I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker, the Insurance Bill [A.B. 28—’43], submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time; second reading on 26th March.

I move—

called upon the members who were willing to allow the motion to be put, to rise in their places.

Upwards of fifteen members having so risen, the motion for the adjournment was put.

The matter that I want to bring to the notice of the House in this way is a matter that does not affect only one side of the House. It is a matter that affects us all. It is a matter far above any party interest or party advantage. I hope that the discussion which will take place on this matter here today will also be in that spirit. I am sorry that the Prime Minister, under whose department this matter falls, and whose department is in the first instance held responsible for it, and who must give account to this House in this connection, is not present here. I assume that he has other work which legally prevents him from being here. In any case, there was no opportunity to give him notice that this matter would be discussed today. But if I did not bring up this matter for discussion, I think I would undoubtedly be neglecting my duty as a member of this House, and would also be neglecting my duty as a citizen of the country. I would have brought this matter, which has already become known, to the notice of the House yesterday, but unfortunately I was not yet in possession of so many particulars in connection with what happened as I am today. Furthermore, yesterday was Monday, when members come to this House at the last moment, and a Monday morning is not so good for a motion of this nature. I have therefore brought the matter up for discussion for the first time this morning. Before I deal with this incident, I must bring it to the notice of this House that we find that some newspapers gave their readers only the most meagre information possible in connection with this matter. It seems that where this serious occurrence took place, there was a deliberate dead silence, for some reason or other, on the part of some newspapers. I also think therefore that it is necessary to direct the attention of the House to this matter, and at the same time also the attention of the country. To come to the occurrence itself. I must perhaps give all the information I possess to hon. members who did not receive sufficient information in the newspapers. I only want to tell them what was brought to light by some newspapers at any rate, and I have no reason to assume that what I tell the House here as being the course of those happenings did not actually take place in that way. On Saturday a detachment of coloured men left by train for the North. They were, so I imagine, in the final instance under European officers, but also under coloured non-commissioned officers. That detachment of coloured soldiers, before they left and on the train, apparently had access to as much liquor as they wanted, undoubtedly what happened there is partly at any rate attributable to that cause. The disorders among them apparently began to be serious at Huguenot station, although, as far as the information goes, there was no disorderliness other than on the train itself. When the train went further northwards, the disorderly behaviour became worse and worse, and when the train reached Worcester, that spirit of disorderliness was so bad that it was expressed on the platform and at other places around the platform. What happened at Worcester was as follows. There was a train standing in the station. There were no passengers in it, but the window-panes of the other train were smashed. A goods train loaded with fruit which had to go to the market was standing there. The fruit trucks were stormed, arid the fruit was simply taken and stolen, and a great part of it was ruined. It is estimated that the damage caused at Worcester amounts to between £50 and £60. The train then went further northwards and reached De Doorns station. Attempts of a more or less serious nature were, it seems, made by the officers to calm the riotous behaviour of the coloured soldiers. They did not succeed. Instead, stones were thrown at the officers and noncommissioned officers. An hotel in the vicinity was stormed; two display windows of another building were smashed. A passenger train which went so far and then had to return to Cape Town was standing there. There were no passengers in it, but the window-panes were nearly all smashed. There is a butcher’s shop in the vicinity. It was stormed, and the windows were smashed. The windows of a bank were smashed, and the counter of the bank was seriously damaged. The window-panes of an attorney’s office in the vicinity were also smashed. That happened at De Doorns. Then the train went further northwards, and beyond the Heks River Mountain it stopped at Kleinstraat station. Understandably, there was no one on the station, except the foreman and his family who live not far from the station. The coloured soldiers got off as soon as the train stopped, and they went and molested the people in the house, and caused the foreman and his wife and children to take flight. Then the train went further northwards. The officials on the train felt, however, that they could not risk stopping at Touw’s River. At Touw’s River there had to be a change of engines, but they telephoned in advance to say that the engine should be sent on to meet the train. That happened, and instead of the train’s stopping at Touw’s River, it simply steamed through for safety. After that the train arrived at Laingsburg. The authorities were then completely aware of the position and of what was going on on the train, and the police were on the station in full strength to maintain order on the platform. They did not succeed. The coloured soldiers got off. They simply stormed out of the station and damaged a building. They attacked the police, and the police were compelled to use weapons, with the result that three of the coloured men were wounded, one so seriously that he had to be taken to hospital, and he died there. One would think that after what happened at Laingsburg, the matter would end. That was not the case. The train then went further northwards, and at a particular place the Free State train had to pass this Cape train. The coloured soldiers also stormed the Free State train, and that train arrived here in Cape Town with a whole lot of its windowpanes smashed. Now we can well understand what a situation that must have caused on the train, in which there were probably also a considerable number of women and children, who were exposed to attacks on the train, and we can understand the fright and anxiety which these people endured. Those are the occurrences. I have no reason to assume that the information as it appeared here in the newspapers is incorrect, but it would be a good thing if we could get a statement from the Minister concerned in connection with the matter, so that we could also hear the facts from the side of the Government. I just want to say in this connection that the coloured community in our country have for a number of years had the reputation, and a well-deserved reputation, that they are orderly. I think it can be said with truth that for years and years they were an orderly section of the community. What is the meaning of the things that are happening now? This is not an isolated instance, but it indicates how a different spirit has arisen among the coloured people. Where does the different spirit come from? I have no answer to that, except this: In the first place, the spirit has arisen as a result of the policy of arming coloured persons, as a result of the fact that coloured people are being called in to be the arbiter between white man and white man, and then I want to say in the second place that there is not the least doubt that Communist agitators are behind it, and that they are engaged in inciting the coloured people, not only to break law and order, not only to make the coloured people hostile to their employers, but they are being incited against the Europeans as Europeans, and for that reason the demands are being made that have been read out here in the House from time to time. Earlier they were warnings. I drew attention to it on one occasion, and I said, when I dealt with a particular incident, that it was but the cloud which indicated the approaching storm, that it was but the danger sign on the road, and that we had to expect that under present circumstances, as matters are today, with the lack of discipline, or, let us say, the freedom allowed to Communist agitators in the country to bring about these conditions, that these conditions would develop further and that we had but the beginning of the sufferings in South Africa. I further on a previous occasion used fairly strong language, and I said that the result of everything would be that ultimately blood would be shed between white and non-white in South Africa. The bloodshed, although on a small scale, has already begun. There have been warnings. We had the occurrences in Pretoria, when blood also flowed, we have had serious strikes, accompanied by irregularities, we have had attacks on train staff on the Rand, and this morning there is again a case in the newspaper that occurred at Fouriesburg, a small and peaceful town in the Free State. It is reported that kaffir soldiers made an attack on the station staff and the police, so that they had to retire. These are all danger signs. The cloud is growing bigger, the cloud which indicates the approaching storm. Now I ask that immediate and effective measures be taken, because an end must be made of this situation, so that the lives and property of the population are no longer exposed to danger. We must protect our population, seeds have been sown—I do not want to go into that—but what has been sown is already starting to be reaped, and it is time that South Africa woke up and that the Government woke up, and that we now made an end of this situation. Apart from what I have said here, I still want to put one question: Was it so impossible for the Government, well knowing that such conditions were possible and probable, to ensure that when the coloured detachment left Cape Town, they would receive no liquor on the way? I think it is a simple and obvious measure which could have been taken, and which can be taken in connection with all soldiers, so that such conditions may not arise. Was it impossible in this case to take steps? Had they all the time to be under the influence of liquor? I do not believe that that was the main cause. I think there are other causes, but they were undoubtedly under the influence of liquor. Was it possible that they could be in that condition of drunkenness even until far beyond Laingsburg? Was it not possible to prevent it? In this condition of drunkenness they made trouble. I do not want to go further into this matter now, because other speakers will do so. I do not bring this matter up for discussion from a party political point of view, or to achieve party political advantage. It is a matter which affects all of us who sit in this House. It is a matter which affects the European population and its future. If there is anyone who regards the matter differently and wants to defend it, I do not believe there can be anyone who wants to defend what happened, or if there may be someone who wants the Government not to act drastically and take effective measures to prevent things of this nature, and who does not want the Government to go to the root of the matter—then I want to ask those persons to reflect that they are citizens of the country, that we are members of the European community in the country, and that our future depends just as much as their future on the maintenance of the European community. Does the situation not affect you? The people ask you whether the situation does not affect you?

