I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and which reads as follows—

This motion briefly amounts to this, that this House requests the Government to make the Sunday Observance Act also apply to Dingaan’s Day. The history of the year 1838 is not unknown, I think, to hon. members of this House, and it is therefore not necessary for me to dwell long on it. That year has rightly been described by the historians as the black year in the history of the Voortrekkers, and as the year of blood and tears. But fortunately that year tells us not only of the treacherous murder of Piet Retief and his comrades, happily it does not tell us only about a Weenen, but that year also tells us of the victory at a Blood River, a victory which is as famous as any other great victory in the history of our country. In December, 1838, Andries Pretorius, with 406 men, marched up against Dingaan with his cruel but brave Zulus, and the Voortrekkers realised that in that battle all their interests were at stake. And when we look back on it to-day we can rightly say that the victory of Blood River exercised a tremendous influence on the course of the history of South Africa. That victory did not only have a meaning for the Boer nation, but also for the Britons in our country, and I go the length of saying, also for the non-Europeans—it was also in their best interests. We know that in that critical hour of the Voortrekkers, when they were aware of what they had at stake, they made a vow through Sarel Cilliers, a vow which was not only binding on the Voortrekkers but which was also binding on their posterity, a vow the fulfilment of which casts a bounden duty on every person in whose veins the blood of the Voortrekkers flows, on every Afrikaner. That was a vow not of one man to another, but a vow to Him in whom we still believe and that He has the fortunes of the peoples in His hand. Whether the Afrikaner people have always been faithful to that vow, and whether they have always fulfilled it in accordance with what we might have expected of them, I am not going to give any opinion. All I want to say is that we can be thankful that the Afrikaner people have never been quite indifferent to the 16th December. I am also this afternoon, in introducing this motion, going to utter no reproach and make no charge against anybody. I am going to make no accusation in connection with this matter in regard to what has happened in the past. I think that I have more than enough to dp to sweep clean before my own door. The 16th December comes during a specially busy time in the Western Province, so far as wheat farming is concerned, and prior to 1938 we will have to admit to our sorrow that there was not much difference made in regard to Dingaan’s Day, particularly so far as our work in the Western Province was concerned. But I can say with gratitude that after 1938, after the centenary festival, a great change took place, and on the 16th December last year, it was a rare exception for the ordinary work to be done in the usual way. Even if there were exceptions I am going to condemn no one. I am only mentioning it. That jawbone shaped oxwagon in connection with the centenary festival of 1938, not only took us back in a symbolical way to Piet Retief and the heroic acts of the Voortrekkers, to the great victory of Blood River, but that jawbone-shaped wagon also took us back to the vow of Sarel Cilliers and his fellow-Voortrekkers. The Afrikaner people to-day possibly realise as they never have done in their history, that they have a responsibility in regard to the vow, that it is their sacred duty to fulfil the vow. I therefore do not ask how hon. members of this House have thought in the past in regard to this matter, but I ask again that in the light of history and in the light of the vow which was there made, and of the centenary festival of 1938, hon. members will speak on the matter and cast their vote on the matter in accordance with the vow and the festival. We may rejoice that the 16th December was declared a public holiday by the State, but with that this House has certainly not yet fulfilled its full responsibility in connection with the matter. If we do not do our duty this afternoon in connection with the matter, then I want to leave it to the voters and the people in the country to exercise pressure on their representatives. I may, however, rejoice in the fact that the co-ordinating committee at Malmesbury urged me to introduce a motion of this kind, and I willingly comply with the request. I go further and say that I regard it as a privilege to be able to introduce this motion this afternoon. Let me just quote the vow as taken by the Voortrekkers—

This vow very clearly asks that we shall fulfil what the Voortrekkers promised, and that we shall celebrate the 16th December as a Sunday. There is a sacred duty resting on the Afrikaner people in this connection, but I go further and say that the duty rests on our people to see to it that the vow is also fulfilled by the Government. Although the 16th December has been declared to be a public holiday, we thereby make no difference between the 16th December and any other public holiday, and we do not by a long way, so far as the authorities are concerned, treat the day as a Sabbath Day. I lay emphasis on the “Sabbath Day”. I want to point out that this motion does not ask that the 16th December should be proclaimed as an additional Sunday by the authorities. All we ask is that the application of the Sunday Observance Act shall be made to apply to Dingaan’s Day. I want to point out that while Christmas Day and New Year’s Day have both been declared public holidays by the Government, that does not mean that Christmas Day and New Year’s Day amount to the same thing. Although these Acts apply to Christmas Day as well as to New Year’s Day, it does not mean that New Year’s Day is also Christmas Day. In the same way I want to explain that when we ask that the Sunday Observance Act should be applied to Dingaan’s Day, it is far from turning Dingaan’s Day into a Sunday. We only ask that the Sunday Observance Act shall be made to apply to the 16th December. No one will thereby be forced to go to church. On the other hand, we ask that it will also not be permitted for anyone else, for instance, an employer, to force his employees to celebrate the day in accordance with his view and convictions, and to fulfil the vow. We only want the work which is prohibited on Sundays also to be prohibited on Dingaan’s Day, and that the same Acts which hold in regard to Sunday shall be applicable to the 16th December. I want to make a serious appeal to the House to agree to this motion. I think that we owe it to the Voortrekkers, to ourselves and to posterity, and I want to say here, with all deference, that we are also indebted, before all others, to fulfil it towards Him who has not only taught us to fulfil promises, but who has also commanded us to keep our promises.

It is a very great privilege to me to be able to second this motion, a motion which is intended to give effect to a vow which was made to the Almighty by our ancestors, and I want heartily to congratulate the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) on having had the privilege of introducing the motion. It is possibly a pity that more than 100 years after the vow was taken, we still have to get up in this House and to ask it to pass a motion of this kind, but I also feel, as the hon. member for Malmesbury said, that we do not want to go into the question as to why it was not done in the past, but that we ought rather to put right what was wrong, and that we will, in future, carry out the vow which was made to the Almighty. I think that we are particularly fortunate to-day in this respect that I, as a resident in the Cape Province, who am not a descendant of the forefathers who trekked to the North, can make the request to a Minister who is a son of the late President of the Free State, to a person who does descend from those ancestors, and that I can make the request to the son of the President, the good father of the Minister, to fulfil the vow made to the Almighty. I am not going into the history which the ancestors passed through, but the year 1838 is of outstanding importance to South Africa. When we hark back a little into history, then we see how the pious old Voortrekkers left their homes in the Cape Colony and trekked to the North. Why? I believe because it was the guidance of the Almighty, because He wanted a South African nation to be built up there, and in 1838 a decision was taken whether there was going to be a white civilisation in South Africa, or whether barbarism was going to gain the victory to the end of time. A vow was then taken which the hon. member has already quoted, but which I would like to read out again. It cannot be read enough. It says—

It is a most sacred vow which was made on our behalf. In the past we have neglected to observe the vow. As a young boy I remember I was never told the right meaning of the words Dingaan’s Day. I never learnt it at school. I knew that Dingaan’s Day existed and I heard of the battle at Blood River, but I did not hear much of the vow which our ancestors made to the Almighty. Then the year 1938 came. I do not want to give the least political colour to this matter. I am speaking here from the depths of my heart, because I believe that when you make a vow to the Almighty—whether you approve or disapprove of what happened in the past— you cannot break that vow which you have made to the Almighty. In 1938 the decision was taken between barbarism and a Christian civilisation in South Africa. Then the vow was taken. What does the vow signify to me? As I view it, it is of three-fold importance, to my mind. In the first place, it is a vow which binds posterity. You can do what you like, you cannot get away with it, because it is a vow which was made by our ancestors to stand for ever until the most distant generations. It was a vow, and therefore it cannot be broken. Secondly, 1838 means even more than a mere vow. I believe that the Almighty intended that an Afrikaner nation should be built up in South Africa. If He had not willed it, then the battle of Blood River would have been lost. I believe that the 16th December, 1838, was the birthday of the Afrikaner nation. I believe that an order was given to us there to build up an Afrikaner nation in South Africa. After 1838, until recently, the celebration of Dingaan’s Day was not what it should have been. We did not realise that a vow of that nature had been taken, but thank God, in 1938, the ox-wagons began to run again in South Africa; in 1938 we who possibly differed from each other in political matters realised that we were bound together to fulfil the vow of our ancestors. The year 1938 was the year in which we found that blood was thicker than water, and we celebrated that centenary memorial day of the birth of the Afrikaner nation. We may be divided on many things, but I make an appeal to the Minister in the spirit which conquered in 1938, to accept the motion. I want to make an appeal to him not to disappoint us by saying that there is this or the other difficulty in the way. The vow to the Almighty stands, and whatever the difficulties may be, they must be got rid of for the sake of the cause that we stand for. In 1938, when the ox-wagon commenced to run again, it appeared to me to be so symbolical of the Afrikaner nation. When we examine from what nations the Afrikaner people was constituted, then we find that for the most part our ancestors came from Holland, Germany, England and France. There are four great nations which built up the Afrikaner people, and strangely enough, the ox-wagon itself has four wheels. But the ox-wagon, although it has four wheels, when the oxen go straight forward, then it does not leave four tracks but two tracks. The French element and the German element have been absorbed into the Afrikaner nation, and today there are only left the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking sections—the two tracks. But when we come through the sandy road up to 1938, when the tracks of the wagon were still clearly visible, the two tracks which were deeply impressed, then we may also say that it seems to us as if we have now come to the hard road. We still see the two tracks, but they are commencing to become duller and are beginning to disappear, and although the wagon still has four wheels, we shall later on no longer find the tracks of any one of the wheels, but on the hard road the four wheels will no longer leave any tracks. The one oxwagon will be left, the Afrikaner nation. If the Minister of Justice grants the request today, then he will assist us to obliterate the tracks and to become one nation. Then he will assist us to forget our descent and then you will only have one ox-wagon. Why is legislation necessary? Unfortunately, in a nation you always find some people who are less religious than others, but when you have made a vow, if a vow has been made on behalf of the people by your ancestors, then we must remember that it was not only the religious section which took that vow, but it was also a vow on behalf of the other section, it was a vow on behalf of the whole nation. Accordingly, our whole nation must be faithful to the vow, and that is why we ask for legislation. If we go about on Dingaan’s Day now, then we find a splendid spirit at some places, that the vow is fulfilled in a right way at certain places, the vow to the Almighty. But if we go a little further on, then you find that the bars are open, that horse racing is going on, and that all kinds of sport are being indulged in on the day which has been set apart as a day of thanksgiving to the Almighty. Is is in that light that the Minister of Justice must regard the matter. There are people who do not fulfil the vow of their own accord, but it is a vow on behalf of the whole nation. The Minister who is a descendant of the Voortrekkers is in a position to lead the people who have forgotten Dingaan’s Day, to the teaching of the ox-wagon, to the vow at Blood River. I do not want to detain the House any longer. I think that in connection with such a good case, one should avoid saying anything which has the appearance of wanting to obtain some advantage or other. I second the motion, not on behalf of a party, not on behalf of the re-United Nationalist Party, but because I want to give effect to the vow of our ancestors. I second the motion because I feel that it is a mandate to me, that it is my duty to compel my fellow-Afrikaners who possibly do not as yet feel as strongly about Dingaan’s Day as they ought to feel, to get back on to the road of the ox-wagon. You may commit an injustice to someone, you can break a vow towards a friend or someone who is dear to you, and you will possibly be acquitted of it without any harm, but when you make a vow to the Almighty and when a vow has been made on behalf of your nation and people, then you may be happy for a time, but your nation cannot be happy in the long run, and cannot be prosperous if the vows of your ancestors are neglected. If I were able to find better language to express myself, I would like to put it better, but I appeal to the Minister, as a son of the Voortrekkers, to give effect to the vow. I plead with him on behalf of the nation to which he and I belong, on behalf of the old Voortrekkers who trekked to the North and sacrificed everything, in order to establish a Boer nation. I ask him to accept the motion. Carry out the vow in the legislation of South Africa, the vow of the Almighty. Then it will be possible for us to become a happy people.

I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of this motion on the calm and dignified tone in which they debated this sacred subject. I quite agree with them that this is not a party question. We must not only keep it outside of but also above party politics, and I am therefore glad to hear from the mover that he is not asking how hon. members of this House have stood in the past in regard to this question. And that view is confirmed by a similar statement by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). What I want to say is also not the opinion of a party but my personal view, and I would like to give a little information in regard to the matter. Now I want at once to refer to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, namely, that in his youth he knew nothing about Dingaan’s Day—that he had heard about the battle at Blood River, but apart from that had never heard anything about Dingaan’s Day. And the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) was, of course, in the neighbourhood that he grew up in, also not in a position to become acquainted with the real significance of Dingaan’s Day, and the idea which the Voortrekkers had as to the way in which it ought to be celebrated. In this connection I have lived in more fortunate circumstances than they did. Anyone of my age who still is associated with the Voortrekkers knows something more as to how the Voortrekkers celebrated the day and what views they held about it than do the hon. mover and seconder. We know that in the days of the old republics, Dingaan’s Day was not regarded in the way in which they want it to be regarded now. They apparently now want to create a new Dingaan’s Day. Dingaan’s Day was, in the first place, a religious day, a day of thankfulness to the Almighty. Quite right. But Dingaan’s Day was not a Sunday, was not what the hon. member asks that it should become.

I never said that it should be a Sunday.

