Before the First Order is read may I have your leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal explanation? The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) have represented to me that certain criticisms of mine made in a speech last Monday night could be construed as a reflection on the hon. member for George personally. I desire to take the earliest opportunity of stating that no words of language of mine used on Monday night were intended to go further than to criticise the advisability or otherwise of the action taken by the hon. member for George. I may say that there is no honourable gentleman on the Opposition benches for whom I personally entertain a higher respect than the hon. member for George, and it was never my intention to make any reflection on him personally.

When the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) asked for leave to introduce this Bill he made an appeal to those of us who, he knows, are opposed to this Bill, to allow him to bring it on to the stocks so that its subject matter might be fully debated. Since I have been in this House this matter has twice been on the stocks and has already been fully debated. Therefore, we are under no misapprehension or illusion as to the type of measure the hon. member proposes to bring in. If we had had any illusions, the hon. member’s own introductory remarks would have confirmed us in the belief that what he wants to put before this House on this occasion is the same measure as he has had before it on previous occasions. Now, as I said before, it is unusual to oppose a request for leave to introduce a Bill of this kind, unless one’s feelings are very deeply engaged in the matter, and I explained that my feelings are very deeply engaged in the matter indeed.

And so are mine.

And some one else’s too, I am glad to know. As a matter of fact quite a number of people’s feelings are very deeply engaged in this matter. We feel, from our experience of this measure, that it is not in the interest of the country that it should be debated in this House. We know that the intention of the hon. member for Prieska is to introduce a discussion on the problem of farm labour. What he has in mind is that the existing Masters and Servants Act should be tightened up in certain directions as a means of solving this problem. Now we are convinced in the first place that the proposal which the hon. member brings forward in his Bill will not solve the problem. We believe, indeed, that it will actually aggravate the situation as it stands. We have very good authority supporting us in that contention. We have the authority of the Farm Labour Commission which reported very recently to the Government on this very matter. I am going to read two extracts from that report to support our contention on that matter. In section 12 of their report the Commissioners state—

And in their final recommendations the Commission in paragraph 468 say this—

I think there is nothing further needed to justify our contention that this particular measure should not be introduced in this House. We maintain that it involves proposals which will have a most unfortunate repercussion in the country and will actually harm the interest which the hon. member is suggesting he is trying to defend. Now there are other reasons why we feel that this particular Bill should not be introduced. Apart altogether from the fact that it will not help to solve this labour problem, that on the evidence before us it is much more likely to act in the opposite direction, it will have a number of effects of an equally detrimental character. The mere suggestion of debating in this House a proposal to strengthen the criminal sanctions which at present control civil contracts between natives and their masters will aggravate that feeling of insecurity that is at present prevalent among the native population. Our native population is not standing still in this country, any more than any other section. In all its contact with Europeans, the native community is beginning to be acutely anxious that the basis on which native workers are treated is different from that applying to anyone else. I know that in the Masters and Servants Act there is no actual colour bar, but in practice the law does operate as if there were such a bar, and the intention of the hon. member is to extend that colour bar in respect of native servants.

[Interruption.]

It will give me extreme pleasure to acquire additional facts on this matter from the hon. gentleman at a later stage. But the fact is that a suggestion of this kind will react unfavourably on the minds of the native population, and it will do the very thing which the Farm Labour Commission also stresses as a danger; it will aggravate the feeling of unfriendliness between farmers and labourers which is one of the reasons why the farmers are not able to hold the labour at present available to them. But there is an additional unfortunate aspect of this proposal, which makes it undesirable— it is a reflection upon the employers as such. I have said before in this House, and I am going to repeat, that the good farmers of this country do not need and do not want this sort of legislation. The good farmers don’t need, and don’t want it.

How can you say that?

I have the evidence of the good farmers. But the moment one mentions farmers, hon. members over there are all up in arms, so I am definitely drawing attention to the fact that I am singling out the good farmers. The evidence is that the good farmers do not need this sort of thing in order to help them to get labour, even under present circumstances, and it is a reflection upon them to suggest that they cannot hold their labour except by the 18th century sjambok measures which the hon. member is proposing. Now, it has been said on previous occasions when this measure was under discussion that this is not purely a rural measure, but that townspeople also use the Master and Servants Act. I want to take up this point. Firstly, the townspeople have never asked for a tightening up of the Master and Servants Act, and, secondly, the whole direction of industry is towards the limitation of the use of the Master and Servants Act. The Master and Servants Act does still operate in the industrial field, but contracts are changing in industrial fields. Shorter contracts are gradually pushing out the Master and Servants Act. That process has not gone far enough yet, but I venture to suggest that there will be no support for a movement in the other direction from the townspeople. It will not pay the industrialist any more than the farmer to try to hold his labour by other than satisfactory and attractive conditions of service. The third danger of this measure is the reflection which I think its proposals cast on the reputation of this country as a whole. I think it is a very great mistake for the hon. member to keep on bringing up a bill of this kind. If he would only realise that in matters of contracts between Europeans and non-Europeans the eyes of the world are on this quite small and otherwise quite insignificant country, I think he would exercise a greater circumspection in the nature of the legislation he proposes. South Africa stands in a unique position in the world, a position which, because of its importance, is out of all proportion to the value of its individual citizens. That places an additional responsibility on its individual citizens, an appreciation of which they do not often show. We have to try to achieve healthy relations between the European population in this country and the native population which belongs here in sufficiently large numbers always to be an important factor. We are the only country in the world where this problem exists, in the proportions with which we are familiar, and whatever we are going to decide on this matter is going to be of paramount importance in Africa; but I would remind the House that whatever we decide and whatever we say is also going to have a reaction on the relationship between the Western world and the Eastern world, which is waking up very rapidly and becoming acutely interested in this matter. I would suggest to hon. members that, in the circumstances, we should approach problems of this kind with greater circumspection and, for the sake of the reputation of South Africa, that it would be wise when labour problems of this kind arise, as they do in every country in the world, hon. members should at least produce something more intelligent than what I have called the 18th century sjambok method. The problem of labour in South Africa is a problem which is met with all over the world. The only thing different in our situation is that we are dealing with a native population whose character and organisation we have complete control of. That, of course, throws a great responsibility on us. We have to find the means of spreading our labour force over our industries, or organising our labour force in such a way that those industries can make the fullest use of the labour force available to them, but we do not assist or improve our reputation if all we can do is to go back on old conditions and once again enslave our population. Those are our reasons for opposing the introduction of this Bill, but, having said that, let me admit at once that I do not consider that that disposes of the problem which induced the hon. member to take this unfortunate means of introducing this discussion. The farm labour problem still remains, and I have to admit, as I think everyone else will admit, that it is a serious problem, and that it does merit the most serious consideration of this, or any other Government here in South Africa. We should devote a certain amount of attention to proposals in regard to that problem. What I am going to suggest is this, that there is great scope for a wider consideration of this problem than was possible within the limits of the terms of reference of the Farm Labour Commission. The Farm Labour Commission reported early last year. It is significant that the problem is still one of the main problems in the minds of many people, and I think I am right in saying that that problem is going to become even more acute. In the circumstances, I believe that there are certain representations which one is entitled to make to the Government in this regard. I do not feel that the Farm Labour Commission has said the last word on this question of farm labour. I feel as a matter of fact that, even had circumstances not changed as rapidly as they have done, the scope of the Farm Labour Commission was probably too limited for them to provide any effective solution or any effective direction along which a solution might be sought in regard to this question. The commission came to the conclusion on, I am inclined to think, rather slender evidence, that there is a shortage of farm labour—they could not even prove that. They decided also, however, that there was sufficient labour in this country to be spread over the present occupations demanding labour if certain conditions were satisfied. They suggested that if the farm labour tenancy system could be spread a bit further than it is spread at present, a good deal of the labour which was held up in certain parts would be made available over a wider field. They linked with that a suggestion, or rather an injunction, to the farming community that if the farmers would improve their farm labour conditions they could still attract a considerable amount of labour which had already flowed to the towns. They went on to make a further suggestion, which was that the Government, which is itself a large employer of labour, should not compete in the field of farm labour, but that it should seek to recruit its labour in the towns rather than in the country. And it linked with that the suggestion that negotiations with the Protectorates on our borders might succeed in producing some labour to assist us to solve our present problem. Well, now, I must admit that I find all these solutions in themselves somewhat meagre and unsatisfactory. The Farm Labour Commission itself suggested that the labour tenancy system is finished in this country, that it has served its purpose and is breaking down everywhere, and is uneconomic, and should not be maintained. I feel doubtful about this suggestion, that an attempt should be made to spread the system wider than it does exist. As to the instruction to the farmers to improve their farm labour conditions, I warmly endorse that. That is a primary condition of any advancement in farming. Even if it does not succeed in withdrawing some labour from the towns it is a necessary condition for maintaining the present farm labour supply, and here I am going to take the opportunity of taking grave exception to the sort of misrepresentation used in this House without justification, and that has been repeated by implication by the hon. member when he introduced this Bill. On an earlier occasion when this Bill was under discussion I emphasised this same point that conditions on the farms must be made more attractive for the farm labourer if the farmer is to hold his labour, but I went on to specify that, paramount in my mind, was the necessity that certain privileges and attractions should be provided for the farm labourers. The instances I gave were decent housing and facilities for education. But hon. members on this side got up and said: “What the hon. member wants are bioscopes for natives on the farms. I call that a frivolous deflection of a serious argument. I am quite willing to support a move for additional amusements for farm labourers, but the contention I put forward is a much more serious one, namely, that the farm labour population has a claim to the ordinary basic rights of human beings, facilities for educating their families to a decent place in society and decent housing conditions in which to bring up their families. Those recommendations have been supported time and again by the Farm Labour Commission. I think that an improvement in farm labour conditions is most essential, but I am very doubtful whether even that will result in an extensive withdrawal of labour from the towns. I am very doubtful indeed about that, and I do not think we should raise the hopes of the farmers in that regard.

We don’t expect that.

Time and time again members of this House have got up and demanded that the Minister of Native Affairs should have all the surplus natives pushed out of the towns and sent back to the farms. That was the argument raised by many hon. members here last year in repeated discussions on the subject of farm labour. I do not think that even improving farm labour conditions will have that result. My reasons for saying that are twofold. First of all I am going to blame the town population as much as the farmers. We have every regulation imposed on the natives in the towns, and again I quote the Farm Labour Commission which not only admits that every regulation possible is imposed to control the movements of the native population, but insists that all these regulations are in force, but still the natives go into the towns and you cannot get them out. There is one very good reason why the natives drift into the towns, apart from the fact that farm labour is not attractive—it is the fact that the townspeople pay them wages which they cannot command in the country. But they pay them bad wages—not good wages. The town wages are too low—they are not too high, but it is exactly because of those wages that they go to the towns.

Nonsense.

