so big if we merely make an enquiry. We can, as a start, use motor cars and aeroplanes to see what the conditions are, and the Ministers can then judge how far they should further enquire, how far they can devote money for the purpose, and how far Professor Schwarz is right. The scheme is such a good one that if we do not do something about it it will not be a credit to us. Professor Schwarz has shown us what can be done, and it will not be to our credit if posterity says to us that we did not save the future of the country when we had the opportunity of doing so, because it would cost money. The preliminary enquiry cannot cost much, even if it does cost much to carry out the work, it would be worth the trouble, because agricultural ground in South Africa is not very plentiful, and we are obliged to do something to see if we cannot in one way or another increase the amount. I think that it is a good scheme, and those who support Professor Schwarz are doing honour to themselves.

As representative of a large karroo constituency which has suffered much from drought it is a great pleasure to me to support by a few words the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit). I was pleased at the interesting speech which the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) made and I am only sorry that there were so few members in the House to listen to the scientific explanation that he gave in connection with the matter. I think that the House has heard sufficient on this phase of the matter and I think it is unnecessary to detain it longer with a treatment of that side. But before I go further I only wish to say that it is clear that there is not much interest in the matter when one looks at the very empty benches on all three sides of the House. In view thereof I wish to say that I hope that in the event of the House having to vote on this motion the representatives of the other divisions where they have not to tight against such circumstances will understand the difficulty with which we have to battle that there is every second or third year a great drought scourging our districts and that they will support the motion with the fullest sympathy. It seems to me that the great difficulty about this matter has always been a certain amount of insecurity, difference of opinion. From the nature of the case it cannot be otherwise than that there should be a difference of opinion on such a matter because it is based on theory in the first place as to the causes of the drought and in the second place as to the effect that the scheme of Professor Schwarz will have. But we have throughout life to do with theories. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) will emphasise my words if I say that very often a doctor puts a patient on the operating table in the hospital upon mere theoretical assumptions of what the cause of illness is, and it is upon pure theory that an operation is made in the hope of effecting a cure The man on the table risks his life on the pure theory and the hon. member will also agree with me when I say that it has often happened that there is no unanimity even amongst experts on that subject and that the authorities hold different theories about a case. It is thus a fact that the difference of opinion is founded upon theories and it should not frighten us to institute a thorough enquiry into this matter. One thing is quite clear from the investigations that have been made and from the history of our country that South Africa or at least portions of South Africa are clearly commencing to dry up. And it is certain that we get less rain than in the old days. Take my own constituency the village where I live, Beaufort West. The old people say that in the old days 30 or 40 years ago they used regularly to catch fish in the river there, the Gamka, and to-day there is only water in that river after heavy rain. Another remarkable fact is that we do not any longer get rain in the propel season. Every two or three years we have to submit to great and severe droughts. Many hon. members who do not know what this means to be scourged by a great drought cannot appreciate the great difficulties with which we have to struggle. I will only ask such hon. members to come for a while to districts such as mine and see the people trekking with then cattle. Every second or third year hundreds of thousands of sheep die and that alone is sufficient reason for attending to the matter now under discussion. I want however particularly to call attention to another aspect of the case, viz., that the uncertainty should not frighten us and that our Government should not be frightened by it. Professor Schwarz is a man that I know personally and the impression he has made upon me in all the years that I have known him is that he is a man of serious disposition and that he is a brilliant student who is inclined to do research work. He is not frivolous and will not lightly give an opinion. His theories are based on serious study and enquiry in connection therewith I just want to quote something from a letter that I have before me from Professor Schwarz which he wrote in February—

Neither the Minister of Lands nor the Minister of Agriculture is here. That is the trouble.

I do not wish to treat the matter on political lines, but it appears anyhow that the sympathy of the former Government for his scheme was not very great, perhaps because they had no confidence in his system. I only heartily hope that the present Government will place more confidence in him. Here is another letter that Professor Schwarz wrote in connection with the matter. The former Government appointed experts to institute an inquiry. In this connection Professor Schwarz writes—