If the Sunday Observance Acts are applied to a day, then it nevertheless in any case becomes, from a legal point of view, a Sunday. But my experiences go back a long way, and I remember quite well how we held a service on that day, and expressed our gratitude, but we were also merry, and had horse commandos, and rifle firing and sports and jollity, but there was nothing of such a kind as to give anyone offence on that account. In addition, moreover, Dingaan’s Day was never forced on to anyone. Even in those days there was applied, which is still done to-day, the two-stream policy, Sarel Cilliers applied it. He said that if there were people who did not agree they could leave the assembly. There were people who did not agree with him. I have here an interesting book dealing with the subject, out of which I want to make a quotation. I would like us rightly to understand the celebration of Dingaan’s Day, and to understand it better than some hon. members on the opposite side of the House understand it. I am quoting from a very important book by Kruger—

My hon. friends will see from that that the institution of Dingaan’s Day was only made by a section of the Voortrekkers, by that section which felt that they had to take that vow.

What about their descendants?

I am trying to indicate the feelings of the Voortrekkers in regard to the institution of Dingaan’s Day. Now we have this big point. How did the republican population regard it, and how did they celebrate Dingaan’s Day? I think it would be wise to institute more study on the point, and hon. members will see that what I remember about it is precisly the way in which Dingaan’s Day was celebrated by the old republican population. I shall make quotations, more particularly from “Die Volkstem”. That was the organ of Mr. Celliers, the official organ of the South African Republic, and it will appear from those quotations as to how Dingaan’s Day was kept, that what I have said here is correct. I think that it will be wise if I, for instance, quoted how things were done in the old days. It appears from these writings that a service was actually held on Dingaan’s Day. Psalms were sung, but a wapenshaw also took place, and there were sports on the same day.

That is wrong.

My hon. friend says that the Voortrekkers were wrong. It may be so.

No, the Voortrekkers were not wrong, but you are wrong.

I would like to make this quotation from “Die Volkstem” in regard to a Dingaan’s Day celebration in the old days, as it is given in this book—

Apparently at that time they did not yet know jukskei. Then it goes further—

And then the writer of this book also says in connection with this celebration on that 16th December—

And so I could go on reading. The day was celebrated, just as I have stated, as a national religious festival. One can quote the same description in connection with subsequent Dingaan’s Days. Dingaan’s Day was therefore treated by the people who were best able to judge of it, namely, the Voortrekkers themselves, as a religious national festival. That is the conception of it which the Voortrekkers themselves had. Now the mover of this motion wants us to proclaim this Dingaan’s Day as a day which comes under the provisions of Ordinance No. 1 of 1838 (Cape). I wonder whether the hon. member has taken the trouble of referring to that Ordinance?

I have.

Then I must honestly say that I am astonished at the motion which the hon. member has moved. I have that old Ordinance by me here. I do not want to quote too much from it, and to weary the House with it. But I want to quote one clause which in particular has a reference to this day, namely, clause 6—

Then follow all the fines and penalties for a contravention. What the hon. member did not even see, and what I always felt was a violation of Dingaan’s Day, is the holding of races. But the hon. member never saw that in this clause there is no reference to races. It seems to me that this Ordinance, which became law in the same year that the Voortrekkers left the Cape Colony, is a very old Ordinance, and an antiquated measure, and that dried-up shoot will not grow on the live republican stem on which the hon. member wants to graft it—of that you can be certain. The hon. member’s intention is very good. But the way in which he wants to apply his intention seems to me very wrong, just as wrong as is his view of the actual meaning of Dingaan’s Day. I want, with all deference, to give a hint to the hon. member for Malmesbury and also the hon. member for Mossel Bay. Why are they now looking so far to the North? We in the North are not exactly chickens. We realise our responsibility. I want to suggest that the hon. member should pay a little attention to his own, and the nearest surroundings. I appreciate it that they should now feel more strongly on the point of that vow of our ancestors.

Do you not have any feeling on the subject?

Yes, certainly; I sympathise with it. But there is a vow which is much older and to which we and they are not giving attention to-day. It is the vow, or rather the mandate, which Jan van Riebeeck gave us in connection with the day on which the colony was established at the Cape. It is in any case a day the effect of which was greater than that of Dingaan’s Day.

Greater?

Yes, greater, at least in the sense that if Van Riebeeck had not come to establish the colony here, then there would have been no population, and then there would have been no Dingaan’s Day. It seems to me that those hon. members have never yet paid attention to that mandate which Jan van Riebeeck gave to them and to all of us, but especially to those in these parts.

Is a mandate the same as a vow?

The mandate which Van Riebeeck gave us is the following—

That is the mandate, and I want to point out that a mandate implies more of an obligation than a vow. A mandate is a final and definite order. A vow is something which a person can take part in or not. It was in any case a mandate, and I just want to ask those hon. members whether they have ever yet thought of carrying out that mandate. Worse still—a few days ago I came here and I put on the Order Paper an amendment to a very good motion to turn that day into a festival, and I was told that I should not have moved it. I was told that I should withdraw it by, amongst others also, the hon. member for Malmesbury. I think that we should first of all start by sweeping clean before our own door a bit. That will assist a little more. I just want to add this, that I am opposed to this motion for another reason. It is because I am still, as ever, a two-stream man.

Up or down stream?

There are always people left who follow that two-stream policy, and I follow that policy in the sense that while, by my conduct and the respect which I show for my own institutions, I compel the respect of the other section, yet at the same time I also show respect for their institutions. But now you will say: What is being done by the English-speaking people to honour Dingaan’s Day? I admit that there is not very much done in many cases, but I also admit that in many cases the blame for it lies with us, in many cases because we—a thing which the hon. members have not done in this case—introduce the mud of party politics into our festivals. Hon. members must not forget what happened in connection with our great festival, the centenary festival in this connection, when the first citizen of the country, the most worthy citizen of our country, was insulted in a way that had never happened before. Let us try to sweep before our own door. I appreciate the zeal with which hon. members introduced the matter.

But you are not zealous.

I appreciate the zeal with which they introduced the matter, but where I differ from them is that they do not have the right appreciation of Dingaan’s Day. The motion as it stands before us here is quite unacceptable, because it wants, to all intents and purposes, to apply the Ordinance of 1838 to Dingaan’s Day, without taking into account the present times and the circumstances of to-day, and that makes a farce of the motion.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) put up a strong plea on behalf of this motion. From the trend of our religious history, we have 52 Sundays in the year in all the Christian countries of the world. There are people in our country, or there were people in the past, who thought that Dingaan’s Day should really be regarded as the 53rd Sunday of the people of South Africa. Well, there is a good deal to be said for that, and people who can split hairs can say a good deal in favour of and much against it. We can also do so here to-day, we could say much in favour of it and much against it if we wanted to split hairs. If we wanted to quote the scriptures, then we can, for instance, in that connection say that obedience is better than sacrifice. If we proclaim Dingaan’s Day as a 53rd Sunday, then it is to a certain extent a sacrifice. If we strictly observe and keep holy the 52 existing Sundays, then it is obedience. We will at once feel that it would be extremely silly to try to identify a matter of that religious nature to any extent with any political motive, and I want to say to hon. members opposite that that is the last motive which I would like to ascribe to them in connection with this matter. You know how I, since I have been a member of this House, have time after time pleaded for the rights of Dingaan’s Day. You know what a reception I had in the past on account of my efforts. I do not want to reproach anybody here; I do not want to make any reproach to-day against hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side, because as I have already said, there is a great deal to be said for and against it. This question comes up with me daily. When we are dealing with Dingaan’s Day, can we consider it as a 53rd Sunday in the country? I am now considering the matter from that point of view. I do not know if there are any hon. members on this side who also regard the matter from this point of view, but I say that we cannot regard it as an ordinary Sunday, and hon. members will agree with me, because that is supported by history, because never yet has any Dingaan’s Day been upheld in our history simply as a Sunday.

But what does the vow say?

According to the vow, as quoted by the mover of the motion, you will immediately feel that Dingaan’s Day was not simply a Sunday. There was something else added.

It was also a day of thanksgiving.

Yes, it was also a day of thanksgiving. Hon. members will immediately feel that mention is immediately made specially of the thanksgiving day—a day of thanksgiving after the great occurrences which had taken place on that day.

Under what Act do you wish us to bring it?

I do not blame my hon. friends for having introduced the motion, nor do I want to say that the hon. member could have moved it under some other Act. I utter no reproaches. I only want to say that I hope this House will debate the motion fully and clamly, and then come to a decision in that calm spirit. Take the vow word by word, as it stands, and then no one dare tell us that Dingaan’s Day can be proclaimed as an ordinary Sabbath day. If we take the history of how this day has been celebrated, then we know how it has been negelcted in our past history. Of late years the day has once more been taken up by the people of South Africa as a festival. I want to get back to the vow. If we examine that vow, then no one will be able to say that Dingaan’s Day was regarded purely as a Sunday. Where it was celebrated, it was not celebrated as an ordinary Sunday, but it was celebrated as a day of thanksgiving, a day on which joy was expressed about the victory, and on which homage was paid to those who had taken that vow, when they in the hour of their need, took their recourse to the Almighty. If now we take Dingaan’s Day as a 53rd Sunday in the year, then I say that I cannot and will not associate myself with it. If I may revert to what we have already tried to do to get that day treated honourably, then I say that we have not yet succeeded in it, and I now say that if hon. members opposite succeed in obtaining approval to treat this day as an ordinary Sunday, then we are not acting in the spirit of the day as it was instituted, and as it was celebrated in the past. Dingaan’s Day was instituted for us as a national day of remembrance, a day of thanksgiving for the victory that was obtained. Let us have that day as a day to think of that victory and of the fame of the heroes who fought that battle. Let us regard Dingaan’s Day as a day of remembrance and thanksgiving. But do not let us try to make an ordinary Sunday of it, and to keep it as such. The Sunday is a day of rest on which we should think of the great work of the Creator. It surely is not in the least the intention of my hon. friends opposite to say that we should use Dingaan’s Day for that purpose. That is the standpoint that I start from, and I want to ask hon. members to be calm about this matter, and to try and regard it from that standpoint themselves. When they defend this motion on other grounds, then they must not indulge in reproaches. If there is anyone in this House who can reproach other hon. members in connection with Dingaan’s Day, then it is I. But I do not want to do so in any circumstances. I do not say this in a spirit of reproach, but I want to point out that we are now concerned here with a case where the southern province of the Union says to the other provinces: Look at what we have done here, and you must do the same there. That is not the spirit of the Voortrekkers.

We have four provinces, but one people.

There I agree with the hon. member. We admit it. We do not quarrel about it. But here we have a case of the southern province telling us that this is what they have decided to do, and now we should also carry it out in the other provinces, and that is not right. If the people in the North were now to say that they will not do so unless they are forced by law, then we shall have a state of affairs which is not desirable, and which is not in conformity with the spirit of the Voortrekkers and Dingaan’s Day. If you want to have the ideal state of affairs, then I can simply refer you to the position which existed in the Transvaal before 1924. Then Dingaan’s Day was celebrated in the spirit in which we all probably long for it to be celebrated. All work was stopped, and everybody had the right to go and do what they wanted to on that day. No one was forced to do this or the other thing. If we are now going to pass this motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) then I say we are going to dragoon a large number of people who possibly differ from us. Hon. members know that there is a difference of opinion about this matter. There are people who say that there are 52 Sundays for rest …

They can rest on Dingaan’s Day as well.

Yes, but if this motion is passed, then they will be compelled to rest, and the position will be that their bodies will be at rest, but their souls will be in rebellion. People say that they do not want to have it as an ordinary Sunday. They want it as a national day of remembrance to hold demonstrations on that day, to hold wapenshaws and to celebrate it in the spirit in which it should be celebrated. Suppose that we were in Cape Town here to see a wapenshaw being held on an ordinary Sunday, what indignation would there not be, and how then can you say that we must keep Dingaan’s Day as a 53rd Sunday? Hon. members must clearly understand me, I do not mean to say that this day does not have a religious meaning. I admit that it has a religious meaning. But we must also remember that it is not only the sabbath day which has a religious meaning. We have other days as well nowadays which have a religious significance. I want to suggest to the House that we should debate this motion in a calm spirit, and that we should consider all these questions in a calm way. Now suppose, for example, that there are hon. members here who say to us that the people in the North also want Dingaan’s Day to be kept as this motive suggests. I still say that there are many people in the North who want to celebrate Dingaan’s Day in a spirit of a national day of remembrance, and not in the spirit of a 53rd Sunday.

It is not what the people want, but what the vow requires.

Then read the vow again, and you will see that there is no question of a 53rd Sunday.

But there is mention of a sabbath day.

Nowhere in history can you indicate that it was regarded as a 53rd Sunday.

You probably want to keep it as a Saturday night.

If the hon. member is frivolous, and laughs about this matter, well then I say that that certainly is not in the spirit in which this matter ought to be debated, and if that is the spirit in which the hon. member deals with it, then they cannot expect this question to receive the serious consideration that it deserves.

Just see to it that we fulfil the vow.

In regard to Dingaan’s Day, that motion of my hon. friend will not satisfy me. Ever since I have been in this House I have advocated a motion in connection with Dingaan’s Day, and my motion has seniority in this House. My predecessor was the Rev. Mr. Hattingh. He also used to move it year after year, and we have not even yet gone the length of listening to that motion, to restore Dingaan’s Day to the place of honour which it held before 1922. That motion has seniority over this motion which the hon. member moves, in order practically to declare Dingaan’s Day as a Sunday. We know that those people for whom we have pleaded, have had to keep on working on Dingaan’s Day just as in the past. We cover up that injustice, and we deceive ourselves and we deceive the people by coming forward with all this kind of thing, and we do not settle that question. We deceive ourselves and the people by saying: See how pious we are, and how we introduce motions of this kind, but those people are all still in the same position, and they still feel just as strongly about the matter as they did before. For that reason I cannot see why hon. members opposite should introduce this motion in that form, and why they do not start from the point of view from which I have approached the matter in the past, to restore Dingaan’s Day to its full honours.