The hon. member does not understand this matter, but I want him to understand it, if he can. Town wages are better than farm wages, but they are far worse than they should be in the towns. I say again that town wages are better than farm wages, but they are not the sort of wages on which any native man living in a location can maintain his family. In the last two or three years industry and commerce have been putting out a lot of pious resolutions about the fact that the natives do not get a square deal, and that it would be a far better thing for South Africa if native wages were increased, so as to increase spending power and help to stabilise our national life. With all that I agree, but during the last two or three years I have had a lot of experience as to how this works out when it comes to a question of really implementing this kind of resolution. What is happening in our towns and with some of our biggest industries is that labour is being employed at the wages of single individuals whose families are supposedly being provided for either on the farms or in the reserves. The employer takes on the cheap man from the country, and the wage he pays is so poor that it does not matter whether the labourer is efficient or not. If the townsman had to pay a wage on which efficiency could be maintained there would not be this encouragement of this influx from the country of people who are really inefficient and wasteful used in industry. Let me give you an example of the effects of this policy. In one of the towns which I represent the municipality pays 3s. a day for its labour, but the railway pays 2s. The result is that the railways want labour they cannot get it, because the standard wage of the town is 3s. a day. Now what do the railways do? They go out into the nearest rural area and recruit a lot of labourers at 2s. a day, which is better than the farmer pays, and they bring these natives into the towns. When the work is finished the native labourer does not go back to the Territories because of the local price of labour. Town wages are a bit better than farm wages, so the natives drift into the towns, and just so long as town wages are not high enough to make it necessary for the employer to insist on efficiency, and just so long as the country does not allow the native worker to defend his town standards, so long will there be this influx of rural people. I am trying to show the House that this is a national problem in which the entire farm labour side is linked up with the urban side. And I am trying also to point out that the Farm Labour Commission could not really serve its purpose because it made its recommendations I think on a very insufficient appreciation of the inter-connection between town and country, and of all our labour problems. The result is that I do not believe that even in normal circumstances their proposals would have helped us to any real long-term solution of this problem. We might, along the lines they propose, have a very temporary easement of the situation, but even of that I am extremely doubtful. The Commission’s report recognises that this country has begun another lap of its phenomenal industrial development. It would not have mattered whether we engaged in this war or not, we would still have been on the verge of enormous industrial expansion. I do not think anybody will contest that fact. And the result is that there is going to be an increasing demand for all our labour, wich practically wipes out the recommendations of the Labour Commission, which simply dealt with a short-term solution of the problem. There is going to be a demand for labour, an increasing demand, which the African territories are not going to be able to supply, and in the circumstances I feel that it is useless attempting to approach this problem without a comprehensive review of the human resources of this country. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) made an appeal which I hope has not fallen on deaf ears, to the Minister of Finance, that the Government would really face the problems of the post-war period now and begin to plan a reconstruction which will then have to be made. None of these problems can be solved unless they are backed by a comprehensive review of the whole problem of our labour supply, and I am satisfied that if that review is undertaken it will prove my contention that what this country needs to-day is a revision of our whole organisation certainly on the rural side, and particularly in regard to the labour supply. There is only one thing the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) said with which I agree. It is, I think, the only thing he has said in this House with which I agree, and that is that this Bill which he is trying to amend is completely out of date. He said “it is an antiquated law, and that conditions of to-day are entirely different from what they were in those days,” by which he means the days when the Act was passed. His inference from his remarks is that the Act should be strengthened, but my contention is that it is time we approached this problem with fresh minds and a determination to do something reasonable and different about it all. In the course of this debate amendments will be moved asking the Minister to institute an enquiry into the whole labour field in this country, and its capacity to meet the demands made upon it. I hope the Minister will seriously consider that, but what I want to say is that it will not be the slightest use the Minister considering that proposal unless he considers it in a conscientious spirit, willing to see the problem in all its reality, and if necessary, to turn the whole policy of this country upside down. It is not the slightest use doing what we have done in the past, what in fact we did with the Farm Labour Commission, that is call for a solution in line with a stereotyped policy. The Farm Labour Commission suggested a solution in terms of a policy which was adopted in entirely different circumstances. The unfortunate members of the Commission were not to blame for their report, because they merely did the sort of thing they were supposed to do. In the terms of reference they were asked what steps should be taken to improve the amount of native labour offering itself for employment. They were not asked to consider whether the amount of labour offering itself could be improved. What I am pleading for is a recognition of the fact that in the last fifty years we have gone through an economic revolution, and that policies that were based on pre-industrialised days are quite unsuited to the industrialised South Africa of to-day. I hope hon. members in this House will support an appeal to the Minister of Finance, or whoever is responsible, for a new idea in regard to labour and a complete review of all the labour facts of this country by minds free from prejudice and concentrating only on a conscientious desire to do the best for every section of the country. If we could get that we should have gone a long way towards solving our problems. I am hopeful that our friends over here will see the virtue of this appeal, and the responsibility which lies on us to find some solution of this problem that will commend itself to the conscience of the world, and so fulfil the much greater destiny of the South African people than is contemplated by a narrow Afrikaner isolationism which would repudiate that destiny in the interests of race exclusiveness.

The hon. member who spoke just now completely fails to understand the object of this Bill. There may be something in what she says, and I may perhaps agree with her or I may not, but what she did say has nothing to do with the object of this Bill. The intention of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) is to amend the Master and Servants Act where that Act no longer answers its purpose. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) spoke about labour conditions in the towns and on the farms, and she spoke about good and bad farmers. In regard to labour, she almost exclusively referred to natives, as though the Master and Servants Act only relates to natives. There is no distinction made between natives, coloured people and white people under that Act. All are treated alike. The hon. member held forth about what she called the rotten pay on the farms and the poor pay in the towns. But let me say this, if she comes to the platteland she will find farmers who for 20 and 25 years and longer even have had the same people on their farms. Before the agitation was started by those hon. members opposite who are always hammering on the point and declaring that coloured people and natives are being unjustly treated, they were always quite satisfied with the conditions under which they were living. I do not say that the position is not susceptible to improvement, but we must bear in mind the fact that the people living on the farms do not pay a penny by way of house rent; they do not pay anything for wood, they do not pay anything for sanitation; they get their water, milk, vegetables and all those things free. They get good food on the farms; at any rate, they get enough, and their conditions of life are good. That had always been the position until the agitation was started, and those people were incited. Hon. members over there are all day long thinking of the natives. We want them to be treated fairly. Now let me tell the hon. member what this Bill contemplates. I want to mention a few things. If I hire myself out here in Cape Town, I have to give a month’s notice when I leave. If I go and stay in a boarding-house, I am expected to stay a full month. Under the Master and Servants Act, a person who goes to work on a farm on a monthly basis—it makes no difference what his colour is—has to give at least a month’s notice, and if he fails to do so and simply walks off he may be brought before a magistrate. Now I want to mention the kind of thing which happens and which even the best of farmers has to contend with. Shearing time is coming on. One goes to town, and certain people who make a speciality of doing shearing approach one and ask: “Boss, when are you going to shear?” I am prepared to admit that the people who do that work are almost exclusively natives and coloured men. One tells them that one is going to start shearing on Monday, and one comes to an agreement with them that they will come and work for one. They ask: “How many sheep have you got?” One tells them that one has 1,000 or 5,000 sheep, and one reckons that it will take them about 14 days to do all the work. Assuming that there is a gang of ten men to do that work. Those people will tell you that it is impossible for them to leave their homes for fourteen days on end, because they have their wives at home, and they have to leave something behind for their wives. So they ask you for an advance, and one gives each of them 10s. or a pound. You are lucky if on the Monday five or seven of the ten turn up on the farm to work. That sort of thing happens in my district even with the best farmers. Six or seven, or even only five, out of the ten will turn up, and the farmer is in trouble because he has to do his shearing. He has given them money, each of them has received a pound, but they do not turn up to do the work. That farmer has not got any shearers on the farm, and he cannot do anything to those people except start a civil action against them.

He can get his money back in court.

Yes, he can institute a civil action against those coloured men and natives who have nothing but their wives and children. He has to go and sue them, and it costs him another £2 or £3, and there is no possibility of his getting a penny back. Now my argument is this, that the Master and Servants Act places an obligation on the people who have entered into a contract to carry out their contract. If a man hires his services out, no matter whether he is white, coloured or native, he has to give notice. But when people like that take an advance because they have agreed to go and shear for a farmer, that farmer can do nothing to them to force them to carry out their contract. He cannot, as in the case of a contract under the Master and Servants Act, have them brought before the magistrate by the police. Let me tell the hon. member that it is not a question of a good or a bad farmer, but it is a question of dishonest labourers, and that is what we want to get rid of. Now, the hon. member pretends that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) wants to force those people on to the farms, that he wants to drive them to the farms with his sjambok so as to force them to go and work there. That is not the position. I am quite prepared to agree with her that a lot of things might be done in order to improve labour conditions, but that does not apply to the farmer also. Let us go to the towns and the dorps and see what the conditions are like there.

That is so; we want to improve both.

But that is not what this Bill is aiming at. The object of this Bill is not to improve labour conditions, either on the farms or in the towns. The hon. member for Prieska only wants to do away with an injustice existing under the Master and Servants Act. What is wrong with it if the hon. member wants to lay it down that an individual who has undertaken to do something, whether he is white, coloured or native, shall be compelled to carry out his undertaking? Let me mention a case which happened to me personally. I hired a man to go and fetch stock for a sale on a particular farm. He went to fetch the stock, and halfway back he left the stock, with the result that two of the animals were caught by jackals and we had to send another man to get the rest of the animals. That man had made a contract with me to go and fetch those animals. I paid him 5s. in advance because he wanted to buy food. He left the stock halfway down, and it cost the owner almost a pound to bring the animals back, in addition to which he lost two sheep. Is there anything unfair in our trying to amend the Act so that we shall be able to report that man to the police for having failed to carry out his contract? That is what the hon. member for Prieska wants to do. His amendment only refers to a contract which has actually been entered into. We are not forcing the individual to enter into a contract. I have never yet forced anyone to come and shear for me. When October or November arrive, we find that there are people who regularly come to us and who ask us when we are going to do our shearing. We enter into an arrangement with them, and tell them when they must come, and generally they get some advance for the work they are going to do. Now we want the law to be amended that if those people do not turn up to do the work, we shall have the right to go to the police and lay a charge against them, because they have broken their contract and they have not carried out their undertaking. The hon. member completely fails to understand the object of the Bill. There is no intention of improving labour conditions or of forcing people to come to the farms to work there. The Bill merely aims at providing that coloured people, natives and whites, who have entered into a contract to do certain work shall be compelled to do that work. The hon. member spoke about good and bad farmers. Well, there are also good labourers and bad labourers. This Bill is not required for the good labourers. We have coloured men on our farms who will tell us straight out: “Boss, you must not get this type of coloured man again.” They know what their duties are, and they carry out their duties. This Bill is not meant for them, nor is it meant either to make labour conditions worse or better, or to raise wages. Or to force people to come to the farms; it is only meant to compel certain people who have undertaken to do certain specific work, irrespective of the colour of their skin, to carry out that work and to carry out their contracts, and if they fail to do so then we want to have the right under the Master and Servants Act to report them to the police.

