I move—

I do not think that the motion is one contemplated by the Standing Order, and for that reason I am not in a position to put it to the House. I informed the hon. member of my decision when he submitted the matter to me this morning.

I move—

I would like to say a few words to explain this petition to the House. About the year 1917 or 1918 the riparian owners of Brak River between Ladismith and Swellendam made application to have a dam built there. The application was approved of on the recommendation of the Director of Irrigation, who in turn had acted on the advice of the engineers who had charge of the surveys there, and who in their turn once more had acted on the recommendation of old farmers who lived along the river. They made those recommendations without their having the least idea of the rainfall in the catchment area of the dam. They based their recommendations on the rainfall at Ladismith, Barrydale, Montague and Touws River, and at those places the fall was, as it happened, much larger than in the catchment area of the dam. The original estimate of the cost of the dam was £29,000, but when it was completed the cost was £45,450. It soon appeared that there was not at all enough water for the irrigable land, and the people got into arrears with their water rates, and could not pay the interest until ultimately in 1927-’28 the then Government decided to send a commission to investigate the matter. It was the Fourie Commission. That commission made a report, and the report was to the effect that the irrigable land should be cut down to a group of farms immediately below the dam. That would have meant a restriction of the irrigable land to about 350 morgen. Against that, the riparian owners at the lower end protested most strongly. They said that an encroachment was being made on their rights, and owing to the dam being there they would, in the future, get no water for their stock. The commission took the position into reconsideration, and the following year, 1929. Act No. 21 was passed, in which Section 5 (3) was included, which reads as follows—

During that time an amount of £16,451 fell into arrears in interest alone, a sum which is almost half as large as the amount which was spent on the dam. The commission further diecided to write off £37,370 along with the £16,451 on the scheme. And yet we find that the people were not able, on the 350 morgen of irrigable land which was left, to pay the interest on the scheme. There were droughts, but there were also good years, and apart from the droughts it clearly appeared that the catchment area during all those years had never yet been able to fill the dam. During the years 1937 to 1940 there were only on the average nine hours of water per morgen in the dam for the curtailed area, and it goes without saying that the people could not pay the interest on it. I attribute the cause of all this entirely to the fact that adequate care was not taken beforehand to find out whether a dam ought to be built there. This is one of the unfortunate mistakes of the past. There were no rain guages, nor were there any proper water meters in the river. Inasmuch as the msitake was made, and the people are unable to pay, I am introducing this motion. The farmers who live there are poor, and I make an appeal to the House to pass this motion, so that the matter can be referred to the Select Committee on Irrigation.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) statutory suspension of interest on their Land Bank farm bonds, and instalments on the purchase price of land settlement farms, until conditions admit of the resumption of such payments after the end of the war;
2. (b) limited financial assistance towards farm management only where the absence of a farmer on active service has resulted in failure of the temporary management to maintain the recognised output of production for that farm;
3. (c) the promotion of a plan to facilitate the purchase of farmers’ requisites from firms who are prepared to allow specially reduced prices to farmers on active service; and
4. (d) the framing by the Department of Agriculture of a policy of farm production and disposal, based upon the probable requirements of markets within reach of the Union during the war, including army contracts in North Africa.

Those farmers of South Africa, on whose behalf this motion is introduced, responded to their country’s call instantly, spontaneously and wholeheartedly, and almost regardless of the consequences. No recruiting sergeant was needed to stimulate their patriotism, or urge them to their duty—they were moved by the one universal resolve to defend their country, and to bear their part in the great world conflict, whatever that service might involve. But it has become clear that, if we are to do justice to those who have taken up arms in this spirit of devoted service, we shall need to come to their aid in connection with the matters mentioned in the motion, which I commend to the consideration of the House. From our own observations many of us in this House are able to say that the small measure of help proposed in the motion is needed, and has been rendered necessary as a result of war service in the defence of South Africa. The farmer who goes on active service, unlike his comrade in arms from the town, is obliged to leave in the care of others his means of livelihood, and if his farm is mismanaged or neglected, he may return to find himself overwhelmed with debt and reduced to the status of a pauper. It is well known that farming areas in certain provinces have been over-recruited, and that even if those remaining on their farms were to undertake the supervision of the work of their absent fellow farmers, the available man-power to-day is insufficient to go round. Within the past few days I have been asked to recommend the exemption from full-time military service of a farmer who comes from an area in my constituency in which, out of 17 farmers, 12 are in the army, and of the five left, four are over 60 years of age. These figures, although representing perhaps the maximum where varying degrees of the denudation of farmers exist, serve to show that in the areas affected most of the able-bodied farmers have enlisted. The sequel to this state of affairs is rapidly making itself apparent. Two presidents of prominent farmers’ associations in Natal have recently published a joint letter in the Press drawing attention to the number of farms “left with quite insufficient supervision to ensure local production,” and have pointed out that this will result in the “impoverishment of very many farmers.” This, in a province whose farmers have never appealed to any Government for measures of relief, envisages a serious deterioration. As the farming districts in the Border and Eastern Province have, to my knowledge been similarly denuded of their able-bodied men, I have no doubt there will be similar results in those areas. A corporal in one of the oldest volunteer regiments in South Africa (or indeed in any of the Dominions) writes to me from Northern Africa under date 21st January, 1941, on behalf of his comrades, of the difficulties of farm owners on active service who, at the outbreak of war, were not properly established. He says:

He adds:

He concludes:

When the farmers were first mobilised for training, their fellow-farmers throughout the Union were much concerned with the problem of assisting those who had enlisted for active service. In a large number of cases a young wife, inexperienced in farm management, was left almost alone to cope with difficulties in the management of the farm, sufficient to dismay any competent and well-trained farmer. The difficulty of directing and controlling natives on the farms was rendered more acute because of subversive propaganda among them. One of the most useful schemes propounded to meet the situation was put forward by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) in June, 1940. Briefly, he proposed that farmers unfit for military service should be embodied in a unit for service on the Home Front, and that members of this force should be put into uniform, armed and paid at the same rate as citizens on active service. Their duties would include not only the supervision of their own farms, but the supervision and management of two or three adjoining farms in the vicinity. They would be provided with the means of transport to enable them to reach those farms in the area under their control. Further, their work would be supervised by a non-commissioned officer, who would in turn be under the direct command of the magistrate. There is no doubt that a unit such as this would have served the purpose of farm management and of maintaining native discipline at the same time. Many proposals of different kinds were submitted to the Government, and after consideration certain conditions were agreed upon by the Government for regulating the enlistment of farmers and the management of their farms. The Secretary for Agriculture made known the conditions through the press They provided for the establishment of an agricultural exemptions tribunal, presided over by the Secretary for Agriculture in Pretoria, to deal with the exemption from full-time military service of all farmers who were considered by the tribunal to be indispensable from the farming operations in their own area. Through the agricultural unions, all farmers’ associations and agricultural societies were asked to establish vigilance committees for the purpose of advising the magistrates upon applications for exemption, and also for assisting in the management of farms belonging to farmers on active service. These conditions were very praiseworthy, and in some districts the Vigilance Committees have rendered devoted service, and their work has done much to mitigate the difficulties of farm management, which are inseparable from the absence of an owner with the army, but in certain districts the Committees have failed to do what was expected of them; in all cases the efficiency of their work would be considerably improved if they had at their command a limited fund which could be used towards farm management, where the employment of a farm manager is rendered unavoidable through the circumstances of the case; the cost of necessary transport should also be provided. Let me deal briefly with the proposals embodied in my notice of motion—

1. (a) The statutory suspension of interest on Land Bank bonds and instalments on land settlement farms:

Those who are familiar with the practice of the Land Bank, in connection with their bonds, and of the Department of Lands in relation to land settlement farms, will recall that those bodies ordinarily allow the farmer a period of suspension when the bond is first passed, or the land settlement farm purchased, during which no redemption payments are even demanded. The object is to relieve the farmer from demands until he has got into his stride. My proposal is based upon a similar ground for consideration, viz., that while the farmer is occupied in defending the country, he should surely be relieved of demands for interest and redemption, and there should be no accumulation of indebtedness under either heading until the war is over; in other words, that his indebtedness should stand still from the time of his enlistment until the end of the war. By this means the farmer is freed from being in a position in which his continued service at the front is a means of creating an indebtedness which may lead to his bankruptcy as soon as the war is over. It is true that the Land Bank and the Department of Lands and the State Advances Recoveries Office have all promised leniency in regard to the pressure of their demands, but none of these bodies has indicated that there will be a suspension of then-claims for any specified or unspecified period. In a husband’s absence the farmer’s wife continues to receive demands for interest and redemption, and it is significant that in a published statement by the Central Board of the Land Bank promising leniency towards debtors, the following paragraph occurs:

This exposes the real measure of their leniency. Legally, the position under the Moratorium Act passed last year is that a volunteer cannot be compelled to make redemption payments in respect of mortgage bonds. It does not, of course, meet the further difficulty that unpaid instalments may accumulate, and may confront a volunteer with a very heavy burden at the end of the war. Adequate protection of the absent farmer can only be given by the adoption of my proposal or some similar one. Under paragraph (b) of my notice of motion it is proposed that limited financial assistance towards farm management should be provided where the temporary farm management has failed to maintain the recognised output of production in the absence of the owner. Any such funds could be placed under the control of the magistrate and Vigilance Committees, operating under the scheme of Dr. Viljoen, the Secretary for Agriculture, and extravagance could thus be checked. Under paragraph (c) of my motion there is a proposal for the promotion of a plan to facilitate the purchase of farmers’ requisites from firms who are prepared to allow specifically reduced prices to farmers on active service. Many of those left in charge of farms are finding it difficult to buy necessaries for farming operations, because of the increased prices demanded; but it is felt that if the Minister of Agriculture were to interest himself in the formation of the plan proposed, there would be a satisfactory response on the part of many firms in the Union. In paragraph (d) I have dealt with the necessity for a policy of farm production and disposal being framed by the Department of Agriculture. War conditions have made appreciable differences in the demands to be met by the farmer. The closing of the Mediterranean has brought a constant stream of traffic through South African ports, with correspondingly greater demands from the vessels passing through. I have heard of farmers who have benefited by their foresight in growing products required by the visiting ships, but it stands to reason that the Government is better informed of the possibilities of a market from this source than anyone else can be, and there is an outcry among the farmers in our province for the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture in making some intelligent anticipation of the kind of farm products which will best profit the farmer. In a farmers’ journal recently I read a contrast between the differing gospels preached to the farmers by two Ministers, viz., the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Agriculture in his New Year message, it was said, had been non-committal, and had failed to give a lead to the farmers, but the Minister of Justice, speaking at Carolina in January, 1941, had said—

I believe that war conditions provide a suitable opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture to establish closer touch with the farmers in relation to their available markets, and I venture to hope that he will succeed in capturing for the farmers of the Union whatever market is available to them in Northern Africa during the continuance of the war. I will now curtail my remarks to give members an opportunity of debating this motion. I move.

I am led to second this motion by an experience which I have had recently and which brought me in close contact with a case particularly applicable to the motion. This man is a member of one of our defence force units. I cannot say how long he has been a member, but I met his wife in the train just before leaving for Cape Town. I found that she was very distressed because the farm on which they had been for the last sixteen years, and which her husband had inherited from his father—the family is one of the old pioneering families of Natal—was in the hands of the Debt Recoveries Office. She wanted to know whether her husband would be given an opportunity when the war is over to get back to that farm or another. Before I could take any action in the matter I received this letter from her in Cape Town, from which I propose to read extracts—

I am not in a position to criticise the Department of Lands, or the Department of Agriculture, because I only know part of the case, but I submit this as evidence that some action should be taken by the Government when a man who is serving his country is involved in this way, due, I believe, to illness in the latter part of last year, bad luck in the last few years, and ill-health of his wife. The man comes back with nothing to do unless the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Lands can do something to reinstate him on that farm and allow him to make a fresh start. That has moved me to second the motion of my hon. friend, and I do so in the hope that the consensus of opinion in this House is that something should be done to assist this and similar cases.

I would like to move an amendment—

We have now heard from hon. members over there what the position of the farmer is, and I want to tell them that we have nothing to say against their wanting to help the people to go on active service. It is a good thing that the farmers are being assisted, but there are other sections of the farming population who need the assistance just as much as the former do. The Minister of Agriculture now admits that the position of the farmers is not so good, and hon. members there have pointed out what the position is. Well, we can assist them in that way if they go further and also support my amendment, so that the farmers generally can be assisted in regard to the interest, and generally to put them in a better position to make good. I do not believe that any doubt can be cherished as to what the position of the farmers is. It is not necessary to go into the position again fully. We referred to it yesterday. The position of the farmers is difficult, and when we take everything into consideration their position is worse than what it was before the war. If the Government wants to assist the farmers in order that they need not pay interest while the war lasts, then it will in any case be a compensation for the rise in the cost of living. Because, as we pointed out yesterday, the price of the produce of the farmers is fixed, but the cost of living is mounting daily. Wire and other material has gone up 200%, and in the circumstances we may surely expect the Government to do something to assist the farmers. We are not opposed to the people who are carrying on the war receiving something, but the farmers who are on active service are not the only ones who need assistance. They are already receiving certain relief, as the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) himself mentioned. The Land Bank and the Farmers’ Relief Board are assisting them as much as possible, and they also get an allowance to carry on their farms while they are absent. We do not grudge it to them, but the position of the farmers generally is such that we desire to get help from them generally. We on this side of the House have already insisted on the fact that the relief measures which the Government applied should be increased. With regard to sub-paragraph (2) of the motion, it is quite too vague. How can you fix a man’s loss in time of war if he is not on his farm? It is so vague that I feel that we should delete it. With regard to (c) I feel strongly in favour of the idea which lies at the bottom of it, namely, that firms who can supply machinery and farming requirements cheaper, should be supported. We are strongly in favour of that, because it will reduce the cost of production. With regard to the last point also, namely, the extension of our marketing possibilities to the North, we are probably all in agreement. But why should we only develop while the war is on? We feel that the Government to-day have a chance of development as never before. We have already heard of industrial development, and we have learned that there are many things which are being imported, and which need not be imported, and that there are big requirements in the North. The Government went so far as to say that the war should assist us in developing our industries. Here then is an opportunity of that kind for developing the agricultural industry. The lie and rot story will then also disappear from the scene, because we shall then get proper markets for our produce.

I second the amendment. The question which in the first instance rises in one’s mind is who the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) represents—a section of his district, a section of his electors, or all of them? I can also put the question generally: “Whom do we represent?” Do we only represent a section of the voters who are now to be benefited, as the hon. member proposes? Where is this going to end? If the House passes such a policy, then it will live to regret it. The motion of the hon. member is quite unpractical, and I cannot support it. The second question which rises in my mind is as to what the hon. member actually aims at by his motion. It is nothing else but that he wants to encourage people to take part in the war. That is what there is behind the motion. But then there is another question. If he wishes the people to be encouraged to go to the war, what about the other section which also has to make its contribution so far as the war is concerned? We suppose that if people go to the war to fight, there is a section who, for instance, have to transport ammunition and foodstuffs and other requirements. But where do the supplies come from? Who produces them? That is the other section which he wants to exclude, the people on the countryside who produce the things. The produce, surely, is also absolutely necessary. You cannot send a soldier out on an empty stomach. The soldier requires bread. The farmer produces it. The soldier needs meat. The stock farmer breeds the stock. There are many things needed by the soldiers, and they are produced by the farmers who remain at home on their farms. The lorries transport the goods from the places where the farmers deliver it to the places where the soldiers need them. Now the hon. member wants to assist only the section which is fighting, and not the other section which is doing work which is also just as necessary. The hon. member wants the people who do the shooting to be privileged, but why must the other farmers who remain at home be penalised when they are producing food for the troops? I do not believe that anyone will agree with this. Some of the people who go to the war are possibly also in a far better position to pay their interest and rent than the farmers who remain behind and who have to produce. The costs of production have risen tremendously, and you cannot merely benefit one section. I wonder whether the hon. member for Illovo wants to send out troops without food and without clothing and only with rifles. What kind of a war would that be? I am convinced of it that if this motion were to come to the vote to-day, not one right-thinking hon. member, not even on the Government side, not even the Minister himself, would share the views of the hon. member for Illovo.

I am sorry indeed that it should be the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) who introduced this amendment to the motion. The object of that amendment is purely and simply to defeat the object of the motion. We know that the hon. member for Cradock and hon. members on the other side of the House have no sympathy for the farmer soldiers who have gone out to do their duty.

We have more sympathy with you that you talk such nonsense.

It is evident that they have no sympathy whatever with the farmers who have gone out to do their duty for their country, and by this amendment he is not attempting to help the farmers, but to prevent the Government from giving any consideration to the difficulties of the farmer soldiers.