Now if this is true, it should not be so. Here is a matter to which the public and the farming population attach the greatest importance, and if this Government will have an inquiry made, then I hope and trust that persons will be appointed who are unprejudiced and that Professor Schwarz will be taken into their confidence. I hope the inquiry will be properly made and be unprejudiced. This is the great difficulty that Professor Schwarz has had in the past, namely, that the people who investigate the matter were prejudiced and that they were people who actually when they went to inquire had already their minds completely made up about the matter. I hope the present Government will appoint unprejudiced people, whether they be experts or not. No one can deny that we have here, in any event, a suggestion which prima facie appears a good one, and this alone is sufficient reason where we have to do with such an important matter to accept the motion. We do not ask for the immediate building of dams and the diverting of the rivers into other courses. All that is asked is that an inquiry into the practicability of this scheme should be made. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has referred to the irrigation works. Then there is the Drought Commission, which cost a lot of money, although I admit that they did excellent work, and we have further commissions who have been occupied in inquiring into the causes of the drought. But we do not progress. Take another thing. We spend £25,000 or £30,000 annually for the League of Nations. This is also only a theoretical matter to avoid war, so also the scheme of Professor Schwarz is a theoretic matter to prevent drought. We spend money upon other theoretic commissions. Here we have something which deserves serious investigation and which can lead to very great things. I trust, therefore, that this motion will enjoy the support of the Government and all hon. members in the House.

I don’t think the House is competent to judge on the merits or the demerits of this scheme. A strong case has been made out for it. I very much regret that the position has advanced into the stage that it has now reached—a semi-deadlock. From an engineering point of view, the late Government sent up a commission to investigate this scheme, who were supposed to have reported, and the country is supposed to accept that commission’s report as the last word in regard to that scheme. The unfortunate part of it is that the conditions under which that commission reported were highly unsatisfactory. Mr. Kanthack, the late Director of Irrigation, who was chairman of that commission, made a hurried rush up there, and I have no hesitation in saying that it was largely a shooting expedition, and that it was not really a survey of the merits of the scheme. From an engineering point, there are no great difficulties in connection with this scheme. What has to be decided is whether it is practicable or not, and a survey of the country will determine the question whether that scheme is or is not feasible. As an engineer, I maintain that it is not a matter that will cost a great deal of money. The initial expense of determining whether that scheme is practicable or not will be small. Once having made a survey and determined what the effect is going to be, the matter of the cost of such a scheme is entirely another question, which would have to engage the attention of the House at a later stage. The first question which the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) has asked us to go into is that we should make a proper survey to see whether Professor Schwarz is right or wrong. He was a student with me at the Royal College of Science in London, and I know that he is not going to make a statement which he does not feel that he can substantiate. He is in no better position than a member of this House is at the present time to come to a definite determination as to whether the head waters, where they have been diverted into the Zambesi, geologically speaking, at one time flowed on to the western coast, and whether these waters can be deflected with a small initial outlay. A further question that the House will have to consider is whether the amount of money which would be spent on such a scheme is compatible with the benefits which are likely to be derived from it. I do not think it is necessary to go into the question which has been discussed in such a learned manner by the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager). What we have to review now is the practicability of the scheme and, if it is feasible to be carried out, how far South Africa will benefit by it. So far as the engineering side is concerned, I do not see that there are any difficulties in the Government providing the small amount of expenditure which is essential to prove whether the scheme is practicable or not and, if it is practicable, what the benefits are going to be as far as South Africa is concerned.

I have recently been an eye witness of so much water and flood that it seems to me that I have not the courage to ask for more water. I will only say that I know parts of the Molopo. I know it from the junction with the Orange River for 150 miles, because I was in those parts during the election. The lower part of the Molopo shows that in the past it was a tremendous river, nearly as large as the Orange River. The bed of the Molopo is still quite wide and open in the neighbourhood of the Orange River, and there it is not difficult to see what a big river it was. In the Kalahari, where the sand dunes begin, we find the large barricades. There in some places the sand has so filled up the bed that one can hardly follow its course. Thus, whatever the value of the scheme of Professor Schwarz, one thing is certain, that in the past a large river ran which to-day is no longer there, and if we ask what is the cause, then it must be because the rainfall there is less than before. If we ask what the cause of that is, then it seems to me it is because the interior is drying up, as Professor Schwarz has said. It is there not a question of ground erosion, so that the water runs off quickly. If we observe what is going on and inquire what the old people have to tell us, we find that the drought does not remain confined to the interior, but it extends further out every ten years or so. It has extended to Gordonia, Bushmanland and Langsberg, etc., and it seems to me that our country will in the future become a desert and people will only be able to make a living along the coast. It is another question whether we can now see our way to damming up a fairly large river like the Kunene or the Chobe at the cost of a few hundred thousand pounds. Professor Schwarz underestimates the work, but, be this as it may, the matter is of so great importance to the country and our children that it will be worth the trouble to investigate the possibility thereof. It need not be a costly expedition. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has made a magnificent speech. He spoke about motor cars and aeroplanes, but I believe more in the ox wagon. If a few engineers who know the country go there, then they can in a year of so survey all the levels to see where water will run, and then they can make a rough estimate of the cost. If that river which runs into the Zambesi is also blocked with sand it will not cost a little, because sand is not easily removed. In view of the importance of the matter, I support the motion that an enquiry should be made, although I think that the work is underestimated.