I appreciate no less than my hon. friend who has just sat down the very real difficulties in regard to labour, particularly in regard to farm labour, and although I take a different line to my hon. friend I assure him that it is not because I fail to appreciate those difficulties, but because I feel the way which the hon. mover suggests to meet those difficulties is not the right way. I do not believe that merely by amending this archaic law that one can help ensure a sufficient supply of farm labour. Some of the ways in which we can get alleviation have already been indicated in the course of this debate, and I think the right alleviation will be a combination of many ways resulting from a thorough investigation of the whole problem. This problem of shortage of labour is a permanent problem, and mere tinkering, mere nibbling at the problem by way of legislation of this kind cannot, in my opinion, really help. It is because I feel that this proposed legislation is in the wrong direction, and because I feel that it will be ineffective, I wish to move as an amendment the following:

My reasons for moving this amendment are threefold. First, I feel that this subject which the hon. mover has raised in the Bill is not one properly to be dealt with at the instance of a private member. It is of such importance and gravity to merit its being dealt with as a Government matter, because it raises not only one part of the general labour problem, but the whole issue, an issue of major importance in reference to the relations between European and non-European in this country. The question thus has a significance not merely in regard to this special subject of farm labour in the Cape, but a significance throughout and even beyond South Africa. As the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) put it, the eyes of the world are on this country as the initiator of native policy and the chief state concerned in hammering out that policy. It is therefore too serious and too important a question to be dealt with by means of a private member’s Bill. My second reason for this amendment is that this subject is not one to be dealt with piecemeal. We have, as hon. members know, differing laws in the various provinces dealing with aspects of the masters and servants legislation; they are laws which may be substantially the same, but widely different in detail, and it does seem to me very unsound for Parliament to tinker with one aspect of the labour problem by seeking to make a small change in the old law that only applies to one province in the Union. Here there is everything to be said for a nation-wide revision, a consultation over the whole Union in reference to the position of masters and servants, and there is no justification whatever for a piecemeal attention to the matter in the interests of one part of the country alone. The problem is a national one, and its solution must also be along natioinal lines. My third reason is that the Bill is premature. I feel that before anybody introduces legislation on this subject there should be thorough and effective consultation beforehand. I suggest that before any private member should bring in legislation of this sort, there should be prior consultation and co-operation with the Department of Native Affairs and with the Minister. There is no evidence that the mover of this motion has been in contact with the Department of Native Affairs, or that the Minister in any way supports the introduction of this measure. There should be active collaboration not only with the Department of Native Affairs but also with one or both of two other bodies, to whom a measure of this sort should, in any event, first be referred. We have the Native Affairs Commission, a statutory body specially equipped to make the necessary investigations, to do the desired fact finding and to make recommendations in regard to matters of this kind. I do not know whether the mover has consulted the members of the Native Affairs Commission or what the attitude of the Commission is towards legislation of this sort. I do suggest that it is right and proper that members of this House should have the advantage in considering a matter of this kind of knowing what the views of that Commission are on this matter. Alternatively, or additionally, I feel that in order to secure legislation in regard to non-European labour which will be effective and which will work without friction, that the non-Europeans themselves should not be ignored in the matter. For legislation of this kind to succeed, it is necessary that there should be co-operation and goodwill from the non-European sections, and legislation which is brought in and passed in this House should be shown to be also in their best interests. For this reason I repeat that legislation of this sort should, before being adopted in this House, be referred to the Natives Represenetative Council, so that the views of that body can be obtained and one can gauge the measure of support which a change and an improvement in regard to native labour may receive. I ask for support for my amendment, not only from those who feel that some form of amending native legislation is necessary, but still more from those who like myself feel that some other form, some more thorough going form of remedial action must be taken if the difficulties of the farmer, the problems of the grave, and I am afraid permanent shortage of native labour are to be successfully tackled. Personally, I am strongly opposed to the terms of the proposed Bill. I have two main objections to it, on the assumption which I think we are entitled to make, that the proposed Bill is in substance the same as that which the mover introduced a year or two ago. My first and principal objection is to the main principle of the Bill, namely to enshrine and to extend in this year of doubtful grace the principle of criminal sanctions for the breach of a civil contract. I feel that members of this House would do well to consider very carefully before in any way endorsing, or extending a principle which almost everywhere else in the world has been in steady retreat for the last 50 or 60 years. Personally I thoroughly dislike the making a crime out of the breach of a civil contract. I look upon it as a hitoric relic of a more repressive past, as the hon. member for Cape Eastern put it, a relic of the sjambok tradition. I think my friend will agree that in general the relations between the farmers and their natives are excellent, but the belief persists fairly widely, and in my view quite wrongly, that legislation of this kind is essential. Personally I am opposed to it, not merely because it perpetuates a bad and archaic tradition, but also because I feel that it is not in the best interest of the farmers themselves. It is not in the best interest of the farmers themselves because it is not effective; it does not work. Sections have been quoted from the Commission’s report in which the Commission objects to forceful repression. I remember on a former occasion listening to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) in this House when he declared that in his record of over 40 years as a farmer and an extensive employer of native labour he had not to invoke this Act on more than one occasion. The successful employer of farm labour does not need to have recourse to this kind of measure in order to ensure the continuance of his labour. Generally, the farmer manages to ensure the goodwill of his labour by other means, and the point I want to make is that by merely tightening up the repressive features of this legislation one does not ensure success for those who wish to meet the acute problem of a dwindling labour supply. My second objection to the existing Act is to section 6. There is no indication that the mover of this Bill desires in any way to weaken the force of that section. Section 6 of the existing Act, provides that no fine paid or imprisonment undergone by a person convicted under the provisions of this Act shall have the effect of cancelling the contract. That enshrines another unjust and dangerous principle. I do not like the idea of the defaulter under the Act being a sort of criminally recurring decimal subject to a series of imprisonments for a breach of the same contract.

They get it both ways.

Yes. The mover conceded that perhaps this was a measure which should have been introduced by the Government as a consolidating measure, but he seeks to justify bringing this hardy annual in again on the plea of urgency. I ask what the urgency is? I do not deny the acuteness of the problem of labour shortage, but I ask what is the special urgency which makes it so necessary to put this particular bit of legislation through now than was the case a few years ago. The Act which the hon. mover seeks to amend is 70 or 80 years of age, and very senile at that. But what special circumstances, what recent developments, can he suggest which justify this particular way of meeting the problem? What special considerations arise now which did not exist two or three years ago? I concede as much as anyone else the extreme urgency and acuteness of the labour shortage. During the comparatively short time that it has been my privilege to represent Zululand, I have received numerous and insistent representations on the question of labour shortage. As I understand the general problem of labour shortage, it is primarily due to the breakdown of tribal discipline and the breakdown of parental authority. And the reasons for that are deeper reasons than can be remedied by bits of legislation of this sort. The drift to the towns to which reference has already been made is due to the simple fact that they get better wages in the towns than on the farms, and I do not see how the lack of discipline is to be counteracted simply by intensifying the criminal sanctions for breaches of contract rather than by seeking to improve the general conditions. That phenomenal increase in the industrialisation of this country which we are witnessing in these days, and the drying up of the sources of outside labour supply, these are the big reasons which make it impossible to hope that we can at any time in the near future ensure that there will be enough labour to satisfy the reasonable wants of farmers. And in this connection, in regard to the failure of outside sources of supply, I speak with particular feeling, because my own constituency is more immediately and more adversely affected by that than any other part. The Minister knows that the farmers of Zululand are in a particularly unfortunate position in regard to their labour. In order to comply with the wishes of the medical authorities of the Union, the farmers of Zululand agreed not to recruit any labour from south of the Tugela, and to confine themselves to labour which was malaria tolerant labour. The difficulties are intensified in the case of Zululand, because they cannot obtain their labour from the same sources as farmers elsewhere. The difficulties in regard to outside sources of labour are increased by the attitude of outside Governments, and they are also increased by the fact that our own Government has lately allowed other areas to compete with the farmers of Zululand in recruiting malaria tolerant natives from Portuguese East Africa. This is a breach by our Government of the agreement by which Zululand farmers undertook not to recruit non-malaria tolerant native labour. I mention this just to indicate as far as my own constituents are concerned one of the aspects of the labour shortage which should be part of the general investigation for which we plead, and which we hope will be followed in due course by wholehearted action on the part of the Government to see that there is a fair distribution of the available human labour resources of the country. To come back to my amendment, what we are asking for is that there shall be a review for the whole Union of the labour position, so that justice may be done to the conflicting interests of the various sections, town, country and industry. I do appeal for the widest support for this full review for which my hon. friends and I plead. I look upon it as an essential prerequisite for effective action to assist the farmers to overcome this labour shortage. I feel that the mover of this Bill is merely nibbling at the problem with a tinkering amendment of this sort, because he is really concerned with the fringes of an issue of major national importance. He is not merely tinkering, but rather worsening than improving the position, and nibbling at a problem like this cannot do anything substantial, cannot do anything materially to improve the position. It can do a lot of harm, and it can increase the friction and make it more difficult to formulate a fair policy for the relations between European and non-European in this country. I realise that all members will not agree in the attitude we adopt towards the proposed Bill, and will not agree with one that the terms of this Bill are bad, and that the mode of its introduction is bad. Nevertheless, I hope that there will be general agreement from both sides of the House in the attitude that this Bill is premature and that a fact-finding and expert investigation by a special commission, as well as consideration by the Native Affairs Commission and by the Natives’ Representative Council, should take place before we, as members of this House, are asked to endorse legislation on a very acute and urgent national problem.

I want to second this motion and to associate myself with the proposal made by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland). I do not want to go into the whole question of the relationship between master and servant, because we have not had the Bill before us, but I understood from the mover, the introducer of this Bill, that it was very much on the same lines as the Bill which he introduced on two previous occasions. On both these occasions I opposed the introduction of the Bill for the simple reason that I find it is merely tinkering with the matter which is no longer a Cape Province matter, but a Union matter. The relationship of masters and servants is a Union matter, and the whole relationship is a matter which needs the closest investigation by the Government, who will have to take the responsibility for introducing legislation of a consolidating nature. The parent Act, the Master and Servants Act, goes back to 1856, and it was brought into force shortly after the slaves of this country were released. The Act has been amended at various times. In 1873 there was this amendment which I understand the hon. member now wishes to amend, and in order that the House may not get a wrong impression from what was said by the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn), I just want to refer to a provision in the Bill whereby a servant who undertakes to start work on a certain date and does not start work on that date is guilty of a criminal offence. It states here—

Various magistrates interpret that differently.

What the hon. member wants is this: he wants to go further than this; he wants to bind the servant, and he wants the master to be free to claim the services of the servant when it suits the master.

How can you say that? You know that is not true.

The master says to the servant: “I want you to come and work, I want you to come and plough or reap after it has rained.” He does not give the servant a definite date, and that servant has to wait until it suits the convenience of the master before he comes to work. In the meantime, the servant and his family may have no employment.

That is not so.