But under what Act must we bring the day?

I have already time after time submitted a Bill to this House, and if the hon. member will go and read those Bills, then he will see under which laws I have dealt with Dingaan’s Day, so that the miners can also get their rights in connection with that day. The point I took was that we should recognise Dingaan’s Day as a national day of remembrance.

And we supported you.

Yes, I admit it, but there are also hon. members sitting opposite—I do not want to reproach them for it—who voted against it. That is the position, and I say here again to-day, as I have said in connection with the other motion which was moved by hon. members opposite in connection with Heroes’ Day, that I am going to vote for no public holiday, or any similar motion like this before those people have obtained their rights in connection with Dingaan’s Day.

But we supported you.

Yes, I admit it, but there are also hon. members opposite who voted against it. I do not want to reproach them, but I said this—I said the other day that I would vote for no Afrikaner day before the people got their rights. Hon. members will say that I am selfish. No, that is not the case. There are people who have been suffering injustice for years. I would not insist on this so strongly if it had not been already in existence, and I say first restore one injustice and then you can also have a further extension of Afrikaner Day, then you can also celebrate Afrikaner Day. No one is more sympathetic towards the honour which should be given to Dingaan’s Day, but if the motion is passed it will not yet satisfy me, because the injustice will continue to exist just the same.

Sitting here and listening to the speeches made on both sides of the House, and especially to the speeches which have been made this afternoon, I ask myself how much water will still have to run under the bridges before these two big white races will be able to understand each other’s point of view. What we are proposing here to-day is attributable to the struggle going on before us. I want frankly to say here that I try every day to understand the British sentiment, but that being so, I also ask hon. members on the other side also to try and understand the Afrikaner sentiment.

Do we not understand the Afrikaner sentiment?

. I want to keep politics out of this matter.

These to-day are the Voortrekkers of 100 years later.

I do not think anyone in the world will blame me, as I respect the British sentiment, for asking the other side also kindly to respect the Afrikaner sentiment, and that is all we ask for, and if I start from that point of view I surely have the right to-day to ask here, to ask the House to fulfil the vow which was made by a man who represented the Afrikaans-speaking population, and I assume that that vow is also respected by a section of the English-speaking population, because it is a vow which had a great deal to do with the struggle for civilisation in South Africa. I only ask for a little respect for the promise which those great Voortrekkers made on behalf of the people. Now we have the statement of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I assume that the hon. member, in stating his opinion, spoke the thoughts that were in his mind. And now I want to tell him that when we respect what he says, he should also show respect for what is said by us on this side, and we ask him to show respect towards a thing which was said by a person whom I had the honour to know personally, who in ecclesiastical matters rose to the highest rank in the Dutch Reformed Church, and he, up to his death, objected to the keeping of Dingaan’s Day as we were keeping it, because it was not celebrated in a sufficiently religious manner. He said that Sarel Cilliers never intended Dingaan’s Day to be kept up in the spirit that we were keeping it, but that he had characterised it as a Sabbath Day. Now the mover of the motion this afternoon does not ask for a 53rd Sunday, but he asks that the Sunday observance statutes shall be applied to Dingaan’s Day. And what are the Sunday laws?

What about Natal?

What actually are the Sunday laws now? May I mention a few things? Shops may not keep open—except where food is sold, as in restaurants; a man may under no circumstances legally sell a horse on a Sunday, nor a motor car either. If a man does so and does not get paid, then he cannot take action in order to recover it through the court. No sales may be held on Sunday. There may be no public sport, but that does not prevent me inviting my friends to go and play golf on a course which belongs to me or to a club of which I am a member, so long as the members who play there are members of the club. Nor does it prevent me from playing tennis on my court. We only ask that the few statutes which have been in existence since 1838 shall be made applicable to this day because we want to prevent this vow which, as it is, is not being carried out now as was intended, from being still further neglected, and that it shall no longer be honoured. The hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), said here: See, there is another day which in my opinion is greater than Dingaan’s Day, and that is Van Riebeeck’s Day. I do not want to balance the two against each other this afternoon, but I want to say this: You have no right to object to this motion in connection with Dingaan’s Day because Van Riebeeck Day is not yet celebrated as it ought to be celebrated. Two wrongs do not make a right. Let us begin with one. And if the hon. member for Pretoria, District, is serious in his argument, then he must support the motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser), with the prospect that his wish will also be fulfilled so far as Van Riebeeck Day is concerned. But the plea which we are putting up for the celebration of Dingaan’s Day being put on a proper basis is one which deserves the support of the hon. member. If he is honest in what he says, then he ought to support this motion. Dingaan’s Day is a day which we ought to keep holy in the way that Sarel Cilliers wished us to keep it holy. We admit that there are other people who possibly do not feel exactly the same as we do. But we also respect their feelings, and we ask them also to respect our feelings. We acknowledge the Almighty, and the power of the Almighty, and we admit our dependence on the Almighty, and it is for that reason that we support this motion. We admit our dependence on the Almighty. We admit it, and the highest legislative body in the country admits it. We admit our dependence on the Almighty. In consequence of that acknowledgment, not only in our country, but in all the Christian countries in the world, Sunday is kept as a Sabbath Day. We now ask that, in view of the making of this vow more than 100 years ago, we will recognise and will carry out the vow. We have hon. members of different races in this House, and we ask the members belonging to the different races to recognise this Afrikaner sentiment, and to assist us in the celebration of this day. We ask that the Sunday laws of the country shall be applied, so that we can keep the day in a worthy manner and can be faithful to the vow which was made by the Voortrekkers. That vow was taken more than 100 years ago by the great Afrikaner, and we now ask that all the sections of the population will respect that vow. That vow is a vow of great historical value to the people of South Africa.

I feel it a privilege to take part in this debate, first of all because I think that many in this House have a high regard both for the proposer and the seconder of the motion, even though they have the misfortune to be back benchers. I do not wholly share the apparent antipathy of my Parliamentary leader to these same back benchers—an antipathy which even in his case I am satisfied is more apparent than real. We are back benchers for the reason that we came here later than the others, not because we are of necessity half-witted. When we have been here sixty years or thereabouts we shall also have learned something of that ripe wisdom which front benchers so conspicuously display—at least we hope so, but even though we have not been here all our lives, we have been elsewhere for a considerable period. We have had our little elementary experiences outside the House, and we have learned in our simple way to put two and two togther; and sometimes we have had to say something, and have something to say.

Sometimes you got five for your answer.

I did not quite catch that; if I missed anything of value I am doubly sorry. But my own statement is that from junior members we do occassionally get something worth talking about. Why I consider it a privilege to sit here this afternoon is because we are going to discuss something which is not one of the customary burning questions of profit or loss financially. We are talking here of something which is right or wrong—it may be in our opinion only, but we are talking about a thing which, to many of us, is thoroughly worth while, and that is why I consider it a privilege to be allowed to say a word or two. And my second reason for so feeling is that we have in that Natal of ours, which is not fully understood, and may be not fully understandable—we English-speaking South Africans also have a great regard for Dingaan’s Day, for the very great culmination and exploit of arms that is celebrated on that day, and for the great promise which was given on that occasion. We honour Dingaan’s Day too. To many of us it is a great day; it is a commemoration of a great time in our history and of great men who laid the foundations of our State. We want it celebrated. The only possible difference we can have with anyone is as to what is the best way to do it. We want to find the highest way, but we have to remember that people are not showing too great an enthusiasm for the high ways in these days, they prefer the byways and the low ways. We have to find for the sake of the dignity of this Parliament the highest way, we have also to find a reasonable and a workable way. Now I like this old Act, this Ordinance No. 1 of the Cape of 1838. There is something more gracious about it than there is about some of our present-day Hansard transactions. There is a kind of atmosphere when you read the ancient Ordinance which reminds you of Lady Ann Barnard. Brave spirits, or ghosts, seem to hover near. The hon. member for Umbilo might even describe them as angels. There is something very fine about that old Act, and it would not do any member any harm to read it all, even if he were not prepared to follow it all. I like to think of those more leisurely days so long ago when the Governor, Sir George Napier, met his clerk at the Legislative Council, Mr. Hamilton, to discuss the very full programme for the year. There were no less than three important measures to be put through during that session. And cannot you hear Mr. Hamilton coming up to the old man—I mean to His Excellency the Governor, and saying: “I suppose we had better put this one first on the Order Paper”; and you can hear Sir George saying, “Yes, yes, certainly. By all means. Undoubtedly!”

All this is very interesting, but I do not think it touches the motion.

Does it not, sir? I am trying to show that there is something really gracious about the Act, and I was going to argue that if we can get some of the mellowness, some of what shall I say, the leisureliness—some of the preparation, some of the thinking before acting, of those times—if we can get that I venture to say that we shall not have wasted this afternoon. The Act itself is Ordinance No. 1 of the Cape. And I may perhaps be allowed to say this, that it is a pleasure to me and to many of us to see that in those times they put the first things first and not, as we do sometimes, put them last or never. There is much that is good in this Act. Perhaps I had better say what my difficulty precisely is.

Precisely.

Yes, sir, though precision is not the only virtue in the calendar. It would be a great pity to let that fineness disappear. Too many of our finenesses are disappearing, including good manners; but the point made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) also occurred to me. There are real difficulties. There are 52 Sundays in the year—and I do not know what the experience of other members may be—I do not know what their personal practice is, and I would not be so impertinent as to enquire —but even the 52 Sundays of the year are not, in general, used fully. They are not so fully devoted to prayer and praise and to remembrance as we could wish them to be. This proposal here in a measure aims at providing for a 53rd Sunday. I would welcome it, but that is where my difficulty comes in. Would the people follow? If we do not make use of the opportunities of our 52 Sundays what shall we do with the 53rd? I would remind the House that this Act which I have called gracious and pleasing is nevertheless quite considerably severe. I do not know whether you would want Dingaan’s Day to be a severe institution, and whether you would want the people to behave more strictly than they have to behave to-day on Sundays. But this is what the Ordinance says—I am quoting clause 6—

The Act is silent as to what procedure was normally followed in the circumstances.

That applies to public places.

Yes, but whether the fighting cock was afterwards cautioned and discharged is not mentioned, or whether the police officer on the following Monday devoted them to a chicken pie. Possibly the field-cornet took the animals away and entered them again, under his own colours, in a similar contest on some other more seemly occasion. We do not know. The Act goes on to say this—

Now here it must be admitted is a practical difficulty. Those old penalties, I suppose, would not be imposed. I do not suppose the motion implies any such thing. But here is proposed a considerable degree of strictness indeed. Could we preserve our Sundays in anything like that order to-day? And what shall we do to the people who go and play bowls or golf on Dingaan’s Day? And what shall we say to the people who organise and run horse races—who into the bargain also run horse races on Good Friday, the most sacred day in the Christian year? Can we carry this out? If we can I am all for it, but I doubt whether it is practicable.

Is your argument that because you cannot do it on Good Friday you cannot do it on Dingaan’s Day?

I say this, that in this proposal we are asking more for Dingaan’s Day than any Minister can probably get on any Sunday in the year, including Easter. We have, as I said earlier, allowed many fine things and valuable customs to disappear from our social life. We must face the facts. It is useless to pretend that things are different from what we know them to be.

The hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman), has quoted from the old Act which actually imposes the penalties when people commit certain contraventions on Sunday. Well, I am not concerned about the letter of the law. He being also a minister of the gospel will agree that the letter kills. It is the spirit that makes alive, and we want more spirit to be shown in connection with this matter. After having listened to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) it is clear to us what strange influences have already gradually made themselves the master in our national character. Here we now have two Afrikaansspeaking members of the House who have got up and opposed a motion like this with such a serious tendency. Now also the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), has spoken, for whose right-mindedness I have the greatest respect, and he says that the Voortrekkers even conducted sports on the day and held wapenshaws, but if the Voortrekkers did not celebrate the day rightly, and did not honour it properly, that is far from saying that we should follow their example. They were not righteous in all respects, but it is clear to me that the spirit was in which Sarel Cilliers intended the vow. The hon. member for Durban, North, says that it would be wrong to make a sabbath day of Dingaan’s Day. I say that it would be a magnificent gesture if this highest body of the people were to agree to a motion that this day should be regarded as a holy day, as an important day in our history, and if necessary as a sabbath day. It would have been a splendid thing if the Volksraad had indicated the line which we should follow in the future in order to celebrate Dingaan’s Day rightly. Dingaan’s Day is par excellence a religious festival. It is the fulfilment of a solemn vow which was taken in the greatest need, on one of our most critical occasions in our history. It is, in the first place, a religious solemnity, and a day of thanksgiving to Him whose hand we recognise in the history of the nations, and therefore also in the history of our own nation. In the first place, therefore, Dingaan’s Day is a day of remembrance. On that day we are reminded of the heroes of our people, of the sorrows which our ancestors had to suffer, but especially we must remember that it was on that day that the guidance of the Almighty saved our people. At any rate, the Lord says in his word that you must remember the whole of the road along which the Lord God has led you. In addition to that, we must remember the vow. Here it says—

Hence its religious tendency. It is in honour of Him who saved us from great danger in the hour of need, it was His right hand which brought relief. Just imagine the circumstances the people were in on that day. History tells us how they, on a pitch black night, were surrounded by thousands and thousands of barbarians, and it was unthinkable that they could gain the victory. But what happened? Sarel Cilliers, the religious leader, got into touch—if I may express it in a figurative way—with the Almighty, with the everlasting God. It was an act of faith, and hence came the salvation and the vow that if they obtained the victory, they would celebrate the day as a festival and a sabbath day. The vow, I submit, is binding on posterity, especially in the case of their own flesh and blood, on those in whom the blood of the Voortrekkers flows. We read that the Children of Ireael put the question: “What is this festival?” The fathers of that day said: “It is a festival of the Lord, when He led us out of Egypt.” To-day we say the same thing to our children. It is a festival in commemoration of the fact that the Lord saved us from disaster in the hour of trial. It is a day of the Lord. And how is not the day being desecrated to-day? I can understand that the Midianites and Phillistines cannot understand the meaning to-day. What do they know of an act of faith or of a vow to the holy God? Those Phillistines and Midianites had gold and material and earthly interests as their god. They do not think of such a thing as an act of faith. The day is being spent by the Midianites and Phillistines among us as a day of pleasure and a racing day. Just think of the Dingaan’s Day Handicap in Johannesburg.