It seems to me that South Africa and hon. members of this House cannot sufficiently appreciate that the future of South Africa, at any rate for many years still to come, will depend on agriculture. Too much attention to-day is given to minerals. The alluvial diggings and other mines, instead of observing what is actually the backbone of the country upon which our existence depends and of seeing that agriculture is guided in a direction which makes the future of South Africa safe. If we take into consideration the small number of whites and the unhappy circumstances under which we exist to-day, then involuntarily the question arises, what are the causes that with such a great territory and such a small population, we have to-day to do with problems such as the poor white problem? If we are now faced with these problems, what about the future? Of the one and a half million whites in our country, there are about 170,000 poor whites. Why do we, then, in the circumstances talk about increasing the population? How can we encourage immigrants from other countries to come to South Africa? We surely appreciate that agriculture and the working up of the agricultural products will for years yet be the principal industry in the country. What right have we then to encourage immigrants to come here to assist in building up our white civilization and to assist in assuring the continuation thereof? To-day our white population has increased to one and a half million. If our white population increases further, then it is our duty in the first place to see that there shall be a possibility of existence for them in South Africa. Therefore we must provide not alone for the present, but also for the means of livelihood of new generations to come after us people whom we expect to maintain the traditions of the nation from which they have sprung. Now we have there to do with a great problem which is at the bottom of this motion, namely, that we are repeatedly plagued with drought. Therefore I think it is the duty of everybody who takes an interest in the present welfare of the people and in the future of South Africa to give attention to the greatest problem which we have to do with to-day, namely, the repeated droughts, and the House must not alone give its attention to this matter temporarily for a half-hour or an hour or three hours, but it must be constantly in its thoughts. Therefore we must not only elaborate theories on the subject but tackle the matter practically. Whether the motion now before the House is theoretical or not, it is the duty of the Government to institute every possible inquiry into the great problem and the factors which contribute thereto, that South Africa is slowly drying up. I only wish to add that as regards the findings of the Drought Commission that in a cycle of time rain also falls in South Africa, that this is only an opinion which is not based upon investigation, and although we have much to thank the Drought Commission for, we are not entitled to accept their view as absolute fact. Their view is that the rain falls in a circular period. The duty of the House, and especially of those who represent the country, is to have an investigation made of the causes of the plagues in our country. We find that the chief is the drought, and I wish in the first instance to point out what to-day is not sufficiently appreciated, viz., the recommendation of the Drought Commission. I understood that copies of the first report of the investigation of the Drought Commission have been sent to America; that America was interested in the inquiry into the problem in South Africa, and I understand on good authority that more copies were sent to America than what are in circulation in South Africa. If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it is a sad fact that we attach less importance to our great problems than does America. This discussion can do much good because attention is fixed on the report of the Commission, and because we can see if the steps that we are going to take can be applied to the lessons obtained from the Commission of Enquiry. We should be thankful that much use has already been made of the lesson and recommendations of the commission but with every respect for the good qualities of our people there is one point to which attention should be called, viz., that there is not sufficient self confidence and perseverance in our people to tackle problems in times of difficulty. I am of course thinking of the flight from the country side. In connection therewith it is of great importance that the powers of resistance of the people should be developed. The defect was that this had not sufficiently been done so that they could not stand up against the first or second visitation or plague but the cause thereof is really a wrong system of education. I hope that I am not out of order if I say something in connection therewith.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion under discussion.