I do not want to go into the matter; we shall have plenty of opportunity for discussing it later. I say that so far as I am concerned I have definitely objected on the two previous occasions, and I object on this occasion to any interference with Cape Statutes on a matter which after all affects the Union as a whole. It affects the Masters and Servants Acts of the Free State, Transvaal and Natal, and the time has come when this whole relationship of masters and servants should be examined by the Government with a view to consolidating legislation on this subject. And then, so far as this Bill is concerned—it has been rejected twice—and I think the hon. member has chosen a very unopportune time for the introduction of the measure. We are at war at present, and we do not want to do anything which may have the effect of antagonising any section of the population at the present time. It is true that they are not allowed to take an active part, and I feel that it is wrong on the part of the hon. member at a stage like the present to introduce a measure which may affect the relationship as between Europeans, natives and coloured people. There is a motion on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) to go into this whole question of the shortage of labour. This Bill might well have waited until the House has discussed that question. I feel, as I did on previous occasions, that I personally object to tinkering with the old Cape Statutes—which is absolutely out of date—on a question which is one affecting the whole Union, and that the time has come, if the Government are going to deal with this whole matter, when there should be a proper enquiry into the whole question of relationship and then introduce a Bill which will be applicable to the Union as a whole. For that reason I am going to oppose the introduction of this measure, and I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand. There is no urgency for the matter, otherwise the South African Agricultural Union would have taken it up on behalf of the farmers; nor do I know of any congress of farmers that has specially asked for this piecemeal legislation.

I listened just now to the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Coller), who told us that one could not bring a criminal charge against a man who had entered into a civil contract. That exactly is the difficulty which we have to contend with to-day, as was clearly stated by the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn), who told us that one had to bring a civil action against the man who did not carry out his contract, and that the people against whom one brought a civil action had nothing at all. I do not want to go into details on what the hon. member for Willow-more has said, but in the south-western districts, in a wine district like Robertson, one has this difficulty every time, that when the farmer gets up in the morning he finds that his labourers have moved away from the farm, and that for a month or two they have moved to a wheat district. There is no chance of getting them back except by instituting a civil action with all the expense connected with it. Then we always have the difficulty, too, of those people wanting to get some money in advance, and one can never get it back. The hon. member for Queenstown put up a long plea and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) with his amendment, and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) all want this Bill thrown out, because, so they say, a consolidating Bill should be introduced on the whole question of Master and Servants. I quite agree with them. The legislation in force to-day is obsolete, and something in that direction should have been done long ago. Two years ago the then member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste), who is now chairman of the Diamond Board, approached me and pleaded with me. He told me that a Commission had been appointed to enquire into the whole matter, and that he was a member of that Commission, and that the Government was going to introduce consolidating legislation. He told me to be patient. That Commission has put in its report, and what has the Government done? So far it has done nothing, yet the hon. member for Queenstown comes here and says “We are at war and we cannot go into those matters now.” Everything has to be sacrificed for the sake of our war effort, and in the meantime the farmers are in trouble and have continuous difficulties in regard to their servants. If one approaches the magistrate with a contract the magistrate says he can do nothing, and he tells one that one has first of all to institute a civil action. It seems to me that some hon. members opposite want us first of all to go and consult the Native Commissioners or otherwise they want us even to go and consult the natives themselves first. If that is what they want, let them put the Native Representative Council in place of the law because we shall know then where we are. The hon. member for Cape Eastern talked of good farmers, and she said that the good farmers had no trouble, but that it was only the bad farmers who had trouble. I want to assure her that even the best of farmers to-day have to contend with that sort of thing. One has the dishonest labourers whose sole aim is to deceive the farmers. Those people mostly live in the towns, where they are on the verge of starvation until one day they go to the farmers and enter into a contract in which they undertake to stay on the farm for a certain length of time and to work there. As a rule they ask for an advance of 10s. or £1 to keep their families alive until they can start work. One has no recourse so far as they are concerned, and it is no use going to the police. And what is the farmer’s position? Take a farmer who is very busy packing his grapes and pressing them. It is the busiest time of the year for the farmer, and half of his labourers do not turn up. One can leave wool on a sheep’s back for another eight days, but one cannot wait with the packing of one’s fruit because the fruit deteriorates. So one is in trouble as a result of the dishonesty of the labourers, and a farmer sometimes suffers loss to the extent of £50 of £60 in one blow through his farm labour leaving him in the lurch. Hon. members over there are barking up the wrong tree. They should also remember that the natives are not the only people in this country, but that there is also a large white population, a settled population, and that it is the white people who pay most of the taxes. Hon. members over there should not try only to protect the natives at the expense of the whites. I want to give a native and a coloured man whatever he is entitled to, but if he enters into a contract he must carry it out. Hon. members over there, by pleading in the way they are doing, are only making the position more difficult. They encourage those people to break their contracts and to create more and more trouble. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Coller) further said that one could not, on the one hand, make a law for the labourer and on the other make a law for the employer. He should know better than to come here and say that the employer will for instance, make a contract, laying it down that the labourer must come and work when it rains. That is ridiculous; as a lawyer he should know better, and he should realise that there is no ground for saying that contracts of that kind will be entered into.

Then what is wrong with the existing law?

If one enters into a contract with a man that he is to start work on the Monday, and the man does not turn up, the employer has no recourse except a civil action.

No, that is not so.

I challenge the hon. member to show me a single instance where a magistrate has found that such a person could be criminally prosecuted. Nothing of the kind has taken place in the last few years. Mention one single instance. The hon. member cannot do it. The hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn) is also a lawyer, and he made it quite clear that that sort of thing could not be done. One cannot have that kind of worker arrested by the police; all one can do is to institute a civil action with all the expense connected with it, and everything has to come out of one’s own pocket. I thoroughly agree that it would be a good thing if we could have a consolidating measure, but surely in the meantime we should be able to introduce these improvements. Now we are told by the other side of the House that we are “at war” and nothing can be done. We want to apply this law to white, coloured and black, or to any labourer, whatever his colour may be, so that if he enters into a contract he will be compelled to carry it out.

I have no doubt the hon. member who has just spoken thoroughly believes what he says, but he is mistaken in thinking that the existing law does not help the farmer where his employee under contract has agreed to come at a certain time and does not come. The hon. member said there is nothing but a civil remedy, but that is not so.

It is so.

I don’t suppose the hon. member will persist in his view if I read him the law. Then, if the hon. member is still prepared to deny what I am saying there is nothing more to be done about it. I am reading the law as it is brought up in the fourth edition of Gardiner and Landsdowne’s book on South African Criminal Law procedure. The Act is No. 18 of 1873, and the section is Section 2, sub-section (1). That makes it a criminal offence for any servant who has entered into a contract and without lawful cause fails to present himself at the stipulated time. It is a criminal offence. Gardiner and Landsdowne brings it up to date, and it is still a criminal offence in this fourth edition of the standard work on South African criminal law procedure. Now the hon. member wants to go much further, he wants to arrange that if a servant does not turn up at a certain time, it is a criminal offence. Where a contract is properly made and stipulates for service at a particular time, failure to come at that time is a criminal offence under the existing law. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) is not satisfied with that, but he wants to go further. That, however, is only by the way. I ask the hon. member for Worcester to reconsider his attitude when I assure him, without any question, that the point he made is met by the existing law. If the magistrate does not carry out the existing law there are ways and means of bringing the matter before the higher courts. I want to support the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) who moved an amendment, because I moved a similar amendment the last time the hon. member for Prieska brought this matter up in August, 1938. The hon. member will find it in Hansard of August 5th, 1938. I feel that there is no case made out for the introduction of any Bill on the subject, until there has been a proper enquiry and until there has been some attempt to consolidate the law. If you are going forward with ledislation on this subject, surely the last thing in the world is to build upon ancient foundations of the past, going back as far as 1856. They are most inadequate to deal with modern situations. My hon. friend the member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) said “Look how terrible it is when a man engages a servant and he does not turn up.” But are the farmers the only people who engage servants who do that? We have our troubles in the towns. When people are taken on in offices, shops or factories and refuse to work, it is not a criminal offence. Those employers have to go before the ordinary civil court, and they cannot put a man in gaol for that. The whole tendency of modern industrial legislation has been to get away from the old criminal sanctions as applied between masters and servants. The whole law has been revolutionised in the last 100 years, yet the hon. member for Prieska wants us, in effect, to go back to this law of 100 years ago. He says it is not severe enough, and wants to make it more severe. Nobody wants to encourage men to break a contract, and I sympathise with the view put forward by the farmers, but there are people in towns who have the same trouble, and their only remedy is the civil law. Why should there be a special remedy in the case of the farmers? The law which my hon. friend wants to strengthen is antiquated. Look at the definition of “servant” in the old law, which only applies to a specialised kind of servant. Most of the people we call servants in modern times are left out altogether. It is a very limited definition in the old Act, and my friends will be surprised if they read it; it refers to any person who is employed for hire, wages or other remuneration to perform any hardcraft or other bodily labour in agriculture or manufactures, or in domestic service, or as a boatman, porter, or the occupation of a like nature. Why, the bulk of servants nowadays do not come under this law at all, those are the servants of 1856, and the servants in 1941 are very different to the servants of 1856, but the legislation deals with the servants of 1856 and is completely unsuited to our modern conditions. South Africa is rapidly becoming a great industrial country, and our legislation dealing with the relationship of master and servant is absolutely unsuited for present-day conditions. If you were to apply the provisions of the Masters and Servants Act to those in South Africa who are now employed in the various factories and manufacturing concerns, you would have nothing less than a revolution, they would not stand it for a moment, and there would be strikes all over the country, you can only apply it to those persons who are under the shackles of that antiquated law of 1856. The fact is that in 1941 it is too late to try and use the police court to enforce civil contracts. It is a method which should have been abolished long ago, and to try and extend it to verbal contracts, as the hon. member intends to do, is going very much too far. There is room for misunderstandings when you deal with verbal contracts. The people most affected are not educated, they are simple people who very often cannot sign their name. It is difficult enough when you have a written contract, although it may be read over to the servant, but he at least knows what he is doing. When, however, you propose to include verbal contracts you are opening the door to many misunderstandings. The man may not have understood his employer properly, and the hon. member proposes to make the man a criminal if he makes a mistake about the day he is to begin his employment. It is bad enough in connection with the old written contracts, but inexcusable when you are dealing with verbal contracts and verbal arrangements. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has done invaluable service in quoting from this report of the Native Farm Labour Committee. I do not know what hon. members opposite think with regard to this, and whether they are satisfied with the findings. Are they prepared to accept those findings? The members of that commission were, some of them, farmers; one of them was Mr. R. A. Hockly, whom we all knew as a member of Parliament, himself a farmer, and one was the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen). This was a representative body composed of men whom you would expect to sympathise with the view of hon. members opposite. Now what did they find? It would take too long to read the report, which is a long one, nearly 100 pages. The conclusions are in chapter 16, and some of them were referred to by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. Do they recommend legislation like the hon. member for Prieska proposes? No, I cannot find anything in here recommending the Bill on those lines. What do they say in paragraph 468 with reference to farmers asking for further restrictive measures? “Such measures are among the factors which have made farm labour unpopular,” and they should not be accentuated. Here is a committee of responsible men who have gone into this very question, and they say they are not in favour of further restrictive measures. The hon. member for Hoopstad was one of those who signed the report. They distinctly reported that further restrictive measures should not be accentuated because they had already made farm labour unpopular. Then, in paragraph 75, they say that the machinery for ensuring native farm labourers returning to the farms to fulfil their contractual obligation leaves little room for improvement. What is the reason for this restrictive legislation when this commission which sat from 1937 to 1939 tells you that the machinery is good, and that you do not want any further restrictive measures? It is quite clear that if you read this particular report, and its conclusions, you will come to the conclusion that it is a condemnation of any attempt that is now being made to introduce such legislation. Parargaphs 441 and 442 state that a large proportion of the natives migrating to the large towns appear to be farm labourers, and the commissioners ask whether it is not possible for farmers to provide better housing and adequate feeding and other amenities, and so on , to attract these labourers on to the farms. If the question is how to get the native labourers back, the report tells you by better housing on the farms, and by more adequate feeding, etc. Surely that is the remedy that should be adopted. Why not urge that these recommendations be carried out, then you will get your natives back. I think if the hon. member, instead of introducing this particular legislation, as he has done very persistently for some years, should get his friends who urge him to bring in this legislation to carry out the recommendations in the commission’s report, in that way he will do something to solve this problem. When this debate took place in 1938, I pointed out that in the previous year there were no less than 16,000 persons dealt with under the Masters and Servants Act. I have not the figures for 1940, but we have an enormous army of criminals being manufactured in this country by legislation which turns civil contracts into criminal matters. That is not necessary at all. You will get your results very much better in another way. The extension of the criminal law to civil contracts is very much to be deprecated, and it is about time a halt was called to it. It would be putting back the clock and going in for a distinctly retrogressive policy if we not only apply these criminal sanctions of the past, but give them a wider application. There is a necessity for the consolidation of the laws of the different provinces relating to this matter. In Natal the old Act goes back to 1850, and its definition of “servant” is very much that of the Cape Act. The Natal Act was amended and extended in 1852, 1862, 1865, 1882, 1885, 1896, 1898 and 1926. The remark has been made that this particular law is going to deal with white persons as well as coloured, and it should surely alarm hon. members that they are extending this evil now to include a number of more people. Look at the number of persons in occupation to-day who are excluded from the definition. They include clerks, shop assistants, printers, compositors, lithographic artists and so on. If any of these made a contract to work on a particular day, and they do not turn up, it is just as inconvenient for the man who pays them their wages as it is for the farmer, but the employer, in their case, cannot prosecute criminally. Quite a number of sentences are provided in this particular Act not only for offences by servants, but also for offences by the master, withholding wages, and such like. Then the worker: if he does not commence his work in proper time it is a criminal offence, if he absents himself without leave or without lawful excuse, it is a criminal offence. If he during working hours unfits himself for service it is a criminal offence; if he uses, without leave, his master’s horse or vehicle, it is an offence. That is the existing law, and the hon. member apparently is not satisfied with that. Again, look at some other offences: if the servant uses abusive language or insults his master or his master’s wife, or any person in authority, it is an offence. All this is in the existing law, which can be made use of by my hon. friend. If the servant injures his master’s property or fails to preserve his master’s property, it is an offence. Then a herdsman is dealt with under the Act; if he fails to report the death or loss of any animal, or loses an animal placed under his charge, or fails to preserve any particular part of an animal that has died, he is guilty of a criminal offence unless he can prove it was not due to his act or default. The hon. member has said that if he employs a native and he departs from his service without lawful excuse, he has no remedy. On the contrary, here is a clause in which he can prosecute that native. That is the law of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Free State. What more does he want? He has all the remedies he wants, and he should see that they are carried out. Can you have a more drastic law? If a servant makes a groundless charge against his master, it is a criminal offence, and if he lodges a complaint and fails to appear to prosecute his complaint, he may have to pay his master’s witness expenses. Drastic provisions indeed are made in these ancient statutes which should have been buried long ago. Now I would ask the House in all fairness to say whether when you have such drastic laws dealing with the existing situation, it is necessary to come forward with fresh legislation not as a Government measure, not after enquiry, but simply on a motion of an hon. member who began his move in this direction some years ago; since he began this move there has been this enquiry by the Native Farm Labour Committee, and surely the hon. member is not going to carry on with his efforts merely because he introduced this matter before. The whole position has been altered by the enquiry of the Farm Labour Commission, which has put forward a report. Those who are concerned with the questions of labour shortage should look at the law as it stands, and if they want to ameliorate the position, they should carry out the suggestions made by the commission.