I want to second the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has given certain information based mainly on newspaper reports. Now I want to supplement that information with information which I personally have received from some one who was present at Laingsburg when the riots occurred there. I was on the train on Sunday night and took the trouble to get information from Laingsburg. Therefore you can assume that I can give information from someone who was an eyewitness of what happened at Laingsburg. Also at Laingsburg, just as at Worcester, coloured soldiers plundered one of the trucks. I understand that they then tried to break into the goods sheds. The position became very serious, and one of the European officers—there were also a number of European troops on the train—made a real effort to restrain the coloured soldiers, but he was immediately so threatened by the coloured soldiers that he was obliged to abandon the effort. The position became ever more threatening, and at Laingsburg there were present on the station not only railway staff and police, but also a number of members of the Civilian Protection Services. The coloured soldiers carried on in such a way, and among other things smashed the windows of an hotel, that the position became unbearable. The police tried to restrain them, but they did not want to listen. Later the position became so threatening that they were compelled to fire on the coloureds. I understand that no shots were fired by the police, but by members of the Civilian Protective Services. As a result three coloureds were wounded an one died as a result of wounds. The situation was so serious that they could not get the coloureds back into the train. The train was delayed at Laingsburg for quite a number of hours, and only after the shooting had taken place did they manage to get the coloureds back into the train. But throughout the coloureds adopted a very impudent attitude towards the police as well as towards members of the Civilian Protective Services. The train then departed, and as happened at Touwsrivier they were also compelled at Beaufort West to send the locomotive which was usually changed there to a small station to couple the locomotive there instead of at Beaufort West. There the soldiers again got out of the train and they refused to get back. Only when the train began to move did they run and again get on the train. The train was then compelled to run through Beaufort West. At Nelspoort one of the soldiers threw out an object—possibly a stone, because there were quite a number of stones on the train—and struck the foreman heavily on the chest so that he was seriously injured. According to the information I have, there was absolutely no control over the soldiers. There were I believe between 200 and 300 coloured soldiers on the train. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned liquor. It is a well-known thing at Beaufort West station. There is an hotel just across the river, between 200 and 300 yards from the station, and when a coloured train comes in, they run to the hotel and return with bottles. They get the necessary drink and take it with them on the train. There is apparently no control over this. They can do as they please. This is not merely an isolated incident, then one could still have said that it was a lot of soldiers who for one reason or another became out of hand. That would have been serious enough. But it is not an isolated incident.