Yes, I should like that an enquiry should be instituted into the scheme of Professor Schwarz. But we have the recommendation and lessons of the Drought Commission and all the enquiries will do no good if effect is not given to the recommendations of the commission. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has made an interesting speech and referred to many important matters, e.g., the great factor in the cause of the drying up of the land. The consequence of circular evaporation. The evaporation is greater than the rain that we get back. There lies the great secret. If we do not keep account of that fact then I say again we shall lose an opportunity to arrive at another solution of our difficulties. I should like to dwell a moment on the question of evaporation and rainfall. The great thing is not so much rainfall as the evaporation. I should like to read a few remarks made by the Drought Commission in this connection. They are an extract from the memorandum by Mr. S. L. Kling—

1. 1. In several places in the South-West Protectorate I have seen camel thorn and other big trees dead or dying, without any young trees of their kind growing up near the old trunks—thus proving that the conditions under which the old trees grew up, no longer obtain.
2. 2. The sub-soil water-table in those parts seems to be sinking to judge by the fact that many wells require frequent deepening.
3. 3. Springs were shown me between Griquatown and Prieska which were said to have been running twenty years ago, and surface evidence seemed to confirm this, but the fact that bucket haulage had to be put up shows that they no longer do so.

We know that the last few years with the exception of this year the rainfall has been less than in the past and we know that the hon. member for Paarl has also pointed out that the decrease represents about eight foot of water per year, i.e., that we lose each month five to ten feet of water on every surface and that the surface of our bottom is the great thing in this connection. We lose water by a wrong treatment of the ground and do not retain the water but it runs away to the sea in consequence of the hard crust of the earth. In this manner the rainfall is influenced. The evaporation will become less and less. Therefore it is of great importance that we get more water on the surface to make provision for the evaporation and therefore we must work in the direction of controlling the water. The irrigation works are along good lines but what surface area do the irrigation works occupy? In the report we find recommendations hereon with a view to the great surface area with which we have to do. Now I do not wish to detain the House longer by reading further from the report but this is the starting point that we must bear in mind at the enquiry. We must make provision for more water for evaporation. If we do not make this provision then our earth crust will more and more dry up and we as sensible people must surely appreciate that the less evaporation there is the less water we shall have except what comes extraneously. I hope the motion will be accepted by the Government. There is great interest to-day in the country in Professor Schwarz’s scheme, perhaps more than the members of the Government think. Almost all our country representatives are from time to time asked how the scheme is getting on. I have only to-day received two letters. We must institute an enquiry but on the other hand make use of the information that we already have as well. The commission of enquiry will be able to throw much more light on the matter and it is of great importance. I do not wish to prophesy or to anticipate but we expect a great deal from this enquiry. If we lose in one year more than £16,000,000 and two years thereafter between 4,000 and 8,000 cattle and if we remember that we have already lost thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds by droughts then it is certainly our duty to investigate this great problem in the interest of the country.

I just want to say one or two words in support of the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit), in the hope that we may be able to induce the Minister to accept it. I do hot propose to enter upon the scientific aspect of the question for in that direction disaster lies; at least for those of us who, for a large portion of the year, inhabit this House, or can only express second hand opinions. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of difference of opinion between scientists on the question, and it is just as well to avoid inflicting our views on the Minister and the House in regard to the merits of this special scheme. But we do know that the country requires rain, although not in Natal at the moment, regular and diffused rain, supplemented by river flow. We also know, not so much by theoretical expressions of scientists, but from hard, practical experience, that there are two main ways of accomplishing that object. The first is by as complete afforestation as possible, and the other is by the artificial construction or the natural arrangement of large areas of fresh water; because your large areas of fresh water—and even salt water, although not so good as fresh water—-have their effects. They assure the humidization of the atmosphere, and cause vegetation to grow, and that supplements the manufacture of humidity. That is what we desire and that is necessary. All the hon. member asks is not that the House shall say that Professor Schwarz’s scheme is correct, or that it will fulfil the claims that are made in regard to it. All he asks is—and I support him in this—for the Government to explore the scheme in the light of experience, investigate it thoroughly, and having come to a conclusion, decide whether it shall be put in force. It seems to me that it does not matter how much it may cost in money if it proves satisfactory from the point of view of developing the agricultural side of the country; the cost cannot be too great. It is in that spirit that I am endeavouring to impress upon the Minister the advisability of accepting this motion.