I feel it is desirable that I should intervene at this stage to say a few words on the amendment, although I shall have an opportunity later on to revert to the merits of the case, and to reply to the various amendments. Let me first of all point to the difference in the amendment which the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) is now proposing, and the amendment which he originally had on the Order Paper. The first amendment the hon. member was going to propose dealt with the alteration which I want to introduce in the Cape Masters and Servants Act; if hon. members will look at the amendment he has now moved they will find that it reads as follows:

In this amendment the only object is to deal with a matter in respect of which a motion has already been put before the House by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), namely, the scarcity of farm labour. This amendment may be well intended because there is a great scarcity of farm labour, and it constitutes a problem which should have the Government’s attention, but I fail to see what this amendment has to do with the object aimed at in my Bill. The Bill contemplates, as the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn) has explained, helping the farmers, so that labourers will not be able to evade their contracts. In other words, if a labourer enters into an undertaking he has to carry it out. I feel that no one can have any objection to that, and I therefore say that it is deplorable and tragic if one has to listen to arguments like those of the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Coller), who to a certain extent admits the need for my Bill to assist the farmers but who now thinks that this is not the proper time for such a Bill to be introduced, because, as he says, one is going to interfere with the relationship between white, coloured and black, and in doing so one is going to interfere with the war effort. I have never heard a more ridiculous argument.

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

I am trying to do so as far as possible, but the hon. member for Queenstown seconded the amendment, and he gave that as one of his reasons. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) does not touch the essence of my Bill at all. It only touches on the question of the scarcity of labour. Reference has also been made to the report presented by the Commission which enquired into the question of farm labour. I have studied that report, and I must say that that report presented by the Commission does not in any way touch on the matter which I am dealing with in my Bill. That report only concerns the position of the natives in the other three provinces of the Union, and it does not in any way touch the question of farm labour here in the Cape Province. Hon. members furthermore wanted the House to believe that the object I had in view with this Bill was to compel natives to go and work on farms. I want to point out that in this Bill no labourer is being forced to go and work if he does not feel inclined to do so. That is not what is contemplated in my Bill. I also fail to see how hon. members can possibly quote the report of that Commission in support of their attitude that this Bill should not be introduced because their arguments have nothing to do with my Bill. My Bill has nothing to do with compulsion or with the scarcity of farm labour, although I do admit that the question of farm labour definitely requires the Government’s careful attention. The argument has also been put forward that consolidating legislation is urgently required, inter alia, for the purpose of trying to solve the problem of the scarcity of farm labour. I want to tell hon. members that they will have my full support, and also the support of all hon. members on this side of the House, if a measure of that kind is introduced. The motion introduced by the hon. member for Delarey clearly indicates what we think of that matter. It is of the most urgent importance, and I hope the Government will tackle it.

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment and he must speak on the amendment, and he must refrain from dealing with the other matters.

I shall go into the merits when I get the opportunity later on.

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) will not be surprised to hear that I am utterly opposed to the merits of this Bill being discussed again in this House. Before I go on to give my reasons for that I want to reply shortly to one or two remarks which fell from the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn). He kept on saying that we complained about conditions on the farms, but that conditions were alright. Of course, conditions on the farms vary very considerably from district to district and from farm to farm. The point is that they are not apparently attracting the labour that is required because otherwise these constant complaints which we hear in this House session after session as to shortage of labour would not be heard. As a matter of fact there is a good deal of evidence, despite what the hon. member for Willowmore said, that generally speaking the conditions are not good enough to compete even with the miserable conditions that exist in the secondary industries of this country and in mining. I want to quote another authority —an authority which could not be accused of any sort of bias because this authority is a distinguished public servant. The Secretary for Public Health in his report a few years ago said this—