It is being used as a political day.

If the Minister without Portfolio, and without sense, wants to keep that day as a day of pleasure, then I want to tell him that we do not want to do so. One can understand that the public have not the least idea of the inward meaning of the day. We want to make them understand how much our people are indebted, and how much they are indebted to the ancestors of the Afrikaner people. If it had not been for them they would not be able to make a living here to-day, not to become rich, not to lead a luxurious life without danger. By the sacrifice of our ancestors, it has been made possible for us to live in safety here, and therefore inasmuch as the ancestors made that solemn vow to celebrate the day, we have the right to make a claim that the day shall be celebrated by our people in the way in which it was intended. Because the victory over Dingaan was a victory of civilisation over barbarism, of Christianity over heathenism. It was made possible for us by that group of people that we could live in South Africa as a civilised part of the world. I cannot imagine what would have happened if Dingaan had obtained the victory on that day. These foreigners have come into this world seated on velvet. They enjoy the privileges of that victory, and I say that we ought in this respect to say to them that it does not meet with our approval for them to desecrate that day in this manner. What, however, we cannot understand is that there are Afrikaners, Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners, in whose veins the blood of those ancestors flows, and that they also are desecrating that day, and that they will not respect and keep that day holy, people who knowingly show disrespect for that day, and also tread underfoot in a shameless way the blood of our ancestors, and break that holy vow. That is a proof to us of how our national character is being demoralised by those influences from abroad in our country. But on the occasion of Dingaan’s Day there comes to us a voice from the graves of the past, from graves that are dear to us, that we must continue to build on the foundations which were laid by the Voortrekkers for us. The foundations which they laid are the foundations of a free republic on which we must continue to build for the future of our country. A republic is the only foundation-stone on which we can build an Afrikaans nation, and, accordingly, we plead for a republic for the future. Because they laid the foundation, it is a guarantee to us that South Africa will become a free independent republic. Dingaan’s Day exists for us as the embodiment of our whole national existence and history, and it is the expression of everything which is permanent and best in our national character. It teaches us that the Afrikaner people are the unit, and it teaches us whose blood flows in the veins of our people. I am convinced of the fact that by not fulfilling that vow and not respecting that day as a Sabbath Day, the Afrikaner people will bring a judgment upon itself. That is my feeling, and it induces me heartily to support this motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser).

I listened attentively to the mover and the seconder of this motion and also to other speakers, and what struck me was the fact that those hon. members proposed that Dingaan’s Day should be like a Sabbath Day. We know that Dingaan’s Day was instituted as a day of thanksgiving, which should be honoured like a Sabbath Day. If it was the intention of the pledge made that Dingaan’s Day should be only a Sabbath Day, why, then, was it added that it should also be a day of thanksgiving? That is a thing which has always struck me. It has been stated that because we are grateful to our ancestors, on that day we must give thanks to them. On the Sabbath Day we cannot pay homage to our ancestors; we cannot pray to the heroes of our history on that day, and give thanks to them for what they have done. That is the day on which we should only pray to the Almighty. The way in which our ancestors celebrated that day was by being grateful to their ancestors, by being happy in their minds, and by taking part and rejoicing at the victory achieved by our ancestors. It is for that reason that a great proportion of our ancestors celebrated Dingaan’s Day by displaying joy. They undoubtedly did that. I do not want to say that they did so in the way in which some people do to-day, by using Dingaan’s Day as a day of pleasure, but they undoubtedly rejoiced at the victory achieved on that day. That victory was not merely a victory given them by the Almighty, it was also a victory achieved by the Voortrekkers as a result of their deeds on that day. If, therefore, we want to proclaim Dingaan’s Day as a Sabbath Day, then I doubt very much whether by doing so we would be carrying out the purpose for winch that day was instituted. Now I should like to come to the question put here by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo). I feel that the spirit in which we should approach these matters is that we should ask everyone in the country to respect the sentiments of others. The soul of the whole question is contained in that. It appears to me that if we want to impose obligations on people by telling them how to celebrate that day, we should not be acting in the spirit of Dingaan’s Day. We are anxious that a spirit should be created among our people on that day, so that they will pay homage to our ancestors and to be grateful for what has been achieved on that day, but as soon as we start applying legal obligations, making it compulsory for people to celebrate that day in a particular way, I doubt whether we shall be developing that spirit. If by means of a law we want to introduce into Dingaan’s Day something which has never in our history been in it before, I doubt strongly whether we are going to strengthen the respect which we want to be shown to that day. We cannot stop other people from coming into our country; they come to South Africa, and it should be our object to make the celebration of that day attractive—within certain limits, of course—so that everybody can celebrate with us. I do not think that we can possibly achieve that object by compelling people to do certain things—that is the great point. Are we going to develop that spirit which we want to see here in regard to Dingaan’s Day, that spirit of cooperation and complete respect, if we bring compulsion to bear on people on that day? I do not think we are going to achieve that, and we should rather try to develop the right spirit in respect of that particular celebration among our people; and the great point is this, that we should try and induce our people as a whole to approach that day in the right spirit. We shall never achieve that by means of compulsion, but we shall be able to achieve it if we bring about a feeling of mutual respect. It should be our aim to make it possible for as many people as possible to take part in the celebrations on Dingaan’s Day, and we should not display a narrow and small-minded attitude which will have the effect of keeping people at a distance and making it impossible for them to join in our celebrations on that day. Let us all look upon that day as a great day in our history, as a day of commemoration for our people. That is my conception of Dingaan’s Day, and I hope that whatever we decide to do we shall all, by our behaviour on that day, induce others to have respect for that day, and to attend the celebrations on that day, so that our people as a whole will get that respect which we want for that day of commemoration.

Having listened to the various pleas put forward here in regard to the proposal introduced asking for Dingaan’s Day to be placed in a place of honour as allowed by the country’s laws under the obligations imposed upon the public to respect the Sabbath Day, we find that members opposite contend that we want to proclaim Dingaan’s Day as a Sabbath Day. We are only proposing that the obligations in connection with the law regarding the Sabbath Day should be used to have Dingaan’s Day treated with the proper’ amount of respect. That is all we are proposing and nothing more. It is regrettable to hear a man who calls himself an Afrikaner, and an old Republican at that, trying to make political capital out of this matter. We despise that sort of thing because a Sabbath Day and a day of thanksgiving like this is outside the political arena. As the last speaker said we should definitely honour that day as a day of thanksgiving because it is on that day that the arms of the Voortrekkers were blessed, and because a promise was made that that day would be honoured henceforth as a day of thanksgiving. It was a pledge which was farreaching and binding. It is a pledge which will bind us unto posterity. That pledge was made, that if God would bless our arms for the defeat of barbarism, that day would be honoured as a day of thanksgiving, like the Sabbath Day. It was there that we saw what was the will of God, so far as our people were concerned, 150 years after our people had settled in this country. Whatever may have been the aim of that settlement on that day God’s will in regard to our people was made clear, and the Afrikaner triumphed over barbarism and continued his civilisation throughout the country. The pledge was made, and if the Afrikaner wants to be faithful to his religious sense, and his tradition, then it is his duty to give effect to the pledge which was made there, which is binding upon us and those coming after us. That brings me again to what the last speaker said, that it was a day of thanksgiving; a day of thanksgiving certainly. It is because of that that the Afrikaner on that day sings with great respect: “To you, O Lord, I want to bring my thanks”. We also share in the joy of that victory and nobody more than our people has the right to rejoice on that day. We as a nation are entitled to rejoice because we know what our future depends on. Our joy on that day is not an idle joy. It is not a joy which is confined to a moment of delight; we are happy in our minds because we know what our future rests upon, and it is right that we should express our thanks in a joyful manner. Now I do not want to make a long speech here and deliver a lecture, but I think that it becomes us on an occasion like this in all earnestness to cast our minds back over the history of our people. Why is it that our nation has so repeatedly in its history been slandered? Is it not because we have not always honoured that pledge to the Almighty? If we honour our pledge to the Almighty we have the right to appeal to him in times of stress, but we must not merely in times of stress appeal to the Almighty and at other times forget the pledges made to the Almighty. We have not the right to do that, and is not that the reason why our people have so often had to undergo great trials, trials which resulted the suffering we had to endure in this country in 1938-’39? I say in all seriousness that he who does not keep his pledges to the Almighty and he who does not honour him in the way this pledge of ours binds us to do, will not receive the heritage that is his due. [Interruptions.] It grieves me that some hon. members should treat a serious matter like this in such a frivolous way. This is a serious question, and I take my calling seriously, as a man, as a citizen, and as a Christian. I do not want to make a long speech here, but I want to say this again to this House. If we want a future for the people of South Africa we must not forget our pledges to the Almighty. We must continue to build on the foundations laid for our people. We may speak here of democracy; we have had the one Government after the other, and we may do what we like—but the one thing always remains: fulfil your pledges to the Almighty and then you will have the right to ask him for his blessing. With these few words I wish to conclude. I want to express the hope that the Minister will look at the motion in that light. We ask that that day shall have the same protection which is given to the Sabbath. The hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) spoke contemptuously of the law of 1838. Have we got any other law which protects our Sabbath? Does not the protection of our Sabbath even to this day depend on what the Government made law in those days? Is it not a fact that Afrikanderdom, by its respect for the Sabbath, spread from this southern corner to the north of Africa? And then the hon. member comes here with his childish statement that that law is antiquated, and that we should not extend a law like that from the south to the north? He gives that as the reason which induced him to make that speech. I trust that we shall refrain from saying things like that, and that we shall feel this matter in all its seriousness, and that we shall realise the seriousness of the pledge which was given on our behalf. Let us carry out this pledge which was made to the Almighty, and not reject it. Let us, like Abraham of olden days, who also made a pledge, not renounce our heritage, and let us be worthy followers of those ancestors of ours who made that pledge.

I do not want to make long speech on this subject; there is no need for it. I feel, however, that it is my duty to state why I am unable to vote for this motion. My conception of Dingaan’s Day is still the same as it has always been—it is as the hon. member has read it out, that Dingaan’s Day should still be honoured in accordance with the pledge that was given. The Voortrekkers gave that pledge freely, without any compulsion, and subsequent generations which felt that they were bound by that pledge have carried it out in that spirit unto this day. But if we now are to compel the people in this House by means of legislation to carry out sacred promises, then to my mind we are going to commit acts which are nothing short of hypocrisy. We are going to make a farce of that sacred pledge. That is the reason why I am unable to vote for this motion. I do not want to moralise, and I do not want to lecture the House, but I want to refer the honourable the mover of this proposal to what appears in the Scriptures, “God is not mocked”. Let us take heed of those words appearing in Holy Writ.

We are trying to convince each other that the 16th December should be celebrated in a manner equivalent to the Sabbath Day. We are very much in earnest on this point. I am greatly astonished at the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) talking about hypocrisy in this connection. It is quite easy on the one hand to decide whether we should vote for or against this motion if we go into the question. I feel that after having given my reason for saying it the hon. member for Rustenburg will also hold a different view, and will no longer talk about hypocrisy.

I did not accuse hon. members opposite of hypocrisy; I spoke of all of us.

If you want to call yourself a hypocrite I can only say that I am not one, and I do not think there is a solitary hon. member on this side of the House who would deliberately be guilty of hypocrisy in connection with this matter. We must ask ourselves first of all: Do we believe that we must carry out the pledges made by our ancestors, or do we not believe it? That is a Christian question. It is not a question concerning people. Those people on the 15th December did not have ordinary people to deal with. To them it was a serious matter because it was the Almighty they were dealing with, and therfore when they found themselves in that great trouble they said to the Almighty in all righteousness and not with a sense of hypocrisy: “Help us to be victorious, and if we are victorious we shall celebrate this day as a Sabbath Day, and we shall tell posterity about it, and they will have to celebrate to-day as a day of Sabbath”. That is what happened on that occasion, and now the question first of all arises: Do you believe that we have to carry out that pledge; yes or no”? If we believe it there is nothing more to be said; that is the end of it, if we believe there is no need for us to try and convince each other. The second question is this: Do we claim to be a Christian people? The reason why I put that question is this: these things which occurred were not human things. It was a matter between man and God. For that reason we have to ask ourselves: Are we a Christian nation or are we not? If we claim to be a Christian nation we must also feel that it is our duty to carry out the pledge made by our ancestors as a Christian nation, and we cannot get away from it. To-day this question of the 16th December is a great matter so far as our people are concerned. We are already celebrating the day as a Sabbath Day, and we are now asking the Minister of Justice to help us in order that we may secure the position that that day shall be regarded as a Sabbath Day and shall be celebrated in that fashion. We have to do it. We can do nothing else. Our ancestors made that pledge. They made that pledge and they handed it on to us, and they told us about it so that we may be true to that pledge. Are we going to carry it out or not? We have to decide.