I shall be short. I only wish to say that this is a case where experts differ from each other. I have taken an interest in the scheme of Professor Schwarz. I appreciated it and thought that it was practicable. But Major Leipoldt went there. He is a surveyor and he differed from the professor. If experts differ from each other it is difficult for me to decide. I have no objection to accepting the motion provided it is so amended that the matter is referred to the Government for consideration. There are other difficulties connected with it, such as the fact that the territory does not belong to the Union. If the motion is so amended it will be acceptable. I can give the mover the assurance that the Government is sympathetic in connection with the matter. We appreciate the necessity for it and if he will so amend the motion, I have no objection.

Yes, I think we can agree to the suggestion of the Minister to amend the motion that the Government be asked to take the matter into favourable consideration. I will only say in connection with Major Leipoldt that he is not an expert, and that his opinion is not authoritative. Professor Schwarz has made a deep study of the question and as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H. Louw) has said, he would not lightly express an opinion. I hope that a sympathetic commission will be appointed because everything depends on that.

Is there an amendment to the motion?

No, Mr. Speaker, I will amend the motion in the sense indicated by the Minister of Lands. I wish, with leave, to amend Notice of Motion No. II and to move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the memorandum [Annexure No. 254—’24—Second Session] was on the Table.

I move—

We have discussed this question of making provision for old age and invalidity on many occasions in this House, and a quantity of statistics have been presented to this House. Now we have a document, presented to this. House last year, which gives a good deal of information, which is of very great use to the House and to the Government for the framing of a Bill. I commend the action of the Treasury in presenting this report to the House and I think that in doing so they have reconciled the people of this country to look upon the Treasury in a different light than merely as people who are there to grind taxes out of them. Those who are associated with welfare work will bear witness that some provision needs to be made for aged poor persons, and that the absence of such provision complicates a good deal of the work of their organizations and is detrimental to the general welfare of the community. When you start an institution to deal with one specific class, no sooner are the doors open than the whole place is flooded by persons who ought to have provision made for them by the state. The only provisions, as I understand, that exist at present for aged people and invalids is that of legal dependency under the common law and that made by charitable institutions. We know in what light charitable institutions are regarded. They are repugnant to most people and at best they more or less amount to pauper relief, and we know what a flimsy reed people depend on who have to resort to charity to live. There is little use too in the legal provision that children should provide for their parents. In many cases of poverty among the parents the children have not been properly educated and they earn very small wages, so that they are not in a position to provide properly for themselves, let alone for their parents. We can testify to the huge underworld that exists in this country of persons of this class, with which members of this House generally do not come into contact. In addition there are those who suffer from invalidity, and those for whom parents are unable to make provision. There is another source of poverty in old age in this country, that is the inadequate provision which is made for men who have met with incapacitation from accidents. When a man has become totally incapacitated for work through accident he receives compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but that payment is limited to a sum representing two years’ wages. Suppose a man is totally blind, he may live forty or fifty years after his accident, and assuming that his children are not in a position to provide for him, he will suffer great hardship once his compensation is spent. It is not necessary here to repeat all the statements in the report, which contains an exhaustive survey of the provision made in other parts of the world for old people and those who suffer from invalidity, and submits a number of plans for adoption here. A select committee could go into these matters, and suggest the class of person to be included in the scheme, what the payments should be, the age at which the payment should commence, also whether the scheme should be contributory or non-contributory. I consider the best service I can do here is to avoid such controversial points, in the hope that the subject will be discussed in a non-party spirit. The native question, too, complicates the question to a very great extent. Some classes of natives are provided for in their old age by their own tribes. Others require some provision to be made, and we shall find a very great difficulty in determining what the amount of the provision should be. In other countries, where all the people live on civilized standards, it is easy to arrive at a definite sum applicable to all, but here the question will be a complicated one. There is plenty of work for the select committee to go into in these matters, with a view to showing the Government in which direction the greatest amount of common agreement exists.

In seconding the motion I would ask the House to come to a vote this afternoon, and in order to assist that being done, I will content myself by simply formally seconding the motion.