That is the high authority and the secretary for Public Health was speaking quite generally. I must say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Prieska when he tries to separate the question of tightening up legislation of this kind from that of farm labour generally. Of course, you cannot separate it from the question of farm labour in general. Returning to the remarks by the hon. member for Willowmore, whether or not evidence such as that contained in the Farm Labour Commission’s report, or in the report of the Secretary for Public Health, is well founded, the fact of the matter is that the conditions on the farms are such that they are not attracting a sufficient number of workers to enable the farmers to carry on their occupations on the old basis. The hon. member for Willowmore said it was not a question of the conditions of labour on the farms at all. He said it was due to the agitators that farm labour went away from the farms. When I asked him who the agitators were he said “The Native Representatives.” Well, the native representatives have not been here for long. We have been here about three and a half years and I think even the hon. member for Willowmore will agree that the problem of the shortage of farm labour is of very much older vintage than three and a half years. In fact we have had complaints about that shortage for many years, and moreover, if the hon. member’s contention were right that it was the agitators who were responsible for the shortage of farm labour, why then do he and his friends ask for measures which are designed to augment the supply of farm labour and tighten up the conditions under which labourers work on the farms? Now, in regard to the Bill itself, which apparently is the same Bill with which we have become familiar, hon. members have tried to justify it on the ground that it applied to certain examples which they gave here. I think what this measure actually provides for is in the recollection of most of us in this House, and if hon. members can give examples such as those which they did give, we are entitled to give examples on the other side. For instance, this will apply where an ignorant non-European labourer had agreed to come and work for a farmer when sent for—the farmer might wait months and months before sending for the man, and by that time the man might have been driven by his needs to take other employment. By the time he was sent for he would be in this position, that he would have to go to gaol anyway. If het continued in the employment which he had been driven to take he would commit an offence; if he took the employment with the original man, he would also commit an offence, and either way he would go to gaol. If hon. members over there are going to justify this Bill by taking-hypothetical examples we are entitled to quote other examples and show how vile this proposed measure is. The type of case I have mentioned would be well within the terms of the Bill. I do not know of any Act of Parliament ever passed by which a man could be put into the predicament that whatever he did he committed an offence and could be put into gaol. And yet that is what the hon. member for Prieska is year after year asking this House to accept. It is not surprising that the hon. member for Prieska has not had much luck in getting his proposal accepted, and it is not surprising that even on his own side of the House members have become so listless about hearing this constant request that they are experiencing the greatest difficulty in keeping a quorum. With regard to the main issue which this Bill raises I think this House would be more than justified in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland), and refusing the hon. member for Prieska the leave he asks for to introduce the Bill, on two main grounds. The first I have already referred to in passing, that repeated attempts have been made to get this Bill through. The second, and far more important one is this, that were the master and servant legislation with its penal contracts to be strengthened still further at this time, it would cast a slur on this House and on every section of the European community of this country in which we live. Practically every civilised country in the world has thrown over and repudiated this principle of penal sanctions for breaches of civil contracts of employment, and in the councils of civilised nations as a whole, steps were taken just previous to this war to root out the principle of penal sanctions wherever it existed in the world. I am referring to the propsed Convention of the International Labour Conference of 1938. That Conference circularised various countries in the world to know whether or not they were in favour of retaining these penal sanctions anywhere. The questionnaire was sent out with a view to the introduction of a draft Convention to prohibit penal sanctions. That shows the feeling of civilised communities throughout the world, and when I use the word “civilised,” I am not referring to the Nazi and Fascist countries. I am perfectly prepared ot admit that measures of this kind are in line with Nazi and Fascist ideology and according to the standards of countries which accept those regimes, and I have no doubt that if they were universally accepted and we were put back into the days of forced labour, ultimately there would be a re-introduction of slavery. And it would not be restricted to non-European people but it would be extended also to European people. So when I refer to civilised countries, I am referring to democratic countries and not to the totalitarian countries where the principles of forced labour have already been introduced. I must admit at once that the argument which I have just used is likely to carry very little weight with the hon. member for Prieska because we are aware of the indulgence which he and his friends display towards the opponents of this country in the present war. But the majority of this House, by their vote, have repudiated the Nazi and Fascist principles, and they are now presented with the opportunity of pronouncing their views on a particular measure which is, to say the least of it, perfectly in line with the ideology against which this country is at war. Because, in the circumstances of to-day, a measure tightening up our Masters and Servants legislation must be justified by an appeal to principles which modern democratic civilised communities have long since repudiated. The historic basis of penal sanctions was based upon conditions which have long since passed away. The original Masters and Servants Act of the Cape was passed not long after the emancipation of the slaves and it was meant to have application to a labour force which was primitive to the point of not understanding even an economic relationship—as opposed to an economic status—between employer and labourer. It had relation to a primitive community which had lately been fully enslaved. These conditions have long since passed away. Not only is the economic incentive to labour powerful in a way unknown amongst the non-European workers of three-quarters of a century ago, but, in my contention, economic necessity is the only incentive which is effective in securing amongst the workers, of whatever race they may happen to be, that degree of efficiency which modern methods of production render necessary. Moreover, as I hope to show in a moment, the economic incentive to labour is the only one we can rely upon to supply the labour which is necessary to carry on our farming or any other industry in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the idea behind measures of this kind runs absolutely counter to all accepted modern ideas of the relationship between the employer and the employee. Take legislation like the Industrial Act, and the legislation which exists in other countries such as New Zealand, Australia, the Scandinavian countries and America; the whole tendency of that legislation in relation to working conditions is not to attempt to drive workers into employment, or hold them in employment once they are th ere, irrespective of the conditions in which they are forced to work. The whole tendency is to protect the worker. In this country we have a Wage Act, a Workmen’s Compensation Act, a Factories Act, and an Industrial Conciliation Act, and all of them apply only in industrial areas and not in rural areas at all, and measures of this kind are designed for the towns, and not for people in rural employment, who have none of this protection that I have mentioned, and whose conditions of employment are entirely unregulated by the State. Whatever those conditions may be, I do contend that nobody, whatever his race, class or occupation may be, should have as complete control over the conditions of other human beings as the farm employer has in this country over the people employed on the farms. I know that farmers are apt to say that we do not trust them, they are people like ourselves, and they treat their labourers well, and they have people working for them who have been there for 20 years. Well, I accept all that for the moment, but what is the difference then between the agricultural employer and the industrial employer that it should have been found necessary over the last century to pass law after law to regulate the conditions in industry and not leave it to the goodwill of the employer, and at the same time it is not necessary apparently to apply that to the agricultural employer? I do contend that this measure runs absolutely counter to the stream of legislation that has been started in industrial areas, and that should be extended to the rural areas as well. There are three main protections that the industrial worker has. One is legislation such as I have referred to like the Factories Act, the Wage Act and so forth; the other is the protection of his own organised trade unions which have been most fully developed in industrialised countries; and the final one is the comparative shortage of the supply of labour relative to the demand. It is difficult to conceive a more helpless type of labour than that on the farm, whether coloured or white. The only protection that the agricultural worker has is the necessity of the farmer for his labour. The masters and servants legislation, and other legislation which applies in this country to-day, has been passed with the object of augmenting the supply of native labour relatively to the demand, and in order to judge a measure of this kind properly one must examine it in relation to the whole picture which the repressive laws of this country presents, and see to what extent further regulations may have the desired effect of increasing the amount of farm labour available. It is my contention that it is impossible to conceive that more restrictive laws can be passed without a reversion to ancient conditions, and, secondly, that any such laws cannot have any effect in the direction intended. Take the position of the native farm labourer. He cannot leave the farm and become a tenant farmer or peasant on his own account; he is prohibited by the Native Land Act. It is becoming increasingly difficult for him to leave that employment and go to the towns, because under the Urban Areas Act one after another industrial area that offers any employment at all is being closed to the native. He cannot go to the mines, because conditions of employment there preclude him from taking his family with him. He cannot go on to another farm and stay there without employment, and he cannot stay on the road, because there he is a vagrant. It is impossible to conceive a tighter grip over the labour force than that which applies under these laws to the native farm population, and yet the tendency is to pass more restrictive laws which not only prevent the native’s moving to industrial employment, prevent him from becoming a small producer on his own account, and make it exceedingly difficult for him to move about the country freely amongst the farmers to seek employment. Despite all this, this problem of farm labour shortage is still present. I contend that the reason is this, that the industrial development of this country has been going on at such a pace that it far outstrips the mere increase of population, and it seems that as long as that development continues the demand for native labour on the old terms is bound to outstrip the supply, and no harsh laws, no harsh regulations, no tightening up of the masters and servants legislation can stop that tendency, and therefore it behoves hon. members to rethink this whole question and consider what can be done, because there is bound to be a permanent shortage of labour for farmers under the old conditions. In order to solve this problem there must be a reorganisation of the economic activities of the country as a whole on the basis of the labour supply actually available in relation to the demand, and on the basis of higher wages, more education, more efficiency and better use of the human resources of the country than is being made of them at the present time. That is why I think legislation of this kind is not only futile for the purpose of solving the farm labour problem, but positively mischievous, because it gives the impression that something can be done along these lines when, in fact, nothing can be done, and the situation is bound to grow progressively worse. Ultimately, I think the farm employer will, like the industrial employer, have to accept the supervision of the State in regard to his labour conditions. At the present time I have no doubt my friends on the right would not accept that. They certainly won’t accept it to-day, because they are politically strong enough to prevent it, but during the last ten years there has been a very considerable measure—I am putting it very mildly—a very considerable measure of subsidisation of farming, and I feel that the State, in future, ought to see that the proceeds of subsidies should benefit the whole of the farming population, and not only the employers. That is one line along which an enquiry should be made. There are many others. There is no cut and dried solution of this problem. We on these benches have tried to indicate certain lines along which a solution might be found, and we are supporting this amendment in order to explore those lines. One thing, however, we are certain of, and that is that in the light of past experience no oppressive laws can do any good at all.

Before I give my reasons for opposing this Bill I would like to say to hon. members who are farmers that I do recognise the great difficulties which they are having at the present moment. I want them to know that, because it is right that they should realise that although we oppose them, we have a certain amount of sympathy with them in this difficulty of obtaining labour. Also, I agree with their idea that it is better to keep the natives on the land if possible. Having said that I have said all I can in favour of any views that are put forward by these gentlemen. I am very glad that this measure is being opposed at this stage, because I do not wish a Bill of this sort to come before the House at all. For one thing I do think that there is such a thing as the conscience of a nation, and I think that conscience is far more important than is generally recognised by many of the gentlemen who bring in Bills of this repressive nature. I for one do resent the slur that is constantly cast upon this country by other countries abroad when mention is made of the treatment of natives in this country. I, as a rule, hotly oppose that, because I feel that they very often base their opinion on wrong conception, and the effect of the opinion on other countries towards us and our treatment of natives, always camouflaged, in my opinion, the many attempts that have been made, not only by this but by other governments in the past, to help the natives to better their conditions and to bring about a feeling of friendship between the races. I personally resent the slur that is often cast upon our attitude in this country, because people abroad see Bills like this, but they fail to see many of the good things that have been done for the natives. Perhaps even more than that this sort of thing has repercussions upon this country itself. I suppose hon. members opposite will think that it does not matter what the world thinks of us, but some of us think it matters very much indeed. I may refer just briefly to the public opinion in Great Britain on the question of handing over the native territories of this country. They judge entirely, when they are thinking of matters of this kind, by what they think is our attitude of friendship or otherwise towards the natives, and that has a very great deterrent effect in matters of this kind. So I say the conscience of the nation has to be taken into account. My second reason for not wishing to see this Bill brought forward at all, is because I and many others on this side of the House are definitely against penal sanctions being used to uphold civil contracts. I think it was bad enough when these contracts were written, but if the proposal is to include mere verbal contracts, then I say it is going very much too far, and I think all of us who feel deeply on these matters should make our voices heard. It seems to me that the position is this, that to obtain labour hon. members on the other side of the House are willing to forego all their ideas of justice and decency towards other human beings. I don’t know because they have not told us, how many of them agree with the new order as outlined by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in his pamphlet, but there he makes it very clear that he at least, and all of those who follow him, at least in thought, have adopted the idea of bringing about compulsory labour in this country on the farms. I don’t know how many hon. members agree with the hon. member for Gezina, but if they follow him then this Bill is merely another link in the chain that may eventually bring about compulsory labour in this country. Then I think this Bill will lay itself open to very great abuse. It does seem to me that if the native is not to know what particular date he has to return to his work, he will never know where he is. It places a disability upon him that is very hard to bear, it is going to make it impossible for him to plan his own affairs in any way.

Hon. members cannot discuss the contents of the Bill, whatever they may be.

Very well, sir. Another point why I oppose this Bill is I contend that measures of this kind prevent the native from bettering himself, and surely this is going very near an attempt to keep wages stabilised where they are now. That is the effect of this Bill as it appears to me, because the native cannot get away from the farm to where better wages are given. If this Bill is in fact going to prevent him from leaving the farm to better himself in the towns in other industries, surely it is going to have the effect of stabilising farm wages as they are to-day. I do not think that is justice in any shape or form. I know that there are other considerations which the farmer grants to his natives, but evidently these are not sufficently attractive to keep him on the farm, and therefore he seeks to better himself by leaving. If I have a servant in my house who is good, and I want to keep him, surely it is only ordinary commonsense to know that the only means by which I can retain that labour is by making the work as attractive as possible and the conditions of service. I am firmly convinced that the ideas put forward by hon. members who represent natives in this House are the right ones, namely, that the conditions must be made more attractive. That is the only possible way in which the farmers will be able to keep their native labour from drifting to the towns. It is poor commonsense and it is strange to me that hon. members opposite cannot see that. For these reasons I am against this Bill in every possible shape and form, and I think the time has really come when hon. members should cease bringing a Bill like this before the House year by year. We have given the answer to this question so often, it is clear the majority don’t want it, and I think they should cease bringing up this Bill. I move—

I second.

I am sorry the hon. member (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz), who always stands up for the natives and the coloured people and who pretends that she wants to be fair to all sections of the community, should be the one to propose the adjournment of the debate, knowing that such a motion is only another way of killing the Bill, and to deprive us of any further opportunity of discussing it again in this House, with the result that it will not be properly brought before the country. I am very sorry, therefore, that she has made this proposal. I always thought that hon. member was fair-minded, but to-day I find she is not only unfair, but that she is also not willing to help her own sex. I do not think that she has gone into the merits of my Bill, because if she had done so she would have seen that this Bill is also intended to assist the housewife.

The hon. member cannot at this stage go into the merits of the Bill.