I want to congratulate both the mover and the seconder on the manner in which they introduced this motion, and I must congratulate them on the moderate way in which they spoke, and also on the fact that they kept politics entirely out of the question. In my reply I want to keep strictly to the merits of the case. I am sorry that I am unable to say that I share their views. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) said just now that in this regard we were not only dealing with people but that we were also concerned with God. It is the Divinity which has determined the Sabbath Day throughout the Christian world. There are no exceptions. No people in the world have proclaimed an additional Sunday over and above the sabbath davs already in existence. There are other Christian days which are of great significance, and which are regarded as sacred days; there are days such an Ascension Day and Good Friday, yet nobody has ever proposed that those days should be regarded as Sabbath Days. None the less these are serious and very sacred days, but they are not proclaimed as Sabbath Days, nor was it the intention of the Voortrekkers to do by human methods what so far has only been done by the Divinity, namely, to proclaim a Sabbath Day. Nor did Sarel Cilliers say so. And for that reason, on that point alone, I am opposed to the proposal that the Act applying to the Sabbath Day should also apply to Dingaan’s Day. That is one of the objections I have to this motion, but there are other objections as well. My hon. friend opposite assumed that what Sarel Cilliers said was this: “We shall declare this day to be a Sabbath Day, and we shall honour it.” But that was not what Sarel Cilliers declared; he did not say that that day would be declared a Sabbath Day. I want to quote his words and draw the attention of the House to those words. This is what he said, namely, that that day would be honoured each year in the first place as a birthday. A birthday is not a Sabbath Day. Secondly, he said that it would be a day of thanksgiving. He said that Dingaan’s Day would be celebrated as a birthday, and as I have already said a birthday is not a Sabbath Day; and then he said that as a day of thanksgiving it would be celebrated like a Sabbath Day. It was not the birthday which would be honoured like a Sabbath Day, but Dingaan’s Day would be honoured as a day of thanksgiving in the same way as the Sabbath Day. It is not stated that it would be held sacred like a Sabbath Day. I am not going to try to express my own view in regard to this matter. I only want to say this, that if anyone says he is going to celebrate Dingaan’s Day as a birthday my hon. friends cannot say that he is doing the wrong thing; and in addition it is a day which, as a day of thanksgiving, it is to be honoured as a Sabbath Day, and that is the way in which it is to be spent.

Do you approve of race meetings being held on that day?

I have just mentioned this point. My hon. friend may have his own view or his own interpretation of the position, but the man who celebrates Dingaan’s Day as a birthday of that victory honours the pledge made by Sarel Cilliers, even if the hon. member should differ from the way in which that person celebrates the day. I am not going to express my own view as to how I would celebrate that day, but I cannot say that the man who celebrates that day as a birthday of that victory has no grounds for his view; and if there is a difference of opinion I ask what is the best test? Is it not to see how Sarel Cilliers instituted that day, and what were the words he used? The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) said that the Voortrekkers would have been lacking in their duty if they had not celebrated Dingaan’s Day as a Sabbath Day. He attacked the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) because that hon. member drew attention to the manner in which the Voortrekkers and the next generation celebrated Dingaan’s Day, and he said that if they celebrated it in that fashion they were wrong in doing so. I should have thought that the people who instituted the day knew best what their intentions were in regard to that day, and the best test we can possibly apply is to see how the Voortrekkers spent that day. They never tried to apply the Sunday law to Dingaan’s Day and to make it a sacred day in the same way as a Sabbath Day. They regarded it as a day of thanksgiving and they rendered homage to the Almighty. They held wapenshaws on that day because their weapons had been instrumental in securing victory for them on that day, and we cannot say now that they celebrated that day in the wrong manner. We cannot say that they should have accepted our interpretation, and that we are going to improve on their interpretation. That is what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) said. He said that we must force the people back on the right course. Which course? Not the course of the Voortrekkers, but the course shown by my hon. friend in accordance with his interpretation of the pledge. He has not studied that pledge very carefully. I have attended many Dingaan’s Day celebrations. I have often heard it said that the pledge given was that Dingaan’s Day would be treated as a Sabbath Day; that was not the pledge. We cannot force people back to do what the hon. member wants them to do, and which does not conform with what was actually intended.

But you do not deny that that day should be honoured as a Sabbath Day?

As a day of thanksgiving it should be honoured as a Sabbath Day, but the “birthday” also enters into it. If my hon. friend wants to celebrate it in a specific manner, by all means let him do so, but do not deprive other people of their right to celebrate the day in the way they want to celebrate it. That is also one of the reasons why we cannot apply the Sunday Law to this day. But there are a great many other objections as well. I do not want to deal with all of them, I only want to say this, that the old Republican never interpreted that pledge in the way my hon. friends opposite now want to interpret it. The Republics were established by the Voortrekkers; the Voortrekkers were the people who sat in the meeting places of the Republics, and they did not try to turn Dingaan’s Day into a Sabbath Day. We know that they faithfully carried out their pledge, but even in Natal they did not try to make a Sabbath Day out of Dingaan’s Day. A large proportion of the Voortrekkers lived in Natal; they did not try to make Dingaan’s Day into a Sabbath Day. What right have we to-day to say that this or that should be done in regard to that day? If my hon. friends opposite think that they should celebrate the day in a specific manner, by all means let them do so, but do not let them try to compel others to act in conflict with their conscience. That is my great objection. I feel that one must have certain convictions in regard to this question. To try and compel people by legal sanction to celebrate the day in a particular way is something I am opposed to. Even if that pledge were not susceptible to any different interpretation except the one given by my hon. friends over there, I still say that we have no right to compel people by legislation to celebrate that day in a particular way. We should try to convince those people so that they will honour that day voluntarily and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, but we must not try to do it by means of legislation.

Have you the right to fix Sundays by means of legislation?

That is a different proposition. One may argue the point whether it is advisable. I do not want to go into that, but the position here is that in connection with a pledge of that kind it does not help to use compulsion. It must come spontaneously as a direct outcome of the people’s feelings, and we must do our best to see to it that the people celebrate Dingaan’s Day in the right manner. But neither the Voortrekkers, nor the Old Republics, nor anyone else, has ever tried to do what hon. members over there want to do now, and what was proposed ten years ago by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). For these reasons I appreciate the way in which this motion has been introduced, and I respect the views of hon. members opposite, but I want to point out that there are other people who do not view matters in the same light, and who feel that one should not compel others by means of legislation to celebrate Dingaan’s Day in the way hon. members opposite want to celebrate it. For these reasons I regret being unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the motion.

Will you leave it to a free vote of members of the House?

This is a private motion, and this is not a Government day, but I ask all members on this side of the House, and as many members as possible on the other side of the House, to vote against the motion.

I had not intended speaking on this motion, but after the speech of the hon. the Minister of Justice I feel that I must say a few words. The Minister’s defence as to why he is unable to accept the motion amounts to this, that it is unfair to force people who hold different views to recognise Dingaan’s Day as a Sabbath Day. That is where we differ from the Minister. South Africa is a Christian country, and the pledge which was made, also on behalf of generations to come, was made in a Christian spirit, and what we are asking to-day is that this day, Dingaan’s Day, in respect of which a definite promise was made, will be celebrated in the spirit of the pledge. The Minister himself admits that the pledge was given that Dingaan’s Day was to be honoured as a Sabbath Day; he draws a distinction between the words “eer” and “heilig”, “honour” and “keep sacred”, but he himself said that Dingaan’s Day should be honoured as a Sabbath Day.

As a day of thanksgiving which should be honoured like a Sabbath Day.

That is a quibble. The Minister cannot get away from the spirit in which that pledge was given, and it is not in that spirit that the people have acknowledged and respected that pledge in the past. Now the excuse is that one cannot force the recognition of that day as a Sabbath Day on people who do not hold the same views as we hold, but we on this side of the House take up the attitude that this country is a Christian State. I can understand the Minister being concerned with the feelings of certain people who are not Christians, but when they came to this country they knew that they were coming to a Christian country, and if they do not want to live in a Christian State, and if they do not want to respect Christian traditions and customs, and if they are so offended by those Christian customs, let them get out of it. This is a Christian State in which we are living, and we want to celebrate that day in the Christian spirit in which that pledge was given.

I did not speak of another section, but I spoke of the Voortrekkers who gave a different interpretation to the pledge from what hon. members now want to give it.

The hon. the Minister clearly stated that he could not expect the interpretation which we want to give to that pledge also to be given to it by other people.

I spoke about Afrikaners.

We know that there is a very large section, especially the non-Christian group, which has no sentiment for that day, and if they feel so strongly about it and if they want to take offence at our passing a resolution like this, well, let them take offence. If it is so offensive to them that they do not want to live here, then let them leave the country; but the Minister now says that the pledge was that this day would not be kept as a Sabbath Day, but that it should be respected. Then I want to ask the Minister, in view of this concrete pledge, whether it is showing respect to the day as a Sabbath Day if races are run on that day and other sporting events take place.

The Voortrekkers held wapenshaws.

The wapenshaws were held the day before Dingaan’s Day, but the 16th December was celebrated as a religious day. But now the Minister differentiates between the day being kept as a sacred day and the day being respected. Let us assume for a moment that that is the correct interpretation. Then I ask him whether it is showing proper respect for the day if big race meetings are held on Dingaan’s Day? That is what the people feel so hurt about, that the day which they regard as sacred and which they want to be respected in the spirit of their ancestors, should be desecrated in that fashion. It is for that reason that we are asking this House to accept this motion so that this day may be celebrated as a Sabbath Day, and I feel that we are putting forward a very reasonable request, and that those who find that they cannot agree with this proposal should think seriously whether they have not been guilty—perhaps not deliberately—of a breach of a pledge made by our ancestors to the Almighty. I want to make a final appeal to hon. members, particularly to the descendants of those people who have a feeling for that day and who cherish a strong sentiment for their ancestors. I can appreciate the fact that those people for whom the Minister pleaded so strongly do not feel anything for that day, but there are many others who are anxious to celebrate the day in the spirit in which it was intended, and we are asking the Minister to assist us so that in days to come we may be able to prevent people in this country from desecrating the day and from giving offence to those who want to celebrate the day in accordance with the spirit contained in the pledge of their ancestors. I want to make a final appeal to those hon. members. The Minister said that he did not regard it as a political question, and that hon. members were at liberty to vote as they pleased. I want to ask them to consider this question seriously, and not to vote on it in a casual way, and thereby do something which they may regret very deeply to-morrow or at some future date.

I only want to say a few words. I appreciate the appeal which hon. members opposite are making to us not to turn this into a party question. Dingaan’s Day is a great day of the Afrikaner nation, especially the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, and if it were possible to discuss this subject without dragging in party politics it would be a very happy thing for South Africa. But now I ask hon. members opposite why they exploited Dingaan’s Day in the way they did in 1938?

You should be ashamed of yourself, sit down.

No, I am not going to sit down. They exploited the day for party political purposes, and I therefore ask whether they are entitled to appeal to us. I do not believe that hon. members are really honest and serious in making this appeal to us. It seems to me that they are only talking for party political purposes. I did not feel inclined to take part in this debate.

You should keep quiet for your own sake.

Yes, and a man like him should have the right to talk. These are the new leaders of Afrikanerdom, but I who am the grandson of one of the Voortrekkers, and the son of a father who in 1848 fought against Sir Sarry Smith at Woonplaas, am not allowed to talk. That type of member opposite is to-day the political leader.

You have strayed considerably.

If one does not see eye to eye with them 100 per cent. one is not entitled to speak, and we are told we must keep quiet. I do not know what is going to be the result of this new doctrine. We shall gather the fruit which the previous Prime Minister gathered in 1939 when he was so disgracefully treated. We are going to be branded by that kind of political propaganda on the other side of the House.

You have been branded.

Do hon. members recollect that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) in 1928 put a similar motion before this House, and what did the Leader of the Nationalist Party say on behalf of the Nationalist Party? He said that we did not have the right to force Dingaan’s Day on to other members of the community.

Who said so?

General Hertzog.

And what did you say?

The motion was not agreed to.

What did you do?

I pleaded for it to be passed. That was my honest opinion, but many things have happened since 1928 which have changed my opinion, and the great thing is the way in which the Party organisation on the other side of the House on great days like Dingaan’s Day exploits the sentiment of the people.

Was it not the white cliffs of Dover which caused you to change your mind?

The hon. member should rather think of Lord Whitefeathers of Calvinia. Does he remember how they sent a telegram to the present Prime Minister?

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I am sorry but hon. members try to distract my attention and they will not let me speak. In 1928 I supported a similar motion and I do not take back anything I said then. In those days I used the expression and said that Dingaan’s Day was a sacred day so far as we Afrikaners are concerned, and I pointed out that we had this position, that a lot of Afrikaners held religious services while horse races were taking place next door.

Hear, hear!

But after that the other side of the House, particularly since 1938, started exploiting the sentiments and the history of the Afrikaner people, and that was the thing which put met up against it.

And now you think they can carry on with their races.

I now feel that the Prime Minister was right at that time, and that we must not force Dingaan’s Day down the throats of the other section of the community. I am sorry if we should have to discuss this motion in this spirit, and if the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) wants to be sensible, I think he should withdraw his motion. By putting forward a motion of this kind at a time like the present feelings are unnecessarily stirred up. They now want to brand those of us sitting on this side of the House. We are branded on Dingaan’s Day as traitors and all kind of epithets are used against us. The hon. member knows that it is a passing phase, and when the clouds which are hanging over us to-day have cleared away we shall be able to see things more clearly, and it will then be possible for us to discuss matters of this kind quietly and dispassionately. These things are raised to-day for political purposes and nothing else. So far as my feelings for Afrikanerdom and history are concerned I take second place to none. If necessary, I am prepared to fight for Afrikanerdom and for the existence of my people, in exactly the same way as I did in the past, but the sentiment and the history of the nation are being exploited to-day. I have always said that I felt that the history of South Africa, of Dutch-speaking South Africa, was one of the greatest in the world. There is nothing to be ashamed of in it, but we are ashamed of the way in which hon. members opposite have been carrying on since 1938; of the way in which they are misleading the people by the propaganda of the Keerom Street Press. I think it would be better to leave matters at that. Let these troubled waters first clear up, and let a different spirit pervade this country, and only then shall we be able to discuss these matters dispassionately.