Like the mover, I am desirous that this question shall be discussed without regard to party. My amendment is drafted, not because I differ with the main object Mr. Sampson has in view, but because I think it is necessary and important that we should get on with the work with as little delay as possible, and I feel the referring of the Treasury memorandum to a Select Committee would simply delay what I regard as a very urgent matter. Supposing the House refers the subject to a Select Committee, that committee will have to report to the House, and it will be some time before the Government drafts its Bill; that Bill will again have to be referred to another Select Committee before its final adoption by the House, so that it would be very much better, I think, if the House adopted my amendment, which is as follows—

This would short-circuit a considerable amount of labour. I am assured by an hon. friend on my left that these, the proposals of Mr. Sampson’s and my own, are to be settled on party lines; that is to be regretted, for I do not think there is any need for a, Select Committee at this stage; the whole question has been before the country for the last ten years and the principle accepted, and before the House in the shape of a very excellent memorandum prepared by the Treasury for the last nine months. Provision for old age and the maintenance of indigent persons has agitated civilized nations for over 100 years. Even savages recognize their responsibilities in this respect. Some tribes treat their old people with almost superstitious veneration, while others, equally solicitous as to their future, take their old people round the corner and knock them on the head in order to expedite their departure for the happy hunting grounds. In South Africa we adopt a medium course, by allowing our old people in indigent circumstances to slowly starve to death or drift into one or other of the many avenues of crime. My experience as a commissioner in connection with pensions shows me that there is a good deal more genuine distress among the aged poor in South Africa than most people are aware of. This is particularly the case in Johannesburg and in the more thickly populated parts of the Transvaal, and this illicit liquor trade is largely in the hands of old people who are unable to earn an honest living. This is one of the ways they have been driven into this form of crime because they have no other means of making a living. If there are any hon. members in this House who have any doubt whatever as to whether it is a deserving and just claim or as to whether there are any great number of these aged indigent poor unable to earn a living, I would suggest that a short period of service on the Pensions Committee of this House would prove an education to most of them. That committee exercises its functions in as liberal and generous a spirit as possible under the circumstances, and if they err, it is on the side of generosity rather than in the other direction. But even if you have that court of appeal, it is closed to the great majority of people in the country, and you often find ex gratia payments or compassionate allowances granted which are made quite rightly as regards those fortunate people who are able to get them, but unfair to those people who cannot. Everybody is agreed that something has to be done to soften the lot of the poorer people of the country who are past earning an honest livelihood. How can this be done? No other policy seems possible than the adoption of an old age pensions scheme. There are two alternative systems, contributory and non-contributory, and the question naturally arises, if you are going to adopt the contributory form, you must decide what the employee and the employer should contribute, and under what condition, and also what the Government should contribute. And then you have to consider how far you are going to extend the system of old age pensions, as was hinted by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), the blind, the halt and the maimed. Then you have the Europeans and the coloured people all to-day classed as civilized and you have got to decide whether it is going to extend to them all or not. That is entirely a question for the Government to decide and I do not think it is a question for a Select Committee because at the back of it all is the great problem of finance. In addition you have the totally blind and otherwise permanently incapacitated and some provision should be made for them. You must also decide what the pensionable age is going to be. There again the Government comes in because it is a question of £ s. d. Personally I think the contributory scheme might be discarded, it bristles with almost insuperable difficulties. I would rather go the whole hog and see everybody in indigent circumstances at old age entitled to an old age pension. It should be theirs as a right and not regarded as a charitable dispensation. I would have the qualifying conditions reduced to the narrowest possible limits. I would not be too hard on people who have committed minor offences. It costs a good deal more to construct a very expensive gaol and pay an expensive staff to look after a man when he is there than to give him a reasonable pension and allow him to live honestly outside. It has been well said that poverty is a very costly luxury for a country—poverty engenders the revolutionary spirit and nothing so effectively breeds crime of any kind. But the public purse of course has to be protected and there must be a limitation as to its liabilities. If the Government would consider this proposition as an experiment, old age pensions might at first be confined to European British subjects who are 20 years resident in this country, and extend it later as circumstances permit.

So you are employing the colour bar?

That I have already said is a matter for the Government to decide but I think it would be quite enough at first to include the European of 20 years’ residence who has had 12 years spent in the Union of South Africa. Those with an annual income of £42 and over would be debarred; now I take £42 as the limit above which the pension would not be paid because if you, refer to the report you will find that £42 is just the sum laid down by the Health Department as one on which an old person can be maintained and pay the rent of one room, so I take this figure as reasonable. It is also I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of the figure adopted in Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere. As regards disqualifications there should be as few as possible but I would certainly disqualify the habitual drunkard. An habitual drunkard in receipt of an old age pension receives money which is no use to him and such a person should be placed in some institution which would receive the money on his account to look after him.

What about the wife and family?