I am only mentioning the fact that the housewife would also be assisted by this Bill. But that is how things go; when a woman comes here she forgets all her housewifely activities, and that is the sort of thing one can expect of her. I hope this House will be reasonable. Insinuations and allegations have been made against this Bill which do not touch the principle of the measure at all. The report of the Commission on Farm Labour has been quoted from, and nothing contained in that report has any reference to this matter before the House, because that report concerns the question of compulsion to make people work. Hon. members who have spoken about it must either be ignorant of what it contains, or otherwise they have done so deliberately, because that report does not in any way affect the question which I want to bring before the House.

The object of this Bill is to help the farmer, the housewife and the employer of labour. The question has been put: “What is the hurry for this Bill?” and then hon. members opposite come and tell us that this is war time, and that this is not the time to proceed with a Bill of this kind. If ever there was a time when it was urgently necessary to make it possible for this Bill to be passed, this is the time, because the present Government encourages coloured men and natives by offering them high pay and allowances to take up military service.

The hon. member must not go into the merits of the Bill at this stage.

I mention this as a reason why it is so, absolutely essential to proceed with the Bill now, and why the debate should not be adjourned. This Bill is urgently required.

Yes, but the hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

It is absolutely necessary, and it is urgently necessary to bring this Bill to finality, and if hon. members opposite really think, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) has said, that the majority of the House is opposed to the Bill, why are they so afraid then to allow the House to arrive at a decision? It proves that in an indirect way they are trying to mislead the public outside. They want to create the impression that they also want to assist the farmers, but that what I am now proposing is not effective and will not meet the purpose. But they are not keen on dealing with the matter. If ever there was a question which the House must be in earnest about, it is this question. The amendment in regard to farm labour—

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

If the adjournment is taken, the amendment will also drop. I noticed that the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz), who moved the adjournment, was instructed by the Government Party Whip to do so, consequently I must blame the Government for this motion, because they will not allow this matter, which is very urgent so far as the people outside are concerned, to be properly discussed, and they prevent this House from getting an opportunity of expressing its view on the question.

I also want to protest against the motion for the adjournment of the debate. I hope the country will note who the people are who want this Bill to be passed and who are in favour of the adjournment, because this motion for the adjournment of the debate is nothing but an attempt to push this Bill off the Order Paper for the rest of the session. I should like to reply to what the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) has said, but you will, of course, prevent me from doing so now, and as a result of this motion for the adjournment of the debate I shall not have the opportunity of replying.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put, and the House divided:

Ayes—46:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Christopher, R. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Henderson, R. H.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—28:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Schoeman, B J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Tellers: J. G. Strydom and C. R. Swart.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd March.

I move—

I second.

I only want to ask for information, and I want to know what is going to happen when the House rises. The next Order on the Order Paper is a motion proposed by me, and I want to say something on that. If I am not given the opportunity to do so, then I have to object to this adjournment. The Minister has now moved the adjournment of the House; it is now twenty minutes to six, and in view of what I said the other day, that I should like to have a few minutes to answer on my motion which was under discussion, I want to ask what the Minister has in mind with the adjournment of the House.

Are you able to solve all the problems of the farmers in five minutes?

No, but I can say a lot in five minutes. Hon. members opposite are very much interested in seeing the war through. I do not blame them for wanting to see the war through; they are honest in their intentions. I object to the war, but they have out-voted me. But I feel that I must in the very first place look after the interests of the farming population and of the poor people. As Napoleon said, no army can march on an empty stomach, and one cannot have a contented people if we allow the continuance of the poverty and the misery which prevail in this country to-day. I do not want to say that the Government is the cause of all this misery. Previous Governments have always tackled these great problems in a half-hearted manner. It is no use crying about spilt milk—it is no use complaining about what has happened in the past. Hon. members opposite, however, may give all their attention to this war, whereas I want the House to give time to the interests of the farming industry. It has been stated that I exaggerated when I referred to the increase in the cost of production. Other allegations were made against me. Three Ministers have replied to the motion which I brought before the House. I thereupon said that I only want five minutes to answer, but I was not allowed to speak. Is there such a thing as democracy left? Are we fighting for freedom? Hon. members opposite contend that we are. Are we given any freedom in this House? It is a farce, we make ourselves ridiculous when we say we are fighting for freedom. I am not allowed to attend to the interests of the people who sent me here. Let us be consistent. I do not want to offend anyone in this House, but I want to make an appeal to the sense of fair play of hon. members, and I take my stand on democracy when I ask to be given five minutes to say my say. Democracy means that every man, however poor he may be, will have a say in the form of government of the country. Have I got that to-day? Have I, as a representative of the people, any say to-day? I have not. When I stand up here to place the interests of my people before the House, they tell me that I am not in earnest and that we are wasting time. They try to curtail my rights. I may perhaps differ from hon. members opposite. We cannot all look at things from the same point of view, and in the same way, but the farmers’ motion which I moved here was moved by me in all earnestness. So far as I am concerned, it is an urgent problem, a great and serious problem. For the past three years I have been restricted in the discussion of this particular motion. Hon. members have talked about things of minor importance, but I have only been given half an hour, and in another instance an hour for my motion. What has happened? The present Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) were driven out of this House because they stood by me. Now they are sitting on the other side of the House. Can anyone change his opinion as quickly as all that? I always want to be fair and just, but one has to practise what one fights for. “Practise what you preach.” When one says that one fights for freedom and equality and justice, one should practise these things. If I, as a member of Parliament, am not given an opportunity, then I ask what hope has the poor man in the street got? “A snowball’s hope.” I want to refer hon. members to the conditions which will prevail here after the war is over. The result of the war will come, and the people of South Africa, the majority of our people, stand to gain everything and to lose nothing. They do not care, but you, the money powers, which sit on the other side of the House, will lose much more easily all you have obtained. You have made your wealth out-of the gold mines, but possibly gold may be valueless after the war. The people in the town and on the platteland say: “What have we got?” They say: “You sit there and talk, you have all you want, but what do we get? We have to suffer and to work, and we have no future, no hope of a future.” Do hon. members think that those people are content? But I am not allowed to have five minutes to discuss my motion. Can we be satisfied? If I am beaten, I shall take my beating like a man, and I shall be able to tell the people that Parliament voted against me; but surely the House should allow me to have my say. Why do we sit here otherwise? I cannot find words strong enough to condemn the existing system, a system under which a man in his own country is not allowed five minutes to discuss these great questions, and that after three Ministers have taken part in the debate. They said that I had not explained my motion. The Minister of Finance, who makes a special study of everything he tackles, will not allow me to answer. I have also made a study of this question, but what is the use if he attacks me and I am not allowed to answer him? His great ideals will be lost if he goes on like that. I cannot have any more confidence in him. I always thought he was a fair man. Why cannot he allow me five minutes to answer? Is he afraid? Is he afraid of a back-bencher? He gets one of the capitalists from Kimberley, the Whip of that party, the man for whom it is easy to get diamonds out of the ground, to move the adjournment of the debate. He says to him: “Look, that little chap over there has put certain matters before Parliament and they may not do us much good; they may harm us if we were to vote on his motion. Look, we have our Standing Rules and Orders, and we can stop that man from speaking. Move the adjournment of the debate.” Cannot the Minister stand up against a backvelder like myself? Is he not man enough to do so? Why cannot I have a chance to reply? Just a few minutes. It is a farce. We make ourselves ridiculous; we waste time and money. I do not want any Germans here.

What does the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) say about that?

Ask him. I am not addressing the hon. member, I am addressing the Chair. I would not welcome the Germans here. I know them better, perhaps, than any hon. member over there. If the Germans were to take this country we would not be allowed to speak Afrikaans, but we would have to speak German.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I want to look after the interests of my people here, but the system which we have here to-day is just as bad, if not worse, than the Nazi system; it is nothing but a farce. I am sorry that I am not able to speak. I have all this time been talking about the adjournment of the debate. Why cannot I have five minutes to talk about my motion? Why should the Minister be so afraid? The Minister of Finance is a learned man and an economist; why, then, is he so afraid of a man who knows as little as I do? Why is he afraid to allow me to say a few words? All these are bogeys, and one cannot rule the country with bogeys. During a time of war one has to have officers; do not let hon. members opposite ever say again that they are fighting for democracy, and that they are fighting for the rights of the people. It is absolute hypocrisy for them to say so. I cannot find words strong enough to say what I think about it. Why cannot I be given the opportunity to Speak for five minutes?

The hon. member must not repeat that argument again—he must not continue in that strain.

I shall tell you why I repeat it. That crowd over there is completely deaf; they cannot understand it, and I am trying to drive it into their heads. I protest against the adjournment, and I hope the hon. member will withdraw the motion for the adjournment. Three Ministers have taken part in the debate, and I am anxious to answer them.

I associate myself with what the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) has said; it really is a disgrace for the Minister to want to adjourn the House when there is so much time left to discuss this question, but all of them have booked their seats for the bioscopes and now they want to get home. I also say it is a disgrace for the interests of the farmers to be dealt with in this way, and I say it is a disgrace to move the adjournment of the debate and thus prevent the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal from being further discussed. If hon. members see the miserable conditions and the poverty among the farmers they will realise that it is a disgrace to stop us from talking on this side when we want to discuss that very question. All of us represent farmers. Members on that side of the House remind one of hanskakis. A Hanskaki also sleeps in the House, and the whole world may go under, it does not worry him.

You are a “Hanswors” (clown).

Yes, that is the position. They want to adjourn the House and they want to stop us from discussing the farmers’ interests. That is why I agree with the hon. member for Aliwal.

I want to support the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) in the attitude he has adopted here. I strongly resent the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite. The very least one can say is that the hon. member for Aliwal is honest and straightforward in regard to the subject matter of his motion. It seems that my friends opposite look upon it as a joke and a farce. One of the hon. members opposite made one of the meanest and most distasteful insinuations imaginable against the hon. member for Aliwal across the floor of the House. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that I take the strongest objection to such mean and filthy insinuations being made in this House. They have not the slightest cause for wanting the House to adjourn at this stage—the only reason is that the Government has not the moral courage to allow the discussion on the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal to continue. They have done nothing and they are doing nothing for the platteland, and they are afraid that a further discussion on the motion will show them up in all their nakedness to the people of South Africa. That is the only reason; there can be no other reason. I hope it may still be possible for this discussion to go on. Finally, I want to say again that hon. members opposite should realise that when a member like the hon. member for Aliwal wants to talk about a motion which is dear to his heart, he is honest and sincere about it, and in all his weakness he does his utmost to look after the interests of the public.

We are dealing here on this motion for the adjournment with the interests of the farmer, and while discussing this matter we look at the benches opposite and we notice that there are only three members of the Government Party in attendance. There is not a farmer among them, and that is the party which, when they come to the platteland, pose before the public as the men who fight for the interests of the farmers. They are the people who talk about the farmers’ group which they have in their party. Is there a solitary representative of that so-called farmers’ group in this House at the moment?

The hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) is there.

If he is a member of the farmers’ group then we can well understand why that party wants to adjourn the House so that a motion concerning the interests of farmers cannot be discussed.

The hon. member must confine his remarks to the motion for the adjournment of the House.