You have no sympathy for the other farmers.

Don’t talk nonsense.

The hon. member for Cradock is a man who I believed would not do a thing of this sort. He has shown to-day that not only has he no sympathy for these men, but is absolutely against their interests. These men are working in the interests of himself and all the people of South Africa. By their actions the farmers of this country are benefiting in every way. They are making money while these farmer soldiers are making sacrifices. I do not want to deal with the amendment. I am sure the hon. member will be brought to book by those in his constituency who have volunteered. I wish to add my plea on behalf of these farmer soldiers at the front. Theirs is a very special case and demands special treamtent. I know that there are many difficulties in the way of doing this, but with goodwill and sympathy those difficulties will disappear and be overcome, because where there is a will there is a way. The Government has done nothing as yet to help those men whose wives and other relations are trying to run their farms. Whatever help has been given has come from friends by voluntary effort. The Government has done nothing. The hon. member for Cradock mentioned what the Land Bank is doing, but it is a fact that so far as the Government is concerned absolutely nothing has been done to assist these men in their difficulties.

Don’t they get the same as other farmers?

We are talking about farmer soldiers. The hon. member does not know what a farmer soldier is, what his service means to South Africa. I doubt whether among his friends he has one of these farmer soldiers. I have asked the Minister to treat this matter not only with goodwill, but with sympathy, and to see if there is some possible way of meeting this request. If we only look at the difficulties in the way, there will be no way out, but I am quite sure that with the assistance of those who have the cause of these men at heart, means will be found to help them when they come back after the war is over. It is not much that we ask for these men who have not only sacrificed income, but in many cases most of their capital will disappear. If the only assistance that is going to be given them is what the Land Bank is doing, and is offering to do, the men will come back to find their capital shrunk and their liabilities greatly increased. There is great danger that when these men come back they will not be able to resume their farming operations. The burdens will be too great, and their assets too small. When that time arrives the Minister will be faced with a demand to write off their indebtedness to the Land Bank during the period of the war, and that will be much more difficult to resist than what we ask now. We are not now asking for any write-off, but purely that interest and redemption during the war period should remain in abeyance. That can be done by extending the period of redemption and interest during the period of the war, and adding it to the period for which the loan was made originally. As I said, many of us have made voluntary contributions, and there are funds in various parts of the country which have been put up by those of us who have not been able to go, and those funds are being used to assist those people; but, of course, those funds are very small and do not amount to much. We also, by voluntary effort, are trying to assist the wives of those who remain on the farms to carry on those farms under the best conditions. I understand that this is a difficult case for the Government to deal with, but it is an urgent case, and unless something is done now, something very much more drastic will have to be done after these men come back. I plead with the Minister that it is far better to meet the position to-day than to leave it until after the war, when the position will be very much worse and almost impossible to meet to put these men in the position they were in when they volunteered. The wives of these men are being pestered every day by the usual letters which one gets from the Land Bank. Although we are told that the Land Bank will not press for interest and redemption while the men are away at the front, these letters will continue to come in the regular course of business, and you will realise what it means to a woman to get these continuous letters asking for the payment of amounts due which they are absolutely unable to meet, and the bad effects if they are not paid. And if for no other reason, I think the position should be made clear that these demands are not going to be made while the men are away at the front. Now, I feel, and I think every right-feeling man will feel, that these men have made great sacrifices and are taking risks, far greater sacrifices and risks than other men who have volunteered. It has been pointed out what concessions have been made to other men. The civil servants have their salaries made up, most men working in offices have part of their salaries paid, and even the professional man who has to close down his office has not got the expense of maintaining that office, has not the expense which the farmer has in trying to maintain his farm. As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman), his pay should put him in a better position than when he is farming. This is nonsense, and in many instances that pay is not sufficient to pay an overseer or a manager while he is away. I hope the Government will not sidetrack this motion or treat it in anything but the most sympathetic and considerate manner, and show these men that we appreciate what they have done, and when the time comes that we shall not forget the services which they have rendered to the country, even if our opponents belittle their services, and try to degrade and insult the cream of our young farmers who are doing their duty to the country.

I really was astonished listening to the kind of motions which the hon. members opposite propose. They cannot tell me that they are not responsible for this motion. They held a causus, and they had to give the hon. member for Illovo the right of bringing this matter forward. They agreed with his motion, and what is he now asking for here? He is asking that if a farmer wears a red tab on his shoulder, then he should be exempted from paying interest. If the farmer does not wear the red tab, then he may just as well die. I wonder what the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) will say about his farmers, who do not wear the red tab, and also the hon. member who is sitting asleep over there, the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie)—what will he say if he rises here? I would like to hear what the farmers opposite will say of this motion that the people who wear the red tab should be chosen from among the farmers, and that they should be exempted from paying interest. They dare not get up here and speak against the motion, because the hon. member for Illovo has closed their mouths. That is the unfortunate position, when one sits with those people. The hon. member for Rustenburg reminds me of the parrot which was amongst the crows on the lands, and which was shot in the claw. When his master asked him why he was shot, he said: “Sir, I was in bad company amongst the crows.” Those hon. members may not speak, they must remain perfectly quiet, and it is the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) who is the person speaking. He comes here from Natal and he puts up a plea for the people who wear red tabs, they must be given assistance and the others can just manage as best they can. If the hon. member wants to be honest he will admit that if England has a group of farmers who can produce, whether they wear the red tabs or not he will in these days be very glad to get the food which they produce. If our farmers do not produce in South Africa, where then will they get the mealies and other produce from to export to England? Let met point out to the hon. member for Weenen that there are simple young farmers on the countryside who have never yet earned £20 a month. Now they are wearing the red tabs and getting £20 a month, and then he nevertheless wants them to be exempted from interest, while the other farmers are given nothing. No, the other farmers along with us who sit here, will have to pay for it, because where will the Land Bank otherwise get its interest from? It does not stop at that, but the wages have to be paid to the people who are looking after their farms, a committee has to be appointed to look for work for them. They have many privileges, too many and it would take too long to mention them. Their children are receiving free education. And what is being done for the other farmers? Those who wear the red tabs come to their homes, they have their meals in their own homes, and then they nevertheless get 2/- a day from the Government because they have red tabs on their shoulders. These people get £20 a month, but their neihgbour who has remained behind, gets nothing, and he has to take his income out of the soil with his hands, and then that man must nevertheless be exempted from interest! That is the kind of motion which is being brought before this House. And then those people still come and tell us that they have just as much sympathy with the interests of South Africa as we have. Their brains are so full of war that they only think of war. The hon. member for Rustenburg cannot get up here and say that his farmers had better just continue paying the Land Bank interest, but those who wear the red tabs should be exempted. They dare not protest against it, but we protest most strongly against it. If it cannot be done for all, then this motion should be rejected, and I will look to see how those hon. members opposite vote.

I was not surprised at the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) moving this motion. We expect it of him. He is the man who wanted to carry on civil war if the House had not voted in favour of declaring war, and we expect it of him that he will introduce a motion of this kind to try to provide for his soldiers, to assist them in a way that has never yet been done for the farmers in our country. I expected it of him. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) said here that he did not believe that the Government was going to accept this motion, and that the Minister of Agriculture would deal sympathetically with it. I begin to doubt whether the hon. member is right; he must not forget that this Government has only one idea, and that is to see the war through. This is a volunteer war, so they say, and now we find that the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), who is a supporter of the Government and who is one of the members of the Government party, is supporting this motion. I shall therefore not be at all surprised if the Government accepts this motion. The Government has in various ways tried to carry on this war with so-called volunteers. We know of the victimisation amongst the officials of the Government which was going on to induce them to join up. That method was tried. They also tried other methods to force people to go and fight, and to go and join up voluntarily, as it is called. They sent a circus round the country to get recruits, and this motion is nothing else but an admission on the part of the Government supporters— up to the present we have not heard that from the Government—but if the Government and the Minister of Agriculture accept it, then on their part it is also nothing else than an admission that they have failed to get enough recruits voluntarily. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture is smiling.

I am smiling at your nonsense.