Are you talking now about all soldiers?

I am speaking now of coloured soldiers. I can only tell the hon. member that I travel home every week-end, and there is a noticeable improvement in the behaviour of European soldiers. This is undoubtedly the case, but I understand that only last week they threw some bedding out of the train between Beaufort West and Nelspoort. These things still happen. This is not an isolated case as far as coloured troops are concerned. We who live on the railway line know what the conditions are. The railwaymen, the men who must work on the trains, are deeply concerned about the situation that is developing. We had the case at Beaufort West the other day of a ticket examiner who refused to go any further with the train as a result of the threatening attitude of coloured soldiers. The situation is undoubtedly serious and there is great unrest among railway men, because they must endure these things. There is a native constable at Beaufort West station, and coloured soldiers have on two occasions tried to attack him. He is afraid and no longer wants to be on the platform. It has also happened on two or three occasions that they have chased coloured women and pulled their clothes from them.

The same happened at De Doorns.

Yes, these are the things that happen, and therefore it was necessary to raise this matter by way of a special motion. The time has come when the Prime Minister must take strong action, as Minister of Defence who is responsible for these matters. It is no isolated incident. There are two European men at Beaufort West who must signal with a red flag at the crossing to regulate traffic, and they assure me that when a passanger train passes with coloured soldiers on it, then they are sworn at and abused. There are usually also coloured troops in the ordinary passenger trains. Only a short time ago we discussed here the policy of allowing European prisoners-of-war to be guarded by coloured soldiers. The hon. leader of the Opposition has referred to certain contributary causes of what is happening now, and one of the serious contributary causes is the fact that coloured soldiers are placed in the position where they guard Europeans. Together with the arming, this is one of the contributary causes and it has the result that the coloureds adopt a more and more provocative attitude. Last week coloured soldiers who have just returned from the north went into a shop where there is a European girl serving They asked for cigarettes. She then replied that she could not sell them cigarettes, but that they could get cigarettes at the other counter. They then abused her and said that she was there to serve them and that she must go and fetch the cigarettes. They abused her in a frightful manner. These are things that are going on and this is a climax of a series of things that have been going on for a considerable time and which must be stopped now. The hon. leader of the Opposition has spoken about what is being sown today and what we will have to reap later. May I recall what one of the newspapers which certainly cannot be charged with being politically prejudiced against the other side of the House, has said. I have already quoted it, but I want to quote it again, because it applies to this case. It is the “S.A. Mining and Engineering Journal,” which on 19th December of last year wrote—

This is a serious warning by the “S.A. Mining and Engineering Journal” and the Government ought to give attention to it. This is the position in which we are and therefore I support the motion of the leader of the Opposition.