I am sorry to hear that the Minister of Justice refuses to accept this motion. Still, he discussed this question quietly and dispassionately, and we respect him because of that. I am sorry the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) spoke in such a very different way. The hon. member for Rustenburg made a very serious accusation against me. I want to tell him, however, that he should not always judge others by himself. If he fouls his own nest he must not imagine that others are doing the same sort of thing. In regard to the hon. member for Kimberley District he has sunk to such a low level that in everything brought up before this House he tries to find the lowest political motives. He has sunk so low that he is always looking for sinister motives in others. He tells us that he cannot vote for this motion on account of the treatment which he and some of his friends have had to put up with during the last few years. Is that a reason why he should vote against this motion? We are dealing here with a pledge and we want that pledge to be fulfilled, and what has the way in which hon. members were treated in the past to do with it? At the moment the question at issue is to do the right thing by Dingaan’s Day and to carry out a solemn pledge which was given also in regard to coming generations. Now let us see how the hon. member for Kimberley District has been estranged from his own people. Let us see how he felt about this matter in the past and what he said when a similar motion was bfore this House on a previous occasion. In those days he spoke differently, and in those days his people stood by him and respected him, but he has rejected his people. How can he expect his people to have any respect for him in those circumstances? This is what he said in Hansard, volume 10, column 906—

That is what the hon. member for Kimberley District said, and that is how he spoke in days gone by. Now he runs away from his past, and his excuse is that he has a personal grievance. Is that a reason for renouncing one’s past, where such a serious matter is at issue? No, the hon. member unfortunately is disloyal to everything he stood for in the past and he is also disloyal in this matter. When I introduced my motion this afternoon I cast no aspersions, and I asked the House to let the past rest, and to do as we are expected to do in a time like the present; to act in a way the Afrikaner nation, which still believes in the Almighty, may be expected to act. I am very sorry that the Minister of Justice, too, for totally different reasons, is unable to accept my motion. He gave a wrong interpretation to my motion. My motion does not anywhere ask for Dingaan’s Day to be declared a Sabbath Day; all that it asks for is that Dingaan’s Day shall be regarded as a Sunday in accordance with our pledge. That does not mean that we are proclaiming Dingaan’s Day as a Sunday. If we apply the same laws to New Year’s Day as we apply to Christmas, it does not mean that we are turning New Year’s Day into an additional Christmas Day. Why do hon. members look for other meanings in words which surely are perfectly clear? I do not believe that any injustice is being done to the English-speaking section in this motion of mine. The victory at Blood River was a victory by white civilisation over barbarism. Are the English-speaking section not interested in that? I go further, and I even say that that victory was in the interest of the non-Europeans as well. If it had not occurred I ask what would have happened to the kaffir tribes which would have been left to the mercy of a Dingaan and his Zulus? Murder and assassinations on a huge scale would have taken place. We can rightly say that this victory on the 16th December, 1838, was of the greatest importance to every section in the country which regards itself as an Afrikaner section. The Minister has admitted that this is a delicate question, and it is regrettable that the hon. members for Rustenburg and Kimberley District saw fit to drag down the debate to such a low level. In view of the fact that the Minister had admitted this to be a delicate question, and as there may be a difference of opinion, and seeing that there is a difference of interpretation between the Minister and myself as to the meaning of the pledge, the Minister is leaving it to the free vote of the House to decide. I am prepared to respect his view, but let him also respect mine, and not try to make this into a political question.

I clearly stated that it was not a Government matter, and that members could vote as they pleased—but I ask them to vote against the motion.

I want to conclude with this: If words have any meaning it is perfectly clear that this pledge meant that the 16th December of every year was to be celebrated as a day of thanksgiving “like a Sabbath Day”. When we ask for the Sabbath clause to be applied to Dingaan’s Day we do not ask the Government to proclaim Dingaan’s Day a Sabbath day. The Minister said that he did not wish to exert any compulsion, but that it should come from the hearts of the people. Well, we also expect the observance of Sunday to come from the heart of the people; in spite of that we have our Sabbath laws which exercise certain compulsion. I hope the Minister will still see his way to accept the motion, and that he will not look for an excuse and give an interpretation to the motion different from the one which should be given to it if words have any meaning.

Motion put and a division called.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) asked for a division. Has he got the right now to vote on the other side?

Several hon. members got up and I did not see the hon. member for Humansdorp, but the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys).

The House divided:

Ayes—29:

Badenhorst, A, L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman. N. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

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

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—61:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Nel, O. R.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood. K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I shall not detain the House very long because the motion speaks for itself. I move—

This motion has been introduced as a result of what happened at the end of last year. A conflict arose between the wheat farmers and their representatives on the one side, and the Government on the other side in regard to the price of wheat which had to be fixed at the end of last year. That conflict lasted some considerable time. The wheat farmers sent various deputations, particularly to the Wheat Control Board, and the Wheat Control Board received and listened to those deputations. Afterwards deputations also waited on the Government. It is no longer a secret because it was stated in the Press that the Wheat Control Board had recommended that the price of wheat should be fixed at 24s. and 25s. per bag for first grade. The Government turned down that proposal of the Wheat Control Board. I say that that is a matter of general knowledge because it appeared in the Press. So far as I was able to understand at the time the Government referred the recommendation back to the Wheat Control Board. The Wheat Control Board thereupon met deputations from the wheat farmers and again made representations to the Government, but the Government hardened its heart and said that it had information at its disposal which had made it come to the conclusion that the costs of production of wheat, as a result of the abnormal times, had not gone up to such an extent that the wheat farmers were entitled to more than 22s. and 23s. per bag. And that was how the price was fixed. The wheat farmers maintained, and they still maintain, that the Government did not take into account all the factors which contributed to the increase in the costs of production and the cost of living. The wheat farmers, especially here in the Western parts, had a thorough investigation made insofar as they were able to do so, and they arrived at a decision which they have submitted, that the price up to the end of last year so far as production costs are concerned, have gone up during the war time as follows:

That brings the increase in production costs to 6s. 5d. per bag. That, the wheat farmers said, was the result of their inquiry. They called as evidence a person who has a great reputation in wheat circles, namely, Professor Pretorius. He looked into the production costs for the years 1929-’30 and 1931. It is stated that he had said on one occasion that the costs during the last year amounted to 21s. 3d. per bag. That is to say the cost of production on a bag of wheat.

When was that?

I say that Professor Pretorius made his investigations in the year 1929-’31 and that he made a statement on the production costs of wheat. After that he made a further statement to the effect that the costs of production to his mind amounted to 21s. 3d.

When?

His finding was based on the production costs in 1929 to 1931.

But in which year were the production costs 21s. 3d?

I think I have been very clear. His finding is based on the production costs for 1929, 1930 and 1931. Those costs amounted to 21s. 3d., and the wheat farmers said that if they amounted to 21s. 3d. in those days for a bag of first grade wheat, the level must be much higher now. In any case, after a very thorough investigation, they arrived at the conclusion I have mentioned, namely, that the total increase until the end of last year in these abnormal times amounted to 6s. 5d. per bag for first grade wheat. Now let us assume that there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the wheat farmers in South Africa as to what are the actual costs of production for a bag of wheat. If that is so, it is reasonable for us to ask that a thorough investigation shall be held. I want to point out that we are dealing here with an industry out of which very many people have to make a living in South Africa, and the last investigation made into the wheat industry took place in 1919. That was the last occasion on which an investigation was made on behalf of the Government, and on that occasion it was a Departmental investigation. To-day we are asking: “Give us a Commission, not a Commission which is going to tell us in a high-falutin’ manner how the wheat farmer should produce wheat, but a Commission consisting of people with a knowledge of all aspects of the matter, which will be able to inform us of its findings in regard to the production of wheat in the various parts of South Africa in a clear and simple manner.” I cannot conceive that the Government can look upon a request of that kind as unreasonable. The wheat farmers are entitled to have their views considered by the Government in this respect. The objection is raised that the investigation will lead to the price of wheat going up, and if the price of wheat goes up the price of bread will also go up. Let me point to an anomaly which exists here in South Africa. Ours is a peculiar country in this respect. Often, when the price of wheat goes down, the price of bread goes up. Let me give an instance of what happened in 1935. In all these cases I am giving the average price of wheat. The price of first-grade wheat was 21s. per bag, and the price of unsifted meal in Johannesburg was 28s. In 1937 the price of first-grade wheat was 16s. 6d., and the price of unsifted meal in Johannesburg was 32s. One could hardly believe it. While the price of wheat went down, the price of bread went up.

When was this?

That was in 1935 and in 1937. In 1915 the price of wheat was 30s. per bag on an average, and the price of bread was 3.2d. per lb. In 1940 the average price of wheat was 20s. per bag, but the price of bread was not 3.2d., but it was 3.5d. When the price of wheat was 30s. per bag, the price of bread was 3.2d., but when the price was 21s. per bag, the price of bread was 3.5d. The price of wheat apparently makes no difference. In this connection I should like to refer to what Mr. Havenga, as Minister of Finance, said in 1931. He said this—

I also want to refer to what Mr. Joubert, the chairman of the Wheat Control Board, said on the 24th November, 1937, when he stated—

That is all I want to say in regard to this motion. There is no industry in the country which has passed through such difficult times as the wheat industry; there is no section of the community which has asked for so little from the Government as the wheat farmers. They have now come along with this request for the Government to appoint a Commission to decide this matter, and to arrive at a definite conclusion on the question of what the costs of production of wheat are in the various parts of the country. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), I notice that the hon. member is not here, and I trust that nobody else will move his amendment. It would only make the work of the Commission more difficult.

I suggest that the hon. member should wait and see whether the amendment is going to be proposed.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, then I want to ask that what I have said be regarded as not having been said. I wish to conclude by asking the Government seriously to consider this motion.

I second. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is aware of the fact that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among the wheat farmers about the prices which were received for wheat during the past few years. I do not think it is necessary for me to tell the Minister anything about that, he knows it himself. In regard to the last prices fixed for wheat, no fewer than three deputations waited on him. He cannot say, therefore, that he has not been well informed by the wheat farmers as to what their attitude is. When we sent a deputation to Pretoria on the second occasion, the Minister said that if we could convince the Marketing Board that their recommendations to him had been wrong, he would be willing to reconsider the whole matter. Time does not allow me to go into the question as to whether his suggestion was fair or not, but we met the Marketing Board twice, and after having met the Marketing Board that deputation, together with the chairman of the Marketing Board, went to the Minister. The views of the deputation, as well as the views of the Marketing Board, were placed before the Minister. It was therefore the Minister’s duty to come to a decision. The Minister did not give an immediate reply. It took weeks before we got a reply, and eventually he sent us this reply. The letter came from the Secretary for Agriculture, and the relevant part reads as follows—

Now, I take it that the Minister is not hiding behind the Marketing Board. He clearly stated here yesterday that he was convinced that the wheat farmers were getting a fair price. We discussed two matters with the Minister among other matters. We discussed the basic price of wheat. We drew attention to the figure which the Marketing Board had suggested for us to base our arguments on. They left us no alternative. They said that we should base our data on the findings of the investigation by the Division of Economics and Marketing, and what were the conclusions resulting from that investigation? The conclusions for four sub-districts in the Western Province, and the South-Western Districts, were that the profits on the wheat industry were as follows: In Swartland the average profit per farm made on wheat was £286 7s. In the Swartland area the profit was £7.3 per farm; in Die Ruggens the profit was £28.9, and in the Border districts of Die Ruggens there was a loss of £9.1. But when we took that figure which we were compelled to use according to the Marketing Board’s argument what excuse did the Marketing Board and the Minister look for them? I have it in my hand here—

The Marketing Board and the Minister instructed us that we were to base our arguments on the findings of the Division of Economics and Marketing, and that we were to base all our arguments and our figures on those findings, but when we in turn relied on the findings of the Division of Economics and Marketing we were told that on account of the fact that we had doubted their findings on another occasion we could no longer use those findings. Right throughout all the discussions we were compelled to use that data, but when we had the Minister and the Board of Trade in a corner they told us that we could not use those figures. What did we find? We found that the investigation made by them had shown that in the years 1938-’39 the wheat industry had not been profitable. We found that it was not profitable on the fixed basic prices, but the Minister refused to allow us to use those findings. As I have shown, the Marketing Board, on the basis of that investigation, fixed the increase in the costs of production at 2s. per bag, and on those figures the deputation put the amount at 3s. 9d. per bag. Let us take the figure which was arrived at by the Division of Economics and Marketing. But what did the Division of Economics and Marketing base that figure on? They found that the yield of wheat per morgen was 7½ bags. The agricultural census proved that for the last three years it had been six bags per morgen, and for the last six years it had been 6.37 bags per morgen. If the finding of the Division of Economics and Marketing on this one point was faulty, what right had they to demand that we should accept the other data they had? If we only take that difference between their figure and the agricultural census—and if our census returns are of any value, we have to accept that figure —hon. members must at once realise that the increase in costs of production which the farmers could have shown was not 3s. 9d. per bag, but 4s. 5d. per bag. On that one mistake we found that difference. We were instructed to accept that position. My time does not allow me to go into this question any further; I am sorry I cannot go into this whole matter at length. I want to make an appeal to other members as well not to talk this motion out. I have only been speaking for ten minutes, and I shall have concluded my remarks in a few minutes. The man who means well by the wheat farmers will not talk this motion out. The enemy of the wheat farmer, and the protector of the Government, will try to talk it out.