We often hear nonsense from the other side, and that also applies to the Minister himself. I would like to hear from him that he is not going to accept this motion. It is a pity that the Minister of Lands is not in his place, because from his actions it is clear that, even if this motion is not passed, we can still be convinced of it that the Government will carry out the term of this motion in respect of their loyal Empire soldiers. What is proposed in this motion will be done by the Government. We know that the Minister of Lands is already engaged in doing various things to secure volunteers for the war. The Afrikaner lads who are of age and who live on land settlements are being driven off that land; we know how those people are being intimidated in order to make them go and fight, and we actually believe that those boys will have further compulsory methods used against them. Whatever may happen to this motion, I believe that the Government will still do for the soldiers what is asked for here. Now let us enquire what the motion actually asks for. In the first two paragraphs he asks for the following things—

1. (a) statutory suspension of interest on their Land Bank farm bonds, and instalments on the purchase price of land settlement farms, until conditions admit of the resumption of such payments after the end of the war;
2. (b) limited financial assistance towards farm management only where the absence of a farmer on active service has resulted in failure of the temporary management to maintain the recognised output of production for that farm.

Then there is also assistance to be given in connection with the sale of the farming plant. These are things which we could possibly do in peace time, but have never done to assist our farmers. They are now being asked for on behalf of these soldiers who are going to carry on the war against the wishes and desires of the people. I feel that if ever an injustice was done to the people of South Africa, then it will be done by the passing of this motion. We have already heard of the extravagance of the Government with its war expenditure from the Auditor-General; how money is being spent of which the Government cannot even give an account of any kind. In addition to this, these things have now to be granted, and I can only hope with all my heart that this motion will not be passed by the House. But even if it is rejected, I still fear that the Government is so submissive that we shall be disappointed if we expect the Government not to carry out the motion in reality. Even if the House does not pass this motion, the hon. member for Illovo does not need to be concerned. This Government will see that those soldiers get everything they are asking for, just because the Government wants those men as soldiers, and when the war is over, they will have enough “voting cattle” to keep them in office. At any rate, I hope that the motion will not be passed.

I want to say a word or two on this motion because it happens that I am sincerely interested both in farmers and in soldiers. I do not say that I am much of a soldier, in fact some people are quite of the other opinion, but I suppose I am still less qualified as a farmer. I have no farm at all. I am perfectly amazed when I hear of the holding by one person of 20,000 to 30,000 morgen, and it seems to me that a very great deal could be done with that quantity of land. It seems almost as big as England itself.

Nearly as big as Natal.

Yes, almost. But I am clearly aware that the mere possession of land does not mean one is making a fortune. The extent of my own landed property is not large—it is a matter of one-third of an acre; I am really not the owner of it, but rather the occupier, the unpaid caretaker.

Seeing that you are a soldier you should get assistance.

Possibly that will come; good things are coming in spite of the opposition of hon. members over there. I said that I had one-third of an acre over which I act as a sort of an unpaid caretaker for the bondholder, who is, of course, one of these self-sacrificing building societies. My party is also interested in the farmer and in his success, for the very sufficient reason that the work which the farmer does, the growing of food, is the most essential work which any man ever did anywhere or at any time. I think there can be no sort of doubt about that, and the money spent, whoever spends it, for the farmer’s products is the most remunerative to the State of all money expended. The very biggest indictment of our social and financial system to-day is this, that there are many people who very badly need the products of the farmers, and yet it is a matter of real difficulty in many cases to make even a bare living out of a farm. I hear from members on my side of vast sums which are made by farming. It may be, but certainly not all farmers make vast sums. Certainly none of my own friends fall into that money-making category —or I might be able to borrow some. I have sympathy with all on the farms who are fighting heavy odds, but there is a special section of the farming community who at the present time are placed in a position of peculiar disability, and no one can deny that. Those are the farmers who happen to have left the farms—who for any good reason have left the farms, and particularly those who have taken up arms for the defence of the country. They have not taken up arms for the defence of their farms only, but for the defence of everyone’s farm.

Not for mine.

Now this first clause of the motion by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) seems to be like an axiom of Euclid, and to establish itself. This is what it says:

I want to stress what was touched on by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) that the women of our country are tremendously concerned in the granting or otherwise of this plea. There are various opinions of the women of South Africa, but I am quite certain that the general opinion is this, that they are working magnificently to help forward the progress of our country in these very difficult times, whether they happen to be serving with the army, or serving equally well at home on the farms. It is a fact that women who are endeavouring to carry on their farms in the absence of the owners of the farms are experiencing tremendous difficulties. They are pestered for money which they cannot at the moment find. That is a fact which should not be allowed to continue to operate. I consider it is very right for the man to have taken up arms—but at least the women who have stayed behind should not be hampered in their trying task. A woman is subject to sufficient strain under present times. Even my wife is affected (she writes to me quite kindly nowadays). This extra strain is felt very severely by the women, but it does not fall as heavily on the city-dwelling women as it does on the women on the farms. The women on the farms not only have to be content with the fact that their men are away, but they have to carry on the business of the farm. I happen to have received a long letter this morning, close up, thirty pages in length. I am not going to read it.

Ha-ha!

The hon. member who says “ha-ha” is welcome to read it. If he can still say “ha-ha” at the end I shlal not congratulate him. Well, the woman who writes to me happens to be the wife of a farmer who has joined the army. He was killed. This woman has written to me explaining her difficulties. There is a great deal of wattle bark on her farm and she cannot by hook or crook sell that bark. It is essential that she should sell it. She cannot sell the farm; she cannot even get a job, even as an army transport driver, though she is a motor car driver who served in the last war overseas in France. I say that such a liability is not a fair one to leave on any woman whatever, and I support that clause, and my party supports it with me. Then we have clause (b), which says that the Government shall make provision for:

I maintain that that is right in ethics. It is a matter of justice. Here is a man who has left his farm, not for his own good but for the good of others. Why should he suffer the damage which must come if a stranger carries on his farm? The substitute may do his best, but he cannot do as well as the owner could. And the other point we are keen on with regard to this clause is this. Not only is it wrong that this man should suffer a special loss, but the loss is one to ourselves as well. Men come to me in the ordinary course of my work at Sonderwater frequently, and they are worried by the fact that although their wives are doing their best to carry on all the work, the farms are nevertheless slipping back and getting behind. Such a man, worried not only by absence from his family, but by the fact that an unfair stress is placed upon them and him, is unable to attend to his military services in the way he would otherwise do. If some way of helping this man could be found, so that relief could be granted, it would be to the good of the country, because it would relieve the mind of a man like that, and it would enable him to train and do his work with 100 per cent. efficiency, which, under a condition of worry such as he is in to-day, he cannot do. It is not merely helping them, though it is right to help them, but we shall be helping ourselves at the same time. There is only one criticism which I would make, one amendment which I would ask for. I do not think these proposals go quite far enough. It is an obvious fact that a farmer who leaves his farm and takes up arms for his country must suffer loss. He must, and he does. And the same thing applies to the city dweller who, for instance, leaves a one-man business behind him. It is an impossibility that such a man who leaves his own business and joins the army can avoid suffering losses. Such businesses have come to the point of “fade-out” in a great many instances, and one hopes that some form of help will be found for them also. If we do not give this help we shall obviously be penalising the best of our people. We shall be doing that, and I do not believe for one moment that it is the wish of the people of the Union as a whole that any such disability, any unnecessary disability, shall be suffered by these soldiers, whether they come from the country or from the towns. It will be asked, of course, “Where is the money to come from?” I suggest that it should come out of the pockets of those who are making money, and go into the pockets of those who are losing it. It is, of course, an ethical point that the sacrifice should be spread over as fairly as may be, and that we should not call upon any man to suffer any more than he need— that he should not suffer outrageously, out of all proportion to what other men endure. But we are compelled to consider the ethics of this. We have to consider this question on the basis of right and wrong, or else, if through the help of our men and women we win the war, we shall lose the peace.

The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), a man who represents a rural constituency, gets up here to announce that he will support the motion of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). In other words, he comes here and he only wants to represent a certain section of his constituents. He also mentioned here that there were certain wives of these farming soldiers who are on active service who are experiencing considerable trouble. The same position was referred to by the hon. member who has just sat down. Let me at once point out to them that the farmers who remain behind and who have not gone on active service also have wives in difficult positions, who has to pass through these times of anxieties and care, and as the wife is put in the position that her husband gets a fixed allowance because he is on active service, they are also enabled to be able to settle the burden of interest. But in what position does the wife of the other farmer who has remained behind at this time find herself? The farmers heard that unwise and notorious statement of the Minister of Agriculture about lying and rotting. It induced some farmers to leave their farms and to go and fight. But what about the other farmers who remained here, and whose produce is also now lying and rotting? Take the mealie farmers. There are still 3,500,000 bags which have not been exported, and we have practically got the next harvest at our doors.

Your information is wrong, and you cannot support it.