I am pointing out that this discussion on the question of the adjournment of the House is closely allied to the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Captain G. H. F. Strydom) because the object is to prevent a discussion of that motion, and while this discussion of that continued by members who are interested in the farming industry there are only three members present opposite, and not one of them is a farmer, although we are entitled to demand that the farmers’ representative opposite should join with us in our protest against the adjournment. It is our duty to protest on behalf of the farmers, and if not a single member opposite gets up to protest against this adjournment, and if not a single one of them is in favour of having this motion further discussed, I want to ask whether there really is any concern on that side of the House in the wellbeing of the farmers? We cannot assume for one moment that hon. members opposite take any interest in the farmers. We strongly object to the adjournment. Whenever a motion of this kind is brought before the House the Government uses the very same tactics in order to run away from such a motion. They have not got the moral courage to give the House the opportunity to decide on the motion. We have the right to know where every member sitting on the other side of the House stands in regard to this motion, but every time this motion comes up the majority of the other side of the House is used to shut us up. I strongly object to it.

I feel I am entitled as usual to take part in this debate even at this late stage. This motion which has been proposed here for the House to adjourn is introduced with the object of making a farce of private members’ days. My Leader a few years ago protested against the manner in which the rights of private members were being interfered with, and here we have further evidence of the same sort of thing. How are private members’ days being treated in this House this evening? In a scandalous way. That is the only description we can give. We have the position here that an important motion concerning the interests of the farmers has been introduced by private members, yet on the other side of the House we see nothing but empty benches. On the other side there is only one Minister and he is a miserable bald-headed Minister, and if ever we want to see what the attitude of the Government and of members opposite is towards farmers’ interests, we can see it here, and we have seen it to-day when the previous motion was being discussed here. [Quorum.] Yes, the Whips opposite are very busy driving their members out of the House so that the House will have to adjourn owing to there being no quorum. National Afrikanerdom will maintain the quorum; we shall keep the House going until we get satisfaction or until the Government applies its further compulsory measures. We are not going to allow ourselves to be oppressed in that way; if a Nationalist were to go out now I would call him to order. This is not a game; this is a serious matter. I say this to both sides of the House. I say that if the other side of the House is unable to maintain discipline among its members, I on this side of the House will do so. We are not going to allow this debate to terminate until an opportunity has been given us to test this House and to see whether it really represents the interest of the people or whether they only sit here to trample on the interests of the farming industry and to push those interests into the background. If we look at the great hardships that are being suffered in this country, and if we look at the difficulty we have to contend with before we are able to bring these matters to the notice of the Government, we realise that we dare not allow the Government and the party opposite to treat that great industry with contempt, so that they do not even give us the opportunity of discussing the interests of that industry. If we listen to the debate which has been conducted here and if we behold the way in which the interests of the farmers are belittled and are treated as being of minor importance, and if we see the way in which those interests are put back as compared with the Government’s international policy, I can only say that all we can do is to call out to the people of South Africa: “There is chaos ahead of you, nothing but misery awaits you,” because the agricultural industry is doomed under this Government.”

I cannot refrain from also raising my voice against the injustice which is being done not only to members of this House who represent the farmers, but against the injustice which is being done to the farming community outside. When the farmer opens his paper the first thing he looks at is how his interests are being attended to in this House. And what is the farmer to say if he sees that the Government Party wants to prevent the discussion of his interests in this way? A few days ago the Prime Minister proposed that private members were to be deprived of certain days, and he then said that a further opportunity would be given for this motion to be discussed. We have been fighting here now for half an hour to get that chance, and what are hon. members opposite doing for us? Nearly all of us on this side are present to discuss this motion, but look at the other side? There are hardly any members there, and yet that is the Government Party which always pretends to look after the interests of the farmers, but which refuses to give us the opportunity of discussing this motion. The Whips opposite are very busy chasing members out of the House so that there shall be no quorum. Where are the other parties? There are five or six parties in this House, where are they? Where is the Afrikaner Party? Are we the only party here to look after the interests of the farmer? We do not see a single one of them here. I hope we at last realise that the interests of the farmers are not a party question, and that we must stand together in order to discuss the interests of the farmers and to solve their difficulties. No matter to which party a representative of the farmers belongs, the country will never forgive him if he allows the interests of the farmers to be ignored in that way. Instead of the Government helping us to find a solution for the difficulties of the farmer we find that our time is being restricted so that the farmers’ troubles cannot be fully discussed. When we talk with individuals opposite we can see that they are not fully conversant with the farmers’ position. I defintely know that they are not well informed, and that is why we say “Give us a chance, cancel your arrangements, and let us carry on with the discussion.”

The rights of private members are consistently being curtailed in this House and we find the same thing happening here to-day when an important question like the motion for the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) is next on the Order Paper. A damper is again placed on the discussion of the farmers interests, and in spite of the pleas which we always hear from the other side from members who pretend that they take an interest in the farming industry that sort of thing is allowed to go on, but when an hon. member on this side of the House, who takes an interest in farming, points to the position prevailing in the country, and introduces a motion to enable the interests of the farmers to be discussed, he is told that he is only doing so in order to make political propaganda. This is clear evidence of the fact that those people do not really have a heart for the interests of the farmers. It also proves to the country that the people who really have a heart for the farmers are the Opposition. All of us are here; look at the other side—there are only a few members there. I think it is high time that the people outside should get to know what the position is, and that a stop be put to that kind of hypocrisy. We want to know defintely from the Government what it intends doing, whether it intends doing anything at all to get the farmer out of his precarious position. We are prepared to sit here and to sacrifice the best of our time and to carry on as long as the Government likes with this discussion so as to convince the Government that something must be done at once in order to help the farmer. I feel that I cannot refrain from adding my word of protest against the way in which the Government is acting against the rights of private members, and against what it is doing to stop a discussion on farming interests. Our rights are being trampled on in a most scandalous manner; all the Government wants to do is to see the war through. On every motion before the House we are told that we must think of nothing but the war and that we must not think of the interests of our people. We heard the same thing again this afternoon in connection with a different motion, also of importance to the farmer, when the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Van Coller) said that this was not the time to do anything in that direction, and that we must not do anything now which might cause racial feeling between white and non-white as that might interfere with the war effort. I say that we dare not adjourn now, and that we must go on to discuss the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal.

I want to point out to hon. members that they must not repeat their own arguments, or the arguments of other hon. members.

I shall attempt not to repeat any arguments. If we on this side of the House were not convinced, and are not convinced in our heart of hearts that conditions of farming in the Union are of such a nature that they require the most serious attention of this House we would not have protested so seriously against the light hearted manner in which the Government has treated the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) here this afternoon. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is because the Government a few days ago applied the same methods in order to close the debate and to force the adjournment of the debate on to us that we feel so grieved this afternoon in view of the fact that we have a good opportunity now to reply to the arguments used by Government members and to disprove those arguments by means of facts. We are now being deprived of that opportunity by the Government; it is because of that that we feel aggrieved and that we have to continue protesting against this unreasonable attitude adopted by the Government. We on this side of the House are very much concerned about the difficult position in which the farmer finds himself.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I do not want to discuss the position of the farming industry, but I want to make clear why I protest against what the Government is doing. The position in which the farming industry finds itself urges me to protest and to fight against the attitude of the Government in refusing to give us the opportunity to plead the interests of the farmers, while we have the chance to do so now if only the Government will allow us to do so. We are being deprived of that opportunity, however. We have noticed the way in which members are being driven out of the House in order to try to get the House adjourned on account of there being no quorum. All this goes to prove that the Government is indifferent to the position in which the country finds itself. The other day the Minister of Finance told us that the solution of an important problem so far as farming is concerned, cannot be tackled pending the duration of the war. The Government must not imagine that because it is in power to-day, because it is able to rule this country, and because it can do in this House as it pleases, the farming community is going to be satisfied with that. We want to warn the Government that the farming community has been looking to the Minister of Finance to carry out the promise he made and that they are expecting him to come forward with a scheme to rehabilitate them. I say that the farming community expected the Minister of Finance to do so because he made a promise and he has broken that promise. We are sorry to see members opposite who are supposed to be representatives of the farmers behaving in the way they are doing this afternoon. We are sorry to see them act in such a frivolous manner towards the farmers. I hope they will be called to account in their constituencies. We want to protest most strongly, with all the power in us, against the manner in which they behave towards the farmer, and we want to tell them that their actions will be recorded in Hansard so that the country will be able to see that it is a re-united Nationalist Party alone which wants to provide the necessary time, and which is prepared to give the necessary time to consider the interest of the farming community of this country.

I do not want to detain the House but I feel it is my duty to raise my voice and to lodge a protest against the Government’s action on this occasion. Nobody can deny that the motion which would come on the order if the House did not adjourn is a motion of the utmost and the greatest importance. Throughout this session we have had nothing but contempt for the side of the Government so far as farming matters are concerned. I say so deliberately because if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House that on a previous occasion I put several questions to the Minister of Agriculture in regard to burning questions so far as farming is concerned. For instance I put questions in regard to the wheat position. I deliberately did not go into that matter because I thought I would get this opportunity of dealing with the position. I put questions to the Minister in regard to his policy on the tobacco surplus and the steps being taken to find a market, but what did we find? The Minister of Agriculture go up in this House—

The hon. member cannot go into the merits of those questions now, he must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the House.

I do not want to go into the merits, what I want to do is to show that the Government and its followers have no time for farming interests. We have put important questions, and those questions are not being replied to. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture got up and addressed the House he did not answer any of those questions. It is for that reason that I say that it is solely as a result of the attitude which the Minister took up at that time that we are now acting as we are doing. I do not know whether the Minister and members opposite have made other arrangements but one would think that in any case the interests of the farmers would come first. All this shows us that that Government does not concern itself with the interests of the farmers, and that being so we are fully entitled to protest most strongly against the attitude adopted by the Government.

I also wish to speak a word of protest against what the Government is doing here now. When this motion which has to come on was discussed on a previous occasion, matters were arranged in such a way on the Government side that the three Ministers spoke, the one after the other, and there was practically no chance for any reply from this side. I do not think it is fair on the part of the Government when this side of the House, which represents the interests of the farmers, wants to raise matters, to prevent us from doing so in the way they are doing now. I am not allowed to go into the merits of the debate now, but we did not get anything at all from the three Ministers who replied to the debate.

The hon. member cannot go into those arguments now; he must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment.

I shall not go into that aspect any further. With conditions as they are in the country at the moment, all we can do is to register our protest against the Government’s actions; that is our duty towards our constituents and towards the farming population of South Africa. For that reason I wish to protest most strongly against the way in which the Government is using the steam roller. It is wasting money on the war, and when we want to stand up for the interests of the farmer, the steam roller is used against us.

I move—

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—44:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Christopher, R. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Henderson, R. H.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz. L. a. B.

Reitz, D.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Wares, A P. J.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and A. E. Trollip.

Noes—29:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M

Malan, D. F.

Schoeman. B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J. V. d.

Merwe, R. A. T.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion for the adjournment of the House put, and the House divided:

Ayes—44:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Christopher, R. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire. J. G.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Henderson, R. H.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D, B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and A. E. Trollip.

Noes—29:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein. J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J. V. d.

Merwe, R. A. T

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.