Just look at the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet).

No, I am looking at the Minister of Agriculture. We know that the Minister of Agriculture will tell us that an enquiry has been made and that the report is in print, but that enquiry was not made with this object in view. If we want to use that information, then it is not right to make an enquiry into only one year. I think the Division of Economics and Marketing will admit that we should not enquire into only one year, if we want to have a thorough and exhaustive investigation which will give us reliable facts. In order to do that we want a Commission like the one asked for in the motion, and for that reason I support the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) most heartily. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not hide behind the statement that an investigation has already been made. We ask him to go further and to make the enquiry more extensive, and he will do so if he accepts the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

I want to move an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). My amendment is—

1. (a) costs of production of wheat, milled wheaten products and bread;
2. (b) the system of farming practised in the main wheat growing areas and the suitability or otherwise of these areas for the cultivation of wheat;
3. (c) the adequacy or otherwise of the protection accorded to the wheat industry; and
4. (d) the advantages and disadvantages arising out of the present protection policy”.

Do you want a commission to make this investigation?

My amendment reads: “to delete all words after “Commission” so that the word “Commission” remains in the motion. If we had nothing better I should wholeheartedly have supported the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). But the question arises in my mind whether if the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg is accepted by the Minister, and the price of wheat in consequence of that motion is raised by 1s. or a couple of shillings, we are going to achieve our object in that way? And I must say honestly, as a wheat farmer, and as a man who is in close touch with the wheat farmers and their interests, that we are not going to achieve our object. Let us bear in mind for instance the fact that there are certain districts in the Western Wheat Circle which used to be the principle wheat producing area of the Union, and which now for the first time in its history, for two successive years, had hardly any crop at all. It is no use raising the price by 1s. or a couple of shillings per bag, if the man is still left in a position where, after having incurred heavy expenses in planting his wheat, he still has no crop, and is consequently unable to get those few extra shillings from his wheat. We have had quite enough trouble in the wheat industry as a result of these superficial enquiries. Last year, and also before that, we had similar motions proposed by the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Major van der Bijl) and it is due to these superficial enquiries in connection with the wheat industry that we are in a position to-day where the hon. member for Moorreesburg is again finding it necessary to ask for a fresh enquiry into the costs of production of wheat. We have had these superficial investigations which have not gone into the very depth of the evil. We have had enquiries which have only dealt with the question from a restricted and superficial point of view. If we have to continue with that kind of investigation it seems to me that we can compare the position with that of Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. The wheat farmers are in a precarious position, but none the less we are dealing with the whole position superficially, and merely with the object of taking temporary relief measures. I think we should go much more thoroughly into it. We have reached the stage where we must go to the root of the matter; perhaps salvation has to be looked for by a total revolution in farming methods in settled wheat areas. One finds to-day that old settled wheat growers have in many cases forsaken the old methods. As the land becomes exhausted and the production of wheat becomes more intensive, people are compelled to apply new and modern methods, and to resort especially to rotation crops under which one plants wheat on a piece of ground one year, and then misses two or three years before producing wheat again on the same ground. Do we possibly need such a system in South Africa in the interest of the wheat farmers, in order to save the wheat farmers? Let me say that I know of an experiment in that direction when lucerne and wheat were produced in turn, with the result that the same soil produced from 12 to 20 bags per bag more. What do a few shillings per bag more mean for wheat when by a change in the system one may perhaps be able to increase the wheat production by one-third, or perhaps double it? In a case like that a small increase in the price means nothing at all, but the position to-day is uncertain, and there is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. For that reason it is essential now to go to the root of the evil. Let me mention a special case. There are dozens of them in my constituency; twenty-two years ago a man bought a farm for £10,000. Twelve years later it was fully paid for and he did not have a penny debt. To-day he again owes £10,000 on the land. That is the position. In the past ten or twelve years the wheat farmers have been going steadily backwards, and that hard working independent section of the population is disappearing. In connection with (c) and (d) of my amendment I just want to say that the protection which we had in the past did not answer its purpose. We know that wheat enjoys the protection of 22s. 6d. at the ports, but in spite of this no farmer has in all those years received 22s. 6d. for his wheat, although with the exception of a few years there has always been a shortage of wheat in the country. That proves that the protection policy does not answer its purpose and a new system has to be instituted which will answer its purpose. The principle has been accepted that the farmer must get 22s. 6d. for his wheat, but in spite of that they did not get it in normal times, and they were unable in normal times to make a living, so what about these abnormal times? Even to-day the farmers do not get 22s. 6d. Can we be surprised at the fact that they are continually deteriorating in their position? The price of wheat was originally fixed by the Board of Control at 20s., which was too low. When the price was fixed at 20s. the wheat farmers were in such a precarious position that they resorted to any means of salvation.

The position was that they used to get 13s. and 14s., and they thought that things would improve if they got 20s. The price was thereupon fixed by the Board of Control at 20s. The farmers in desperation accepted that price owing to the fact that they had no alternative. There was nothing else they could do in the desperate position in which they found thmselves, but the price was too low. I do not want to go into the question of grading of wheat to-day, as I do not want to talk out this motion; I just want to say that the grades have been so fixed and that the prices for the grades have been so fixed that it is highly detrimental to the wheat producers. In the Western District—the corn sheds of the country—large numbers of people are being sold up and they are being driven off the platteland in scores. Instead of their being an asset to the country they are becoming a burden to the State. For that reason I say that this matter should be more thoroughly investigated than provided for under the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. Those people have been dispirited and overwhelmed by a concatation of circumstancs over which they have no control. I therefore want to appeal to the Minister, having expressed these few thoughts, to seriously consider my amendment in the interests of a very important industry in our country, and I want to ask him to be good enough to accept my amendment.

I second the amendment.

It is pretty late, and I want to assist the mover of this motion in getting the matter disposed of, and I therefore want to reply at once. I am sorry I have not got the time to go properly into this matter, for the same reasons which both the mover and the seconder had in expediting this matter. I think it is somewhat unfair that I am not getting the opportunity to defend myself against the allegations which have been made, but none the less in the time at my disposal I want to say a few words. As the mover said, the reason for this motion is the dispute which arose when the price for the current year had to be fixed. As hon. members know, the point at issue was the increase in the costs of production as a result of the war. I then told the wheat farmers, and I still say so, that I am convinced that they put the increase in the costs of production of wheat far too high, that they did not pay sufficient attention to that aspect of the matter, and that they had not made out a case for the increase they asked for. Just to use one argument. The wheat farmer said that the costs of production generally had gone up by 6s. 6d.

They did not differentiate between the wheat farmers of the Transvaal, the wheat farmers of the Free State and the wheat farmers of the Cape, in spite of the fact that anyone with the slightest knowledge of the position knows that the conditions in the three provinces are entirely different. The costs of production in the three provinces differ very considerably. In the Transvaal the costs of production are much lower than they are in the Cape Province, and in the Free State when they produce wheat the costs of production are still lower than in the Transvaal. I admit that in the Free State they often have no crops—it is a catch crop. The Transvaal said that they were satisfied with 6s. 3d., and the Free State said they were also satisfied with that, but the figures are wrong. According to what the hon. member for Malmesbury said, the costs of production of wheat went up by 25 per cent. in one year as a result of the war. I am merely mentioning this because it is most improbable. Consequenttly, when the Marketing Board reported and indicated that the increase was 10 per cent. at the utmost that figure had to be taken as being nearer the probable position. After I had received that report and had gone into the figures I came to the conclusion that the Marketing Board was right, and that the people who mentioned 6s. 6d. were wrong. Nothing has happened since that time to make me change my mind. The hon. member for Malmesbury was a member of both deputations which came to Pretoria. I said then: “Very well, we shall have two sittings; you people go first and discuss this matter with the respresentatives of my department, and then you can come along so that I can hear both”. What was the result? They said that they were not able to prove that the technical officers were wrong, and that they therefore had to accept their figures, and after that they left.

That is not true.

They did not accept those figures.

In any case they were not able to disprove their correctness.

That is a different matter.

Anyhow, I know that we parted in a friendly manner and that the deputation was probably satisfied.

You mean they did not bang the table with their fists?

No, we parted on a friendly basis. The next deputation came along and they again discussed the position with the officials. I know there was a Congress on in Pretoria at the time, and they also asked me to meet them, together with the Chairman of the Marketing Board, and I think I am giving a correct representation of the position when I say that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) said: “Well, we see what the position is, but I should like to place certain points before you”.

That is not true.

I am saying what happened at those discussions. The hon. member admitted that on the figures placed before them they could do no more.

I did not admit the figures.

Anyhow, I say that the deputation did not submit any figures to me, or did not use any arguments which could make me feel that they were right and that the Marketing Board was wrong: they were not able to do so, and they did not use any arguments to make me change my mind. I think that most people who know anything about this matter will agree that it is more probable that the costs of production in one year of war went up by 10 per cent. than by 25 per cent.—I do not even want to talk of the first figures which were mentioned. I know this, that if the Transvaal can get increased costs of production at 21s. before the war as a basis, the wheat farmers in the Transvaal will make handsome profits.

You make me feel strongly in favour of a Commission of Enquiry.

I am coming to that. I told the deputation that it appeared to me that it was not a question of the costs of production, but that it was a question of the land on which wheat was being produced, that there were other causes, and that we had to go into the question whether the system of farming and the land on which we were farming were not the causes—whether the fault did not lie there. As I see it the trouble is that the yield in the Cape Province is so low that probably if one later on lays down 27s. per bag they will not even be able to come out on that. I therefore feel strongly in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). It is clear to me that salvation does not lie so much in the costs of production but that the fault must be looked for in the soil. Is the position that districts where wheat is being produced have become so impoverished as a result of wrong farming, or farming on land where wheat cannot be grown? Are the methods of farming right or wrong? Are the costs of the machinery used too high? Can we bring down those costs? Is the great cause of the trouble perhaps to be found there? That is why I am inclined to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon, and I hope the hon. member for Mooorreesburg will be satisfied with that. If we have to have an investigation let it be a thorough and exhaustive one. I can only say that I for my part will try to expedite the matter because I want to get a finding as soon as possible on this matter. I am therefore prepared to accent the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon.

I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry most sincerely for his willingness to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) on the fact that he has at last succeeded, after I have been struggling for eight years, to get a motion of this kind passed by the House. To me, as a practical wheat farmer, it was always as clear as the day what we had to expect in days to come if steps were not taken at an early stage to avoid the danger.

And now you want to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the protection policy by this amendment.

I want the whole question gone into —I do not want any patchwork to be done. Although I am congratulating the hon. member on his motion, I feel that it does not go far enough. I want a comprehensive enquiry made, and we have to know exactly what the position is. On the 14th June, 1933, I asked for the first time in this House for a Commission to make an enquiry into the whole of the wheat industry, and I notice from my speech that I said—

It appears in Hansard, and I fear that there are a great many farmers for whom the enquiry will come too late; a great number of them have already left their farms. If the Government and the people had had the information eight years ago—the information which I expect from the Commission— farmers who are now giving up growing crops might have been saved. The farmers are not people who lightly throw up the sponge. They are accustomed to suffer hardships, and the fact that many of them are saying farewell to agriculture must not be attributed to the fact that they had no crops last year or the year before, but it must be attributed to the fact that for the last eight or ten years, year after year, they have not made any decent profits. The crop of throwing up the sponge which we are reaping to-day was planted years ago, and if we had had the information which we expect to get from this Commission a long time back, the position would not have been as serious as it is to-day, but it does not help to cry over spilt milk. We are now reaping what previous Governments have sown, as a result of their failing to have a proper investigation made. I hope the steps which are to be taken will not be too late, and I feel that the House and the farmers will congratulate the Minister on the fact that in a difficult time like the present, when the Government has to contend with all the difficulties created by the war, he is tackling this very important matter, particularly in view of the fact that previous Governments in times of peace and prosperity, when there was a great deal more chance of dealing with this problem, missed their opportunities. There are complaints that the prices of wheat are too low, and there is a certain amount of justification for those complaints, but our great trouble in recent years has been the crop failures, and in cases of that kind an increased price of 1s. or 2s. per bag will be of no use. It is no use offering a man £5 per bag if he has produced nothing, or if he has got no wheat to sell. It only helps the man who has a good crop, and the man who has got a good crop does not need it. And, furthermore, it will only help to encourage more people in the north to sow more wheat—but I shall come back to that point. The great difference between the position 20 years ago and to-day lies in the fact that in those days we were able to farm more cheaply, because in those days we used horses and donkeys to do the ploughing and so on. To-day everything has been mechanised, and the costs involved by mechanisation have in most cases knocked out the farmer.

You are right there.

I started with tractors in 1920. In those days the price of wheat was nearer 21 10s. than £1 per bag. I kept my accounts very carefully, and I used to operate the tractor myself, and whenever it was necessary I used to put the machine right myself. After three years it became clear to me that, even if I had a good crop every year, in the long run there was no hope of making a reasonable profit, as the expense involved in farming in that way was too heavy. After three years all the tractors were disposed of, and I turned back to mules.

Say it again, so that the farmers may hear it.