I shall be glad if the Minister can tell me that the case is otherwise. I think that it is high time for the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement in connection with the whole position, because the buyers are already engaged in buying mealies on delivery, and as the Minister remains silent, and does not keep the farmers informed, I fear that they will give away their produce for prices which are less than they might get later on. I want again to quote here the statement of the Minister at the beginning of the war, that we ought to take part in it, because otherwise our produce would lie and rot. Now the farmers who have gone to fight, as they think, for South Africa, but who are in reality fighting for the Empire, why should they be preferred, and why do hon. members opposite not want to support the amendment moved from this side, which asks for assistance to the whole of the farming industry? When we think of the parlous condition the farmers are in and the increased cost of production which exists to-day, and we see that there is no rise in prices, then I say that the time has come for the Minister of Agriculture, who ought to be the father of the farmers, to give his attention to the matter and to try and help the farmers. It is said that farmer-soldiers who are on active service do not have the same privileges as others. It is just the reverse. The Minister of Lands is already providing for them. Although we vote £900,000 to £1,000,000 every year for the purchase of land, the Minister of Lands is not now making any money available, simply because he wants to make provision for the people who are on active service to-day. In my opinion, the people who are on active service to-day are better off than those who remain behind and produce, and if they do not produce, what will the soldiers of the Prime Minister live on? Then they could not go on with the war, and I think that the Minister of Agriculture should give attention to that. The hon. member for Weenen said that we have no sympathy with the persons who are on active service. I speak for myself when I say that I am particularly sympathetic towards them, and that notice should be taken of them. It is unfortunate that they have given attention to the hon. members opposie to take part in a war with which they have nothing to do, and to enable hon. members over there to draw double salaries.

We know already that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) from time to time introduces numerous motions, but of all the impractical propositions he has ever made this is the worst. He wants to give special assistance to a certain part of the population which is doing certain work and is taking part in the war. If we study his motion we find that he only wants to give assistance to those who are taking part in the war, the so-called war farmers who have to pay interest to the Land Bank and who come under the Land Settlement Act. I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture is in accord with him. I do not know whether he is prepared to distinguish between the farmer who is taking part in the war and the farmer who is not doing so, nor do I know whether he wants to distinguish between those who have mortgages with the Land Bank, and those who have bonds with private individuals and financial institutions. I would call the motion a superficial one. It is not only impractical, it is also ridiculous, because I fail to see how the Government of the day can differentiate in that respect. The mouthpiece of the Government side in regard to farming matters, the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), has admitted that this is exclusively a war motion. Naturally, if it is a war motion, one can expect any ridiculous proposition, a proposition which does not take into account conditions as they actually exist. I hope the Minister will not accept the motion but that he will realise that the farming population as a whole requires to be assisted. I heartily support the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). If there is one section of the population which is suffering hardship it is the farming population, in spite of what may be said in this House about the farmers being in a flourishing condition. Those who make a statement like that know nothing about the farming community, and they speak in ignorance to a certain extent, because although there may perhaps be certain parts of Natal where the farmers are flourishing I can assure the House that the farmers in the North-Western areas are suffering great hardships. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in my constituency the farmers have suffered very heavily as a result of the floods which have occurred there. In one district alone, Kenhardt—I am quoting from the official information supplied to me—the floods have caused terrific damage, and the damage done to the town of Kenhardt itself amounts to almost £20,000 according to official information. In the district the damage is even greater. Consequently the farmers in those areas are suffering severely as a result of the floods and they have suffered heavy losses. I am mentioning just one district in my constituency and these facts must convince the Minister that the farming community is suffering severely. If that is so, I ask how in all fairness he can possibly pick out one section of the farming community and give them some special assistance. Irrespective of that the motion is still quite impracticable. The whole of the farming population requires help and I threfore agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock which is not only practicable but which offers the only way out for this House to do justice wherever it is necessary. We are at the moment spending millions and millions of money on the war. That being so can one say that it is right and fair to select that section of the population which to a large degree is contributing towards making it possible to see the war through … because if they do not produce, if they do not supply food, the Government cannot carry on … is it fair that they should be placed in a less favourable position than others? I therefore fail to see that the Government is entitled to pick out one section of the farmers. It may perhaps be said that the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) is speaking for himself, but I agree with the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst) when he said that this matter was undoubtedly discussed in Caucus, and we must therefore take it that the hon. member spoke on behalf of the Government side of the House and that he was defending the policy adopted by the Government. I sincerely hope, however, that the Minister will tell us that the Government holds a different view. This motion is not merely a war motion, but it is intended to encourage the Government’s object to induce people to take part in the war. They have to be encouraged to join up. If one sees the intimidation which has already been practised by the Government one must feel that the time has arrived for us to try and put an end to it. One feels that the Government should realise that it is not in its own interest to carry on in this manner. I am sorry the Minister of Lands is not here—he is very rarely in this House, but I hope his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will communicate this to him, because I want to make a special appeal to that Minister. The hon. member for Durban North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) put up a plea here and I think he means to be honest —he said that he deeply sympathised with the poor people.

He imagines that he is on the pulpit.

I do not know whether he knows a great deal about the pulpit.

Order, the hon. member must not make such comments.

I do not think the hon. member took it very seriously, but I should like to draw attention to the way in which people are made to join up. I have a case here of a farmer who has a Government farm. He obtained it under the Settlement Acts, but the farm is not a settlement. He farms on it with sheep, and the farm is between 4,000 and 5,000 morgen in extent. It is the custom in those areas because of the shortage of farm labour for the sons of the farmer to assist their father in the work on the farm. The farmer farms together with his sons, but now the Government has taken steps to compel the sons to join up. The Department of Lands even goes so far as to drive the sons off the farm, off farms allotted to people which they are actually busy paying for. It is astounding to think that in our country things like that can happen. I have a letter here dated 23rd December, 1940, in regard to the farm Eselfontein North in the district of Kenhardt. This is a farm which was allotted under the Land Settlement Act. It is not an allotment. Now, what is the man told? He is told that according to a report received on the 28th August, 1940, three of his sons are on the farm with their cattle. The letter goes on to say this:

And he it also told that he must notify the Department when those cattle have been removed. Has one ever heard of a Government going as far as that—to force the farmer’s sons who have to assist their father and who have experience of farming, to leave the farm, because if they have to move their cattle they naturally cannot remain on the farm?

What is the man’s name.

There are many other similar cases. The cattle must be moved and then they cannot remain on the farm.

What has that to do with the motion?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the motion states here—

They talk here about suspension of the payment of interest or rent. Now I want to ask how the farmer is ging to pay his interest or his rent if he is unable to work his farm? He can only do so with the aid of his sons. Anyhow, I shall leave that point, but it is clear that if the sons are not available the farmer is unable to carry on. I said just now that there are other benefits. Take for instance the settlement at Buchuberg in my constituency. The department of lands even went so far as to drive the parents off the farms. Think of the condition there.

The hon. member is going too far now.

With all due respect I think it comes under the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cradock. The amendment covers a wide field, it covers practically the whole field of farming, I am now referring to certain types of settlers and I think the Minister of Agriculture will realise that it is in order.

No.

It is wonderful—one can give facts to certain people but one cannot give them any intelligence; I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I only want to point out that the Department of Agriculture has given instructions that the parents are to be driven off the farms—people who are unable to look after themselves.

Order, the hon. member must not go into that.

I shall leave it at that. I bow to your ruling as far as I can do so, and if I can no longer do so I had better sit down. Anyhow, I feel that we have before us an impractical motion, the result of which will be that only one part of the farming population will be assisted, and the other part will not be assisted.

I wish to say at once that it is not the deeply touching appeal of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst) which has prompted me to rise. Although I do not in every respect agree with the motion of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) I feel none the less that the citizens of the country who are on active service deserve to get everything that is being asked for here, but I feel that in some respects it is impossible to give effect to this proposition. I also want to bring the case of settlers on irrigation schemes to the notice of the House. If one farms under an irrigation scheme the farming one does is intensive and requires the personal supervision of the farmer, and even under the most favourable conditions one’s production has to go down if the farmer is on active service. For that reason I want to plead that so far as they are concerned too the water rate shall be suspended. I need mention only one instance, namely the irrigation scheme at Buffelspoort in my constituency. No less than 24 farmers on two of the farms there have joined up on active service, and I want to put up a plea and ask that their water rate shall be suspended for the time they are on active service, because if that is not done they will find themselves saddled with a huge burden of debt when they get back. That is all I wish to add to this discussion and I therefore support this motion although I do not agree with it in every respect.