The hon. leader of the Opposition has moved the adjournment of the House with reference to certain occurrences which we all regret, and which took place during the week-end. I find myself in a somewhat difficult position in connection with the matter, since the Minister concerned (the Minister of Defence) is not present. He is on his way back to Cape Town. The first notice I received of the intention of the Leader of the Opposition was when I walked into the House this morning. I did my best in the meantime to obtain information, but hon. members will understand that I am not in the position to reply fully to this motion. I want, however, to ask the House not to form its opinion on the basis of a one-sided statement in connection with this matter. We have heard the case from one side. We have only heard here an incomplete statement by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), and he said very clearly, and I thank him for it, that he bases his speech on newspaper reports, and he urged that a statement be made on the part of the Government. In other words, he realises apparently that the newspaper reports are not necessarily accurate and correct in all respects. He asked therefore for a statement on the part of the Government, apparently realising that there are two sides.

I hope that the Government is not out to take up the case of the other side.

The hon. member presented his side, and he asked what our side is, but before he had heard our side, he drew certain conclusions. He talked of Communism and the arming of non-European soldiers, and he drew conclusions. He asked to hear the other side, but before he has heard the other side, he draws conclusions. Then he blandly said that this is not a party matter.

Why do you accuse us if you know nothing of the matter?

Of course I regret the incident, where people were killed and wounded. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that he did not envisage party political advantage, but in spite of that, where he presented his side of the case, he asked that we should also put our side, but nevertheless he drew conclusions before he heard our side. I believe that the House and the public will consider it fair and right that no judgment be made in this matter before all sides of the case have been heard.

What of the facts?

They have not been investigated and established.

I have information from an eye-witness.

The description of an eye-witness is not necessarily a correct picture of what happened. There must first be an inquiry. It is certainly not right that on the ground of certain reports in the newspapers a general accusation should be made against all the non-European troops that we have in the service today.

It happened on Saturday and it is now Tuesday, and still the Government apparently knows nothing about the matter.

I am not in a position to make a full statement. I am not the Minister concerned, and the Leader of the Opposition did not warn me. I can only say that my information is that in the meantime an order was given for a full inquiry and that was to have been carried out as soon as the train arrived at its destination.

Then they had the chance to smash things up again on the way.

Steps were taken to prevent further trouble. The train arrived at Zonderwater yesterday, and I understand that the inquiry is taking place immediately. The department here has no further information, but the inquiry is taking place. In the meantime it is clear that there was indeed hooliganism but only the inquiry van determine how far it went. Then it is also clear that the incident was to a great extent the result of abuse of liquor. The Minister of Railways and Harbours informs me that these persons obtained no liquor on the train, but apparently they boarded it under the influence of liquor and perhaps they obtained more liquor on the way, away from the stations.

They were still drunk the next morning.

It is clear that many of them were under the influence of liquor, and only the inquiry can determine how far it went, and how far the hooliganism went. It is also clear that a measure of damage was done to property. Only the inquiry can determine how great the damage was, and under what circumstances it was inflicted. It is also clear that the trouble reached a peak at Laingsburg station, and that action was taken there, not by the Police, but by the N.V.R., and that an order was given by the officer in command to shoot, with the result that three persons were wounded and one died afterwards. Those are the facts.

What is not clear then?

It is right that members should know the further circumstances and what gave rise to the trouble. It is not right on the ground of such reports to make a general accusation against the troops as a whole, especially the non-European section of the army. It is not right to make a general accusation and in that connection also to raise matters like Communism and the arming of coloured people.

They are possible causes.

It is not right to do it without proper inquiry, and to come here to make certain deductions. I give the House the assurance that the inquiry will take place, and that as a result of the inquiry the Minister will take all necessary steps to maintain discipline in the army. I can say nothing further at the moment. The inquiry will go through and the necessary steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of a similar incident in future.

I have listened with great interest to the speech of the leader of the Opposition and I have waited with interest for the explanation of the Minister and the Government. I must honestly say that the Minister of Finance, as the most responsible Minister in the House today, has laid a smokescreen and he has made certain conclusions which were not fair to the leader of the Opposition, who has given a fair presentation here. The Minister admits that there was hooliganism, and the admission is proof that there was no discipline among the soldiers. Where were the officers on the train? Why did they permit this hooliganism? The Minister charges the leader of the Opposition of having dragged in all the soldiers. He definitely did not do that. The Minister knows that he spoke about coloured soldiers. Are we then not entitled to make certain conclusions if such hooliganism takes place on trains that lives are lost and property is destroyed by coloured soldiers? Are we not entitled to draw the Government’s attention to it? The Minister assures us that an inquiry will be held. I expected the Government to express its strong disapproval, and to promise that the guilty ones will be properly punished. What assurance have we that the same thing will not happen again tomorrow or the day after? The Government does not express disapproval, but will hold an inquiry. What assurance is there that we will not have a repetition? We are entitled to know. The Government was warned when it decided to arm coloureds and natives. You will remember that I told the Prime Minister that he was playing with fire. This is not the first time, as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has said, that such a thing has happened. But often we hear and see examples of hooliganism and rioting. It is not the first time that blood has been shed as a result of hooliganism among coloureds and natives. It has been going on for a long time already and the Government should have taken serious action long ago to prevent such a thing happening. The Government must bear the responsibility, the full responsibility. There has been laxity, and now the Minister gets up and does not even express his disapproval of what has happened.