I said it the other day when I opened the show at Swellendam. The expense in connection with mechanised farming should be thoroughly enquired into, and I am convinced that it will be found that that is one of the causes of all the trouble, when it comes to a question of profit or loss. I have said it repeatedly—I said it years ago at Riversdale, as the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst) will remember. I also warned the farmers at Kimberley and at the Cradock Show. Wheat farmers know that they cannot sow one crop of wheat after another. Oats have also to be sown, otherwise the wheat crop will turn out a failure or the diseases in the crop will increase. If, however, oats are produced on a large scale the price will drop, because nowadays there is only a small market for oats. The farmers have found that oats are often unsaleable on account of the demand being very small, and, naturally, the demand would be even more restricted in days to come. Now the question arises in my mind, and I want to put it to the House—can it be economically sound to produce oats with an imported fuel when it is known that if a good crop is produced it will be impossible to dispose of the product at a reasonable price? But if one works with mules, one produces one’s own fuel to produce oats, and to work the future wheat crop. If a farmer buys a tractor plough, even before he has taken delivery of the machine from the shop, the value has dropped 30 per cent.—that is the seller’s commission. A £650 tractor plough is only worth £450 immediately after. The question of maintenance costs and wear and tear need hardly be mentioned. The farmer knows that after five years his £650 is only worth £50. The mule which cost £10 when two years old can, if it does not die in the meantime, be used until it is 12 years of age —it is at its best then, and can be sold for £15 or £20. In other words, while the tractor causes the farmer’s capital to dwindle away to practically nothing in five years time, if he buys a mule his capital increases by 50 per cent. after the mule has worked for him for ten years, and meanwhile the mule has also contributed in producing his fuel. In regard to the cost of implements and requisites if a farmer mechanises his farming, that expense is so self-evident that there is no need for me to say much about it, because all of us know that everything is much more expensive to-day. It will be said that with mechanisation one’s labour costs are lower and that the work is done more quickly and efficiently. That is so, but let us compare the costs in the aggregate—it must be clear then that it is uneconomic, and for that reason the argument which farmers working with tractors are disposed to put up is absolutely false. This is a matter which the Commission will have to go into very thoroughly. I as a farmer, and the same thing applies to my fellow-farmers, am too much disposed to throw sand in my own eyes, and to talk myself into a stupor to try and justify a thing which I know in my heart of hearts to be economically unsound. On this question the Commission will have to make a careful enquiry and check up all the facts placed before it. We do not want to hear any opinions, we only want to hear facts, and we want to see figures. I am convinced that it will be found that the high costs are largely attributable to mechanisation being overdone, and mechanisation is a thing which kills the farmers.

What about the bywoner?

So far as he is concerned, it is even more necessary to farm with mules. How is it that many a bywoner in the days of my father was able to pay his interest and was able to get ahead and to buy his own farm, while to-day they go bankrupt? I do not want to go into this question any more deeply. If the Commission does nothing except to prove that mechanisation is one of the greatest causes of the evil, we shall not have appointed the Commission for nothing. Let me try to explain. If the Commission goes to a farmer and asks: “What are your costs of production?” and the answer is based on costs incurred by always doing the work with expensive and uneconomic implements, then we are no further than we were before. What I am anxious to have is that the Commission shall find out what the actual production costs are if a farm is run on the most economical system. Let me give an example. Assuming the Government feels that one of its officials who lives at Muizenberg should get a subsistence allowance during the session of Parliament on account of his living so far away from his work, the Government asks the man how much it costs him to travel up and down to Muizenberg. The man replies: “I spend £2 every day, and I can prove it”. If the person enquiring leaves it at that, after having seen the official’s evidence, he will recommend that the man be paid £2 extra per day, but if the person enquiring does his duty, he will find out how that official can travel up and down in a cheaper way. He will find, for instance, that he is using a motor car which is costing him £2 per day, but he will also find that if he travels by bus or by train the expense would only be a few shillings. In other words, although the official is thoroughly honest in saying that it cost him £2—and it is true that he has had that expense—the fact remains that if he had taken the trouble and had enquired he could have made that journey at a much lower cost. There is another aspect of the matter which must also be looked into. It is stated that our lands are becoming exhausted. The Minister drew attention to that aspect of the matter. It is stated that it has been found that we can no longer produce wheat on some of our land on account of the yield becoming too small. The lands become exhausted. Larger quantities of artificial fertiliser are needed; smaller crons are produced, and diseases increase, with the result that the number of crop failures becomes larger and larger. I say that diseases increase. It will be noticed that the wheat louse first of all destrovs the wheat which is poor in quality. A wideawake farmer will notice that his land after twenty years does not give him the same yield as it used to, and again the question arises in my mind: “Why is it that in Europe, where the same ground has been cultivated for hundreds of years, the soil does not become exhausted”? The answer is this—mixed farming. All of us know, however, that in certain parts of the Union mixed farming cannot be carried on. It is not economic, and for that reason it is impossible to carry out such a policy to its fullest extent, but it can be done to a certain degree. We are all too prone to say that a thing is white or black, but my experience goes to show me that most things in life are neither white nor black, but are in between colours—they are grey, and from dark grey to light grey. Even though mixed farming cannot be carried on to the fullest extent it can be done to a certain degree. I have been doing research work for many years in regard to grasses and shrubs. It was not successful. I have not got the time at this stage to go into the matter at length, except to say this, that until such time as a great deal more research work has been done in regard to growing local grasses and shrubs, we cannot be sure how we should tackle this question. But there is one thing which we all know about— one thing which always keeps its nutritional value—something which our imported grasses in winter rainfall areas do not do in some cases—and which improve the ground and restore the fertility of the soil—and that is lucerne. This takes me back to mixed farming. In the beginning of my remarks I spoke about oats. It is an ordinary rotation crop with wheat. There is rotation between oats and wheat. If we do not sow oats we cannot sow wheat. But if dry land lucerne is also sown the rotation system is further extended, but that is not all, because here we begin—it is only partly true—with real mixed farming and rotation crops so far as our agricultural lands are concerned. Because not only is the lucerne grazing excellent but it makes the soil more fertile. I want to mention an instance in this connection. Elzenburg made a test with four morgen of dry land. For twenty years that land was cultivated in accordance with the ordinary system—wheat, then oats, and then it was allowed to lie fallow, and the average yield was 20 bags from a bag of wheat. Then they put in lucerne. After four years lucerne was ploughed over on the 1st May, and without the ground having been allowed to lie fallow or having been worked over, wheat was sown on it. No artificial fertilisers were used with the exception of superphosphate on the scale of four bags per bag of wheat. The yield was 32 bags from one bag. The year after wheat was sown on the same wheat stubble. The ground had not been allowed to lie fallow or worked, and again the yield was 32 bags to one bag. The year after they sowed oats on the wheat stubble and the yield was 25 to 1. At the beginning I spoke about the price of wheat. What, is the use of talking of an increase in the price of wheat by 1s. to 2s. per bag when one gets 32 bags from one bag of wheat seed in place of 20, where one at the same expense and with the same amount of work gets 12 bags or more from one bag? There is, of course, a little extra cost for bags, twine, threshing and so on. It means that if one gets a £1 for a bag of wheat one gets £32 for the bag which was sown instead of £20. It means in other words that one gets 30s. instead of £20s., or an increase of between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. for the same quantity sown. Is it going to help to make an investigation into costs of production if such an important factor affecting the whole problem from top to bottom is not taken into account? To sum up the position: The costs of production of wheat are dependent on two things: first of all on the yield. If ten bags or twenty bags are produced on the same bit of land the costs of production are twice as high, or they are half as high. Secondly, we have to bear in mind the question of crop failures which may be the cause although one cannot say that crop failures are always the cause of a yield being ten bags instead of twenty bags.

Would it not be better if you gave all that information to the Commission?

I shall not detain the House any longer. I notice that my friend is getting tired of my speech, but the hon. member’s friends said that I was afraid of this motion and I am anxious to make it clear what I expect from such an investigation. How can the costs of production be calculated as a basis for the fixing of the price if the yield which to a certain extent can be controlled fluctuates in the way I have indicated? What I mean is this: If a farmer sows wheat without superphosphate he knows that no matter how favourable the year is he cannot expect to get more than three to five bags from one bag. So far the farmers themselves can control the question of their obtaining a good crop. But that does not mean that even if he puts in six bags of white guano per bag of wheat he is going to get a good crop. And the same applies to mixed farming and rotation crops. If the farmer adops such a system it does not mean that he is going to have a good crop if the yield is unfavourable, but he can be quite sure that if he does not put a system like that into effect he will never have a good crop, no matter how good the year is. As I say so far he has the position under his own control. It is a factor which must be taken into account when the enquiry is held. I do not want to detain the House any longer, and I want to conclude by thanking the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the wheat farmers for being prepared to accept the principle of the motion, and I am convinced that if the investigation is made in the way we have suggested the wheat farmers themselves will realise that they will in many respects have to alter their methods of farming if they hope to make a profit. I am convinced that such a Commission of Enquiry will be able to assist our farmers in the winter rainfall areas again to make a success of wheat farming, so that we may again find that people who start as bywoners and men who sow on shares will, after 20 years or so, become independent farmers.

I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to accept in principle the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). We are convinced that the Minister is anxious to help; we know that he is sympathetically disposed towards the wheat farmers. We are only sorry that the Minister wanted to tell us that farmers who had approached the Board of Control as a deputation had so to speak behaved dishonestly by not supplying the right information, as the Minister alleged. The Minister stated that they should have used their common sense. The Minister should realise that those people who are working with wheat every day of their lives should surely know what it costs them to produce wheat, and they can work it out to a much finer point than anyone else. If they approach the Minister the Minister must accept it that those people are honest in their intentions and do not wish to supply him with any wrong information.

I did not cast any doubt on their honesty.

The Minister said that if they used their common sense they would have realised that the cost of production was not what they had stated it to be. We are pleased that the Minister has treated this motion in so sympathetic a manner, and that he is prepared to accept its principle. Unfortunately there is no time left for us to go into this matter any further. The Minister without Portfolio made a very interesting speech, and we are grateful for it. And I am convinced that if he were to go into more detail in his speech and were to submit it to the Commission they would greatly welcome it. I wish to say a few words, however, about the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). He takes over the principle laid down in the motion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. To my mind he goes a bit too far. If we take paragraph (b) of his amendment we find that he proposes that the Commission should also enquire into the system of farming applied in the principal wheat areas, and the extent to which those areas are suited to the production of wheat or not. I do not think that the time is ripe for such a drastic step, that we should say to certain farmers who, up to the present, and for a hundred years or more, have made their living out of wheat production, that their area is unsuited for the production of wheat, and that they can no longer make a living out of it. It is quite possible that the Commission may recommend that a whole district like Lydenburg, Bredasdorp or Caledon, is no longer suited to the production of wheat. I want to ask the hon. member to delete that paragraph. If he does not want to delete it then I want to move an amendment that that paragraph be deleted. I also want to say a few words about paragraph (d), which proposes that the Commission shall make an investigation into the disadvantages and advantages of the present protective policy. The hon. member for Caledon knows that the wheat farmers are entirely dependent on the protection policy which has been laid down, and if he is now doubting the effectiveness of that protection policy, what is going to become of the wheat farmers? He himself knows the difficulties with which the wheat farmers have to contend in his district and in other districts too where the position is much worse, and now he wants to cast doubts on this protection policy by telling the Commission that they must enquire into the advantages and disadvantages of that policy. With the greatest seriousness I want to ask the hon. member also to delete paragraph (b); as it seems that the hon. member is not prepared to do so I shall move as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. H. C. de Wet:

I second.

The hour is late and we are anxious therefore to conclude this debate. I am sorry the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) saw fit to put two snags in an otherwise very good motion, two snags which make it unacceptable so far as we are concerned. I believe that we are speaking on behalf of the wheat farmers when we say that the principle of the motion as accepted by the Government is good. We all want a Commission of Enquiry, but why now come along with those two snags which are going to spoil a good day’s work for the wheat farmers? The wheat farmers do not want those two snags, and that is why they would have objected four-square to the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Now the hon. member for Caledon, a practical wheat farmer, comes along and actually takes over the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville in his amendment.

I moved the same thing eight years ago.

Then you did something which the wheat farmers did not want.

I am a wheat farmer myself.

In any case that is not the view of the wheat farmers, and the last snag is worst of all. I am surprised at the hon. member giving the Government an opening to accept an amendment containing this snag. This matter was settled in Mr. Havenga’s days, in connection with the protection policy, and against the wishes of many people on the other side of the protective tariff was fixed at 22s. 6d. so that we would not be overloaded with wheat coming from other countries. Now the hon. member proposes that this Commission should investigate the advantages and the disadvantages of the protective policy. He therefore admits that there are disadvantages connected with it.

Disadvantages for the wheat farmer.

I am surprised at the hon. member. He will be surprised if the Commission comes along with a finding that there are disadvantages connected with the protective policy of 22s. 6d.

We have heard a lot about those disadvantages.

Yes, that is so. And what is going to happen if they propose a reduction in the protection?

I am not asking for that in my motion.

I want to urge the House to accept our motion or otherwise to accept the amendments without paragraphs (b) and (d) — the two snags which the hon. member has put in.

Question put: That the words, proposed to be omitted by Mr. H. C. de Wet, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—26:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J. Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and N. J. Schoeman.

Noes—52:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Question put: That paragraphs (b) and (d), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the amendment proposed by Mr. H. C. de Wet Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—47:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Miles-Cadman, C. F Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer. V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—26:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and N. J. Schoeman.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. N. J. Schoeman negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. H. C. de Wet put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.:

1. (a) costs of production of wheat, milled wheaten products and bread;
2. (b) the system of farming practised in the main wheat growing areas and the suitability or otherwise of these areas for the cultivation of wheat;
3. (c) the adequacy or otherwise of the protection accorded to the wheat industry; and
4. (d) the advantages and disadvantages arising out of the present protection policy.