I hope the Minister will take no notice of this proposal of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), but it is peculiar to me to see the kind of company the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has now got into. So far only three Natal members on the other side have spoken, and the hon. member is now in their company, in the company of those loyal people from Natal who are so keen on going out to fight for South Africa. They come here now and ask for greater compensation because they are fighting. Where does their loyalty come in? I wish to say, however, that this motion is quite unreasonable and impossible. The people who have gone to fight are to be exempt from capital redemption and interest on their mortgages. Let us assume that a farmer has a bond of £4,000. The interest on that bond with the Land Bank at 4½ per cent. is £180. The redemption calculated on a redempton basis of 35 years will amount to £115 per year, making the total £295. In other words, the one man who goes to fight costs the State about £25 per month, plus the salary he draws. It appears to me that if one puts up a red tab to-day, then the Minister, according to the hon. member for Illovo, has to pay a salary to the man who goes to fight, and he gets a farm free of charge during the time that he is a soldier, and he even wants to make provision to give the man a foreman, because the hon. member in his motion says that if circumstances should require it financial assistance should also be given to enable the man on active service to get somebody to manage his farm for him. He gets a farm, he gets a salary, and he gets a foreman. Is a proposal like that possible? It is a ridiculous proposal. It amounts to this, that an ordinary soldier is going to cost the State £40 to £50 per month in salary and allowances. It would be very much better to make those people stay at home. Surely the Government wants the farmers to carry on with their production so as to meet the needs of the country and of the troops. If this motion is agreed to, we may expect the man who is not a successful farmer to go and join up. One will get that sort of man joining up, and I think it will create a most unsound condition of affairs. I also want to point out that no distinction is made here between a rich farmer and a poor farmer. What is the position? I was talking about a farm with a bond of £4,000. One may have a bond like that on a 1,000 morgen farm, and the man who has that bond is not a rich man, but one may also have the bond on a 20,000 morgen farm, and then the owner is a rich man. But, none the less, the motion asks that all payment of interest and redemption shall be suspended. For how long? For as long as the man is a soldier? No, the proposal goes even further and it says: “until conditions after the conclusion of the war permit of the resumption of such payments.” Now, even the Minister of Agriculture has uttered a word of warning, and he has told us that the farmers are not in such a flourishing position, and that great difficulties are ahead. In other words, he is expecting a depression. And now we have this proposition that that man need not only not pay interest and redemption until the end of the war, but until conditions admit of the resumption of payments. In other words, the man may possibly, after the war, if there should be a depression, not have to pay interest, etc. That is what will happen if this Government should remain in power, which I hope will not be the case. What will be the further result? People will immediately come along, professional men such as advocates and attorneys, and they will at once say: “But look here, if you do these things for the farmers, then I as an advocate or as an attorney am also entitled to have my practice continued.” The hon. member for Durban North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) has already been going in that direction, and the Minister will later on find himself faced with a condition of affairs the end of which he will not be able to see. It is peculiar that hon. members opposite are keeping so quiet. I first of all took this motion very lightly, but as hon. members opposite are keeping so quiet and are not saying a word it is becoming clear to me that this thing has been settled in caucus, and if we fail to oppose it the Minister will later on come forward with something like this, and we shall once more get a measure of some kind passed which people will make use of in order to make money, even people who have no farming interests, and who are not swayed by patriotism, and they will take up this attitude, that while they are on active service they need not pay any interest or redemption. And, what is more, they will also get a foreman, and their wives and children will get additional allowances. I am reminded of cases in my own constituency where people have been driven off the land. The Minister of Lands is sitting over there, and he knows all about it. There are people who have been given notice to leave their farms; they are not allowed to stay on any longer because they are unable to meet their arrear interest and redemption fees. Now what is going to be the position if this motion is passed? It will mean that all a man has to do is to put on the red tabs and join the army, and then he can stay on the farm which he has been driven off. His wife will then also get an allowance, and he can appoint a manager. That is the reason why members this afternoon stated here that this motion was an indirect effort to drive people into the army. The Prime Minister has told us time and again that he has already got too many people for the army. He has told us: “I have more people than I need to fight the war.” If that is the position, why, then, come here with a dangerous motion like this one, the end of which we cannot foresee? For those reasons, it is a pleasure to me to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). If one wants to do this sort of thing for one section, a section which does not need it, and a section which does not have to go and fight, as the Prime Minisiter says that he has more than sufficient soldiers, then we have the right to plead for the same treatment being meted out to the whole of the agricultural population. If I have to judge by my own constituency, which is a wool-growing area, and if I think how much those wool farmers have already contributed towards this Empire war, then I certainly can never support this motion of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). The Minister of Agriculture now takes up a most extraordinary attitude. He told us last year that we would get an average of 10¾d. for our wool. He now denies having said so, but I want to quote from Hansard to show him that he did say it. This is what the Minister said, inter alia—

Now the Minister says that he did not say a word about that. It is a peculiar argument so far as I am concerned. I fail to understand how the Minister can tell the wool farmers that he did not use those words.

I do not think that what the hon. member is saying now is relevant to the motion before the House.

I am speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock, which definitely states that this motion should not apply only to the soldiers, but to all farmers, and we have introduced that amendment because we feel that the other farmers urgently need such assistance. Because of the position in which the wool farmers find themselves, I am pleading for the acceptance of this amendment. The Minister takes up the attitude that he has never mentioned 10¾d. as the average price which the wool farmers will get. Let hon. members go to the agricultural societies. Let them turn up the papers of hon. members opposite, let them look at the “Farmers’ Weekly,” and also the “Agricultural Weekly”; let them look at the letters written to those papers in which it was clearly stated that the farmers were going to get an average of 10¾d. Now the Minister says that he never used those words. He says that he did say that the wool people should draft a schedule of the prices of the previous year. What was the position the year before? The position was this, that the British Government promised that it would buy the wool which was left over at an average price of 10¾d. If any wool were left over they would come in on that basis. It is on that basis that the schedule was drafted. There the 10¾d. came in again, but now the Minister wants to tell us that he never spoke about 10¾d. It appears in Hansard, and I have quoted his own words here. Why is the Minister getting scared of his own words? He is afraid that when we get to the end of the wool season the average price will not be 10¾d., and that is why he is now trying to run away by saying that he has never spoken about 10¾d. If ever there was a statement which the farmers as a whole will laugh at, it is this one which the Minister of Agriculture is making now. Let me tell him this, and it is confirmed by his own words. If the price level has to be fixed on the schedule of the previous wool season, then the price level should be fixed at 10¾d. as an average, because the Minister himself told us here that he insisted on it, that for that season we should not get a penny less than Australia; in other words, the price this year would have to be at least 10¾d. The Minister is now beginning to draw back; he expects that at the end of the season the average price will not be 10¾., and that is why he is trying to get out of it. We on this side of the House are entitled to point out that the motion which is before the House this afternoon is definitely not required, and if it is to be applied to that section of the farmers mentioned in the motion, then it must also be applied to the whole of the farming population which really needs it.

The remarks of the hon. member for Albert-Colesburg (Mr. Boltman) put the matter in an entirely wrong light. He and other members who spoke on behalf of his side of the House wish us to believe that the idea at the back of the motion is to obtain recruits for the army. The hon. member admitted in the same breath that it had been repeatedly stated from this side of the House that South Africa already has the largest army to-day ever known in the history of this country, an army properly trained and equipped. There is not the slightest intention of trying to obtain further recruits by putting forward this motion. It is unnecessary and the recruits have come forward voluntarily. The object of this motion has nothing to do with the question of recruiting. Then there is another point I want to go into, a point raised by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst). He said that this matter had been discussed in the Caucus of this Party and that we had been “disciplined” to vote in favour of the motion and to speak in favour of it. I do not know what happens in the Caucus of hon. members opposite, but in our Caucus these things are done voluntarily. And for the information of the hon. member I again want to say that the hon. member who introduced this motion does not attend our Caucus meetings. He does not belong to our party. We are the United Party and he is a member of the Dominion Party; they do not attend our Caucus meetings and we on our side do not attend their Caucus meetings. We on this side are entirely at liberty to express our views on this matter and to vote as we think fit.

Do you support the motion?

I am coming to that. This Government has proved in the past that if ever there was a Government which has the interests of the farming industry at heart, it is this Government.

Good heavens!.