The hon. leader of the Opposition has presented certain happenings here this morning of which we as the Opposition want to express our strongest disapproval. The Minister of Finance has come and admitted practically all these things. He says that he has not yet got full information about the causes, but he cannot contradict the facts of the leader of the Opposition. He admits that there was hooliganism, abuses of drink among the coloured soldiers, loss of life, injuries, damage to property—all these allegations of the leader of the Opposition he has admitted. What more does he want? And now he comes and makes a serious objection because the leader of the Opposition has made certain conclusions. Have we not the right to make conclusions when we, from the beginning of the war, have warned against these things? And did we not tell the Minister and the Government that the arming of coloureds was a big blunder and a danger to the country? What is more, did we not warn the Government that the disarming of Europeans was also a blunder and that we would have to pay dearly? The coloureds have been armed and the Europeans disarmed, and the coloureds know that they can get out of hand, that they can practically commit murder and homicide without the Europeans being able to defend themselves. They know that if they break loose then the Europeans cannot defend themselves. They know that they can storm houses and assault people, and the Europeans cannot defend themselves. In Bloemfontein some time ago, native soldiers rushed into a house where Europeans were living and acted very impertinently and adopted a threateing attitude. Why? Because they know that the Europeans have not a weapon with which to shoot. We have warned against these things and now when these things happen the Minister takes us amiss when we remind him of the warning. Is the Minister then blind to the facts that coloured and native troops and others are being incited by European agitators. Is he deaf and blind? Every day he can see it in the newspapers, he can hear it on street corners, so serious is it that the Government must impose a censorship and prohibit the newspapers from publishing everything. And if we point to the causes then the Minister says that we have no right to make conclusions—we must wait until the inquiry is over. People are shot dead and damage is done on a large scale, and then a commission is appointed and we must wait before saying anything until the commission has one day reported. I want to refer to one other point, and that is that often when such a thing happens, then the people put the blame on the police and say that the police acted too quickly and fired. The police are already in a position where they are dead scared to act, because a commission of inquiry comes and says that the police fired too quickly. But the provocation and the impertinence of coloured troops can continue. The police must look on and endure the provocation and run the risk of being shot dead first before they themselves may shoot. We have warned against these things from the beginning. Today the things are happening which we predicted. Here from Cape Town right up to the Karoo property on the stations has been destroyed, and the Government’s army is powerless. Where is the discipline? We are accustomed when we think of soldiers, to think of people who are disciplined, and who maintain the honour of the country and obey orders. Unfortunately this does not appear to be the case as far as coloured troops are concerned. There is a lack of discipline. We had the same difficulties at the beginning of the war in Bloemfontein among European troops, also lack of discipline and hooliganism. Then Col. Klerck was sent there and he acted immediately and put an end to it, and today there is almost no misbehaviour among European troops in Bloemfontein, because the officer in charge took action. Were there in this case no officers who could maintain order? It almost appears as if the coloured soldiers had no respect for the officers; that they even showed no respect for their own officers. We are a little disappointed in the attitude of the Minister of Finance. It is a pity that the Minister of Defence is not here, but I repeat that we regret that from the side of the Government there is never a word of disapproval of this sort of thing. At Beaconsfield a little while ago, there were also disturbances in a coloured camp at Sonderwater last December there were all kinds of disorderliness among coloured troops. Was there ever any disapproval expressed from responsible quarters as far as the Government is concerned? You merely hear that the case is being investigated and that is the last you hear. We Europeans must stand together in this respect and express the strongest disapproval of such things, and there must be an end to the provocation and hooliganism that is taking place. We expect the Government to take action immediately. I want to subscribe to what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Things are coming to a head. We see it on the platteland and in the cities it is still worse. Unless there is a miracle, within the next few years, there will be bloodshed and European and coloureds will face one another with weapons in their hands, and this is something which we must prevent today. Feelings are being worked up and the patience of the Europeans is becoming exhausted. The coloured and native soldiers, where they are returning home, are extremely impertinent and impudent and insult the Europeans, and nothing is done. The old respect of the kaffir for the European you no longer get. The