The wife would probably be entitled to draw an old age pension of her own, at any rate provision could be made for them. It is a reasonable thing to suggest. I do not look upon an institution for the benefit of old people as being in the nature of a workhouse or some such kindred institution but an old peoples’ home where they have 20 or 30 people to look after do much better and make them far more comfortable than if the old people were allowed to tend for themselves. Now then, suppose we take 65 years as the minimum pensionable age adopted. There are, we are told, 49,000 persons in the Union of that age and if you deduct those disqualified on the grounds of nationality or possessed of means it leaves one-third eligible for pension or a total of 16,333. Adopting the assessment of the Director of Medical Services of £42 per head, you will arrive at, a grand total of £685.936, as being the annual sum which is required. It is a question for the Government to decide as to how this money is going to be provided. Personally I do not see why something in the form of a small levy should not be imposed upon all the European male population, and the balance supplied out of public funds in view of the great sums now expended in charity it seems to me to be worth it but I do say that the deplorable condition of the submerged whites in South Africa, which can only be described as a disgrace to civilization, demands that we should take this matter in hand and deal with it promptly; and something should be done and done now to relieve the miseries of those who are no longer able by reason of age or other permanent infirmity to earn a living for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I commend the amendment standing in my name to the sympathetic attention of the House.

seconded.

I have listened with surprise to the speech of the hon. member opposite. He asks the Government to introduce a Bill to make provision for pensions or for old people of 60 to 70 years. He is certainly not a farmer; he is surely one of that sort of people who live upon the work of other people. That is why he can ask such a thing. It astonishes me most of all that the hon. member who sits on that side, who has made such a fuss about the colour bar—

The hon. member must not refer to a previous debate.

I am only speaking about the colour distinction. It is surprising to me that he states that such a Bill should only apply to Europeans who are British subjects. Where is his feeling for the natives and coloured people? I always thought that he took the part of the native and coloured man. Now I see how I misunderstand him. I am against the motion and against the amendment. I represent a part of the society in this House which has to work very hard and which produces and which must pay taxes. If the farmers do not exist, then I wonder how much taxation will have to be paid per annum and how many rich shopkeepers there will then be. What will be the consequence if Parliament accepts such a Bill? The farmer will have to pay up heavy taxes for the pensions. Already two million pounds is paid, and if such a Bill is passed, a further two million pounds will be added, and the farmers are the people who will have to pay. I belong to the simple farmers who believe that one must work hard while you are young to save something for your old age, if it is granted to you to become old. I thus object to the motion and to the amendment. What will be the consequence if they are accepted? We see the love of ease of the people who want to roll in luxury and want to spend all they earn. And if now we should make such provision, I will not mention how these people will live then. Happily there is still a desire amongst some of them to save money. But if this Bill is accepted it will only encourage the waste of money. I am sorry for our people, especially for those who were ruined in our war. It is not their fault that they are in want. There will always be people who fail for reasons over which they have no control, but for those people there is a way out to-day. We have a pension committee who can consider such cases, and everybody can send in a petition. This motion is dangerous, especially if we were to place such a Bill upon our statute book.

I do hope that, without the slightest infusion of party politics, we shall discuss this all-important social measure. I have served on the Pensions Committee of this House, and I have come into contact with heartrending instances of people of good character, who, by the operation of misfortune over which they had no control, have been reduced to something like beggary. I think that I may quote particularly a case which came before the Pensions Committee last year, and which was referred to the favourable consideration of the provincial administration. An old man, of spotless character, alone in the world, in broken health, and I may say, incidentally, in his time a boy at a great public school in England—that old man of 70 years of age was offered pauper rations. Of course, his self-respect came to his rescue; he could not face a stigma like that. If we had some well-devised old age pension scheme such a man, not in the way of charity, but by legal right, would get the help that his broken condition asks for. His case is but typical of many. With all my heart I plead that hon. members of this House will address themselves to this very important social duty of making provision for those who are helpless and old and battered about in the battle of life, and need all the help and sympathy the State can give them. I do plead that we may continue this debate and arrive at some decision without over-treading the bounds of party politics.