Hon. members opposite may laugh but they know it is so. We all know that the Minister of Finance stated the other day that a scheme for the reduction of mortgage bonds and for the reduction of the interest burden has already been considered in his department, that a report had been submitted on this scheme, but that the matter was still under consideration, and I would advise my hon. friends opposite to exercise a little patience and to see what can and will become of that scheme. While we are patiently waiting the results of the department’s work, and while the report is being considered, we are none the less at liberty to plead with the Government for temporary relief to be granted in cases where the need is greatest, and where the pressure is most severe. The motion of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), as I read it, refers to the position of the soldier who has voluntarily left his farm and who, as a result of his having joined the army, is going to suffer financial losses, owing to the yield of his production having gone down through his joining up. If a person does not suffer any losses in production through his having joined up, in other words if his farming can be carried on equally successfully by his substitute, the motion does not affect him.

That is not so.

It is so. Read the motion and you will see it. It is meant for the man who in consequence of his anticipation in the war suffers in his farming enterprise. Let me take the case of a man who goes in for stock farming. Possibly he may get a competent substitute, and he may not suffer much loss by his absence. But take the case of the man who goes in for crop growing. He may perhaps go in for intensive farming—the kind of farming which requires his daily presence; if he is not there his farming has to be carried on but the farm will deteriorate and it will be neglected. I feel that in cases of that kind we should step in and assist the man. The fact that the man is risking his life is quite enough—he is risking his life to preserve our freedom and also the freedom of hon. members opposite, whom we differ from. It is quite enough that the man is going to fight in order to protect not only them but also us and our families. We feel that if a man is prepared to risk his life the least we can do for him is to keep down his financial losses. In that respect the motion is deserving of our support. There are possible complications which the adoption of this motion may cause, but generally speaking I feel that if we pass this motion and if the Government only steps in where it can be proved that the man as a result of his participation in the war is suffering financial losses, the motion will answer its purpose. The position may perhaps be different where we are dealing with private mortgage bonds. I should like to know from the hon. member who proposed this motion what he has in mind when he speaks of private bonds. This motion only contemplates bonds of the Department of Lands or of the Land Bank. If we have to suspend interest payments in their case we shall have to go further and also suspend the payment of interest where the bond is held by a private bondholder, otherwise the Government will be compelled to take that bond over. I do not know what the hon. member for Illovo has to say about that, and whether he is of opinion that those arrangements should not apply to private bonds. At the moment the private individual cannot issue a summons if the mortgagee is on active service. There is a moratorium protection. But the interest is going to accumulate and at the end of the war the farmer soldier will, when he returns, be faced with an accumulative burden of interest and he will have to undertake that burden. It may be impossible for him to pay. If the Government intends taking this motion into favourable consideration they will also have to give attention to this aspect of the matter. Then there is another question which should be mentioned and that is the case of farmers who are not able to undertake active service in the full sense of the word, owing to their not being classed as A.I., with the result that they cannot go into the front lines. They are used, however, to guard bridges for instance. At the moment the Moratorium does not protect them, and if the Government would take this into consideration I would suggest that in cases where those people render essential services, and as they are also serving their country in this regard—they are doing important work as they are guarding important bridges—the Government should also do something to help those people.

I have far too much respect for the intelligence of the Minister of Finance to believe that he will accept this motion, in spite of the plea made by the hon. member who has just sat down and also that by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson). If this motion is agreed to we are going to get class legislation on our Statute Book such as this House has never passed before. One section of the farmers who are on active service will be benefited while the other section which is of just as much service to the country, and which is rendering just as much national service, though not in the fighting line but on the home front—of which we hear so much—is excluded from the Act. The man who takes an active part will enjoy all these benefits, but the man who is doing his share for the country on his farm and who perhaps needs assistance a great deal more will not get it. The other point raised just now is equally far-reaching. Why should only the man who has commitments and obligations to the Land Bank or the Farmers’ Relief Board benefit, and not the other one? I think that the hon. member who introduced this motion has failed to study the position, and it is for that reason that I intend to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). I am sorry the Minister of Finance, under whose portfolio this debate should come, has been conspicuous by his absence throughout this discussion. It is a financial matter which from beginning to end comes under him, and I should like to know from him when he is likely to come forward with that scheme of his which he promised this House a couple of years ago, to relieve the farmer of South Africa of that great canker of the mortgage burden by providing for a redemption of mortgage bonds. He promised us that he would give instructions for an investigation to be made by the Farmers’ Relief Board.

He told us the other day what has happened to it.

The Minister spoke about it the other day, but …

A discussion on that matter will anticipate the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Captain G. H. F. Strydom).

I do not want to go into the merits of the case; I am only referring to it in passing so as to point out to the hon. member who introduced this motion that when this problem is solved, all the other difficulties to which he refers here will disappear. The great difficulty which the hon. member is dealing with in his motion is that the farmer’s commitments are too great, that he is in financial trouble, but what the hon. member proposes here is not a solution of this problem, and we are waiting to see when the Minister of Finance is going to come along with his promised proposals for mortgage bond redemption. Then I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture who is in charge of this debate, to go out of his way to induce the Minister of Finance to put forward that scheme of his, and if that is done a motion such as this will not be required at all. There will be no need to come forward with class legislation and with dangerous proposals such as this one. There is another point which was raised by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson). He said in his speech that the Government was doing nothing to assist the soldier farmer. Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem? I should like to refer him to the Minister of Lands. If ever there was a man who is in a privileged position to-day, it is the settler who is wearing the red tabs. The House apparently is not aware of the fact that the Minister of Lands has simply set the Land Settlement Act aside. It is clearly stated in that Act how an individual can be assisted, and under what conditions a person shall lose his farm. That law is treated with contempt by the Minister and is ignored by him. For instance, the Land Settlement Act says that if a settler is in arrear for more than four years with his instalment the contract under which he holds his farm is, ipso facto, cancelled, but this war Minister of Lands has simply ignored the provisions of the Act; it is one of those minor acts which carry no weight with him. He is the man who rides roughshod over everything standing in his way. He has issued definite instructions that in spite of the Land Settlement Act all a settler has to do is to join the army, and if he can show a certificate to the effect that he has joined up, even if he is 55 or 60 years of age, and even if all he can do is to go and guard a few Italians in the interment camps, his contract is not cancelled. Even if he only has to go and guard the petrol dumps or a bridge, he is allowed to keep his farm. The hon. member for Weenen apparently does not know this. I would advise him before making such statements first of all to get into closer contact with his own Government.

How do you know it?

I have a settlement in my constituency, and it is my duty as a member of Parliament to know what the Government is doing in regard to the settlers. The Minister of Lands also knows that that is the position. If a settler has a son who does not want to join up he is told to get off the farm. He is immediately notified that he has to leave, but if he still wants the farm to be his home, he has to join the army.

You know that that is untrue.

I know that it is not untrue. I can prove what I am saying here, and the Minister of Lands knows it, and it is an extraordinary thing to hear the Minister saying a thing like that across the floor of the House. I can mention numerous instances of people who are more than two years in arrears and whose farms are being cancelled, and who are yet allowed to stay on. When the Lands Vote comes before the House there are a number of other matters which I intend bringing to the notice of the Minister of Lands. There is another matter too. Money is voted here every year for the purchase of land for settlement purposes. This is entrusted to the Minister of Lands—what is becoming of that money? The money is voted and the land is bought, but the Minister of Lands, again ignoring the ordinary procedure, and ignoring the law of the land, and the object with which the money has been voted, gives instructions to the department that no land is to be alloted in South Africa while the war lasts. Is that right? And is that the object for which we voted that money? It is intimidation, and that is the kind of pressure which is being brought to bear on people to get them into the army, and we get that sort of thing from this Government in every possible case. People are so often threatened by the Government—there are other methods, too, which are being used, and I shall go into them in more detail when the Vote of the Minister of Lands comes before the House. We shall be able to deal with those matters then. I only want to say this now, that there is no need for the hon. member for Illovo to come along with motions of this kind if the promise made by the Minister of Finance is put into effect, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will help us to induce the Minister of Finance to solve the practical difficulties of the farmers of South Africa by means of a mortgage bond redemption system for this country.

I do not propose to take the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) seriously. I am sure he does not mean it seriously.

Nonsense.

I am sure it has only one object and that is to sabotage this motion as they try to sabotage everything in connection with the war, and everything this Government has done in connection with the war.

And you have sabotaged everything in connection with agriculture.

That is why I do not intend to reply to it or to take it seriously.

The country will make you take it seriously.

I want to say at once that I have the greatest sympathy with the object of this motion. These splendid fellows who have volunteerd, the cream of our people, deserve everything we can give them. I think the Government and especially the Minister of Defence have shown repeatedly that they consider nothing is too good for these splendid fellows.

Mow loyal.

At the same time we must be practical and see that in any steps we take we do not perhaps do more harm than good and that is why I would like to analyse these different headings under which the hon. member proposes that we should give assistance. Now, let us take the first heading—

I have listened very attentively to the whole debate and I do not think a case has been made out for the farmer soldier to get preferential treatment over say the urban soldier. I do not think anything has been said to prove that the soldier from the farm should get preference over the soldier from the town, and I would like to say definitely that I do not think a case has been made out to give preference to the farmer who has gone on service over the farmer who stays at home and does his duty there—who does his duty to the country at home. I am satisfied that if the farmer who stays behind does his duty to the State there should be no preference given to his brother farmer who has volunteered. I am satisfeid that statutory suspension of land bank interest, or instalments under the land settlement scheme, is not the correct form of approach to this subject, nor am I certain that I would be in the best interest of the soldier himself to allow interest to accumulate unduly. The Land Bank, the Farmers’ Assistance Board, the Lands Department have issued circulars as to how they are going to treat these soldiers and with your permission I would read only the one circular from the Land Bank. It says this—

Well, sir, as this notice says, that was the policy during the last war, and I think we can expect that it will work out in the same way again. I am afraid that if special assistance is given to the farmer soldiers it will be impossible to resist giving the same assistance to soldiers from other industries. I don’t see how it can be done. I have had cases where farmers have asked my advice, they have put their position before me, and asked me what I thought they should do. In some cases I could only say, “Well, in your place I would volunteer.” In other cases I have said I thought that at present it would be the duty of the man to stay. Well, now, sir, I don’t see my chance of differentiating between those two classes of farmer. I would like to put to my hon. friend another point. A man appears before the exemption tribunal and after going into all the particulars the tribunal decides that this man should stay; that it is in the interests of the country that he should stay. Well, now I am afraid that man would feel aggrieved, and have reason to be aggrieved, if the other man were to receive preferential treatment. I put it to the hon. mover that these are cases one should take into consideration. Then we come to (b)—

Now, sir, the problem that arises here is a very difficult one, and has given me and my department a lot of worry. We have called in the assistance of the South African Agricultural Union and the Provincial Union, and have tried to find some way of assisting in this very important matter. I admit there are cases where it seems that assistance must be given. Well, it was decided that the magistrates of the different districts should appoint, as the mover knows, vigilance committees to assist in running the farms, or to assist with advice where the owners of the farms have left. It was also decided to appoint the agricultural exemptions tribunal, the object being to ensure that production was kept up to the mark. In the second place, the idea was to organise assistance to the farmer who has gone on active service. I think the exemptions tribunal has done good work; it has released men when it was proved that they could not be missed from their farms, and when it was proved that it was in the interests of the State that they should remain on their farms, the men were released for service. A system of extended leave has also been brought into practice on the express orders of the Minister of Defence. This was with the object of giving the soldier an opportunity before going North, to visit his farm and be on his farm perhaps at such times as he could least be spared and could do the most good for himself. I suggest to the hon. mover that the way of approaching this matter is along these lines. Of course, where the man is already in the North it is a more difficult matter. To run another man’s farm is a very grave responsibility. The hon. member has referred to the scheme proposed by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), where certain men would be formed into a board and where these men should take charge in cases where the owner of the farm is away. Well, sir, you might strike a good man to take charge, and you might strike a bad one, and I would not like to be responsible, or my department to be responsible, or even to make Government responsible, for any loss that might be incurred in that way. It is an extremely difficult matter, and I don’t know that, apart from giving advice gratuitously, that much more can be done. I want to say this to the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), that if by subscribing money they can do the work effectively and get men to look after the farms, I am very willing to consider the matter again and to make representations to my colleagues of the Cabinet. But I want to make this condition, that I don’t propose to be held responsible for any mistakes that are made either by vigilance committees or by private people who are appointed to run other men’s farms. It is a very difficult proposition. I am in the same position myself, because my son has gone, and I have nobody on my farm. I would rather run it without anybody than have a man that I don’t know, and I think most farmer soldiers are in the same position. Then with regard to (c)—

I would like to remind my hon. friend that farmers have organised themselves pretty efficiently, not only in the selling of their produce, but also in the purchase of requisites. I suggest it would be well that these organisations should be urged to explore these possibilities further. It is an invidious position that this suggestion would place the Government in, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that that would be the case if the Government should recommend that certain firms should be dealt with and others not. I think it would be rather a difficult position. In the meantime there is a National Supplies Control Board which is watching prices, and among other things the prices of farming implements. There is also the Agricultural Industrial Requirements Commission, as well as a departmental committee to enquire into the prices of farming requisites. The Government is only too willing to help where it can, and I would call attention to the facilities the Government has lately given to a large company which is now just starting to make ploughs and other farm requisites, and is undertaking to deliver these implements at pre-war prices. I hope they will succeed. I would like, at this stage, to suggest to farmers and their organisations that they should consider the efficiency of trying to standardise their requisites, their ploughs and other implements. It seems to me that would tend to reduce the cost of production very much and make for cheaper implements. With regard to (d) —

I can only say that my department is continually busy with this, and it is always exploring the possibility. One has, however, to be rather careful in giving advice, witness, if I may mention it, the derogatory remarks from my friends on the opposite benches about my poor little effort to get farmers to grow more soya beans and less mealies. As I say, the remarks have been rather derogatory, almost insulting, but I am glad to say that many farmers have taken my advice, and where they nave not planted soya beans in some parts, especially in the Eastern Transvaal on the high veld, they have gone in very largely for planting rubber beans. I am satisfied, sir, that when they get their cheques they will have every reason to be satisfied. I would call attention to the fact that a Food Supplies Committee has been established. It is their very special duty to watch the market and to advise my department and farmers of the different products that are mostly required by our army and by other countries during war time. I think they should give us very valuable data to work on, and the right road along which to proceed. We are now making special efforts to develop a market for our deciduous fruits in Kenya, a large consignment is just about to be landed there; and one of our officers has gone up to try and press the matter and prove to our friends in Kenya that it is quite safe to import our fruit into their country. After all, it is rather a ticklish question to advise farmers on. It is difficult and even dangerous to advise farmers to forsake an old and proved line of production for a line that at present promises success, but very soon may be found not to be permanent. I can only say that I am aware of the difficulties, and my department is very much aware of the importance of this matter, and therefore the Government is watching the matter very carefully. I don’t intend to keep the House much longer. I think I have said enough perhaps to satisfy the mover that he has my sympathy and support, and that he has the goodwill of the Government, but I do not think he can take the matter any further at this stage. I think the motion has served a very good purpose, because we have had an opportunity of discussing this very important matter, and I suggest the hon. member might consider the propriety of withdrawing his motion after the full discussion we have had.

I must confess to a feel-’ ing of disappointment in regard to the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture towards the main question of the accumulating indebtedness of men who will be away for some considerable time serving their country. I cannot for the life of me see why they should not be met on this point. The suggestion that the townsman will have to be met in a similar manner has scarcely any application. How many townsmen have bonds such as the farmer has to meet? It stands to reason where you have a man whose means of livelihood is the land, upon which he has pledged his immortal soul, you are dealing with a man whose case is quite different from that of the townsman, who in most instances is a salaried man. It seems to me the Government might meet the case of the farmers on active service by relieving them from the constant pressure for interest on redemption payments, but it appears the Government proposes to do very little except extend their sympathies. I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance was unable to give any indication of the Government’s considered attitude in regard to this matter. The townsman at the present moment is receiving a number of privileges which are not available to the farmer, not only the Government servant but the provincial servant and the employees of municipalities and of mining companies, are having their civil pay made up, and this is the case with the employees of many private firms. In some cases some of the townsmen have had their insurance policies paid by others. Their position is very different from that of the farmer. A very large number of young farmers have gone who are not insured at all, and whose livelihood and capital are risked in their absence. They feel that the Government ought to give them some relief. The relief given by the Land Bank is a very hollow form of relief, accompanied by a warning that if they don’t pay up instalments and interest they will be confronted, on their return, with a state of bankruptcy. That is what it amounts to. I hope these men will petition the Government for a “write off” of every penny of interest and redemption which becomes due while they are serving the country on active service. As far as I am concerned, I am bitterly disappointed with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 7th March.