I support the motion, but I am not able to go all the way with the mover. There is too much money involved, but I acknowledge that the matter requires the serious consideration of the Government, but we cannot bear the expense of a general old age pension scheme. I cannot possibly support such a scheme, but I feel that there is a section of our people who should be helped. To-day a large number of people are drawing pensions, but the man who really is in misery and has a right to a pension does not draw it. All officials and those who have done something for the State draw a pension, but the class of people who assisted in getting this country and our civilization developed get it only too infrequently. And it is for this class of people that I speak. This class must be helped by the Government. We have men of 60 and 80 years who have built up the land, and they must be assisted. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) says that there is a pension committee. But these are the very people who cannot be assisted by the pensions committee. The committee is in a difficult position, and the Government must see that the kind of people I have spoken of must be helped. I therefore think that the Government must go into the matter. The pension committee is in great difficulties and cannot assist in such cases. Therefore the Government must inquire how they can assist and make provisions for this purpose.

If the mover of the amendment really desires that progress should be made towards the establishment of an old age pension scheme, he is certainly going the wrong way to achieve his object. The question has been before the House on several occasions. I remember it in 1922, and last year the hon. member for East London also introduced a motion asking the Government, the South African party Government at that time, to appoint a select committee to enquire and report upon this particular matter. One of the members of the South African party then desired a commission appointed, and the Minister of Finance informed the House that in England it took twenty years before they settled the question. There were five or six Royal Commissions and select committees appointed before they arrived at a settlement. This covered a period of something like twenty years. I am surprised that any member of this House is opposed to the principle of establishing an old age pension scheme in South Africa. The necessity for it is apparent to all of us, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider). I consider that if the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) will withdraw his amendment we will be able to reach unanimity in the House. A white paper has been submitted which covers the whole range of the complicated question, and shows what has been done in other countries. The Minister of Finance in the last Government said he would not proceed with the matter at all until he had sufficient information to go upon. Now we have data which will enable the matter to be considered in a select committee. I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment in order that the proposal may go a step further.

I should like to be allowed to put the Government position. The matter has been discussed before in the House. We all agree that something should be clone. On the other hand, as the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Strachan) has pointed out, it is a big subject, and one which obviously requires a great deal of investigation and enquiry before the Government is in a position definitely to decide what it can do. My predecessor indicated to the House that the previous Government was investigating the matter. One of our ablest officials has presented a, very valuable report. It carries this important matter a great deal further than was the case before. When that report was presented, and when the enquiries commenced, it was done on the assumption that the investigation would be merely a preliminary one, and that afterwards a commission would be appointed to go into the whole question. Allied to this question is the important question of social insurance. It must be decided whether this should be on the voluntary basis or the contributory basis. Another question is whether certain classes of people should be excluded or not. While all agree that something should be done, it is obvious that there is still a good deal of enquiry to be made. The hon. member moved a motion that this should be done by a select committee. I am not sure that it could be adequately done by a select committee, but such a committee could certainly carry it a step further. The Government, in the meantime, will itself go into the matter and see what steps they can recommend to Parliament to take. On these grounds, as long as the House will agree that this is a big subject, and we must enquire into it further, I have no strong objection to the appointment of a select committee, because it might be able to give us more information. We are not unsympathetic, but it is mainly a question of finance. If we take it at 65 or 70 years of age it is obvious that a large amount will be required from taxation. The position is very unsatisfactory. As has been disclosed, there have been numerous cases for which it has been impossible to do anything. That is a matter we will have to deal with and, therefore, if the House thinks we should appoint a select committee, that committee will, perhaps, be able to throw some more light on the subject. I do not bind the Government to appoint a commission, but the Government itself will prosecute further enquiries, and we hope later on to lay a scheme before Parliament.

With the permission of the House I should like to withdraw my amendment.

I should like to point out to the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) that no discourtesy was meant by me in not discussing his amendment previously. I am prevented by the rules of the House from anticipating his amendment. I am glad, however, he has seen fit to withdraw his amendment and be guided by an older member of the House, as I am sure this is the best way to deal with the matter. I do not agree with the Minister that a Select Committee will throw any more light on the subject. We have had the light thrown on the subject by this memorandum which has been laid on the Table by the Treasury, but we find that the Treasury officials have referred to seven separate schemes. What I think the Select Committee will do is to discuss these schemes and reach the largest measure of common agreement among the parties in the House, who will ultimately decide what shape the law will take. I am sure the Government will welcome that advice from the parties in the House.

I move—

I do not wish to take up the time of the House. It is a very deserving case which is referred to in the petition. The man sacrificed much in the campaign of 1915, and with these few words I ask that the matter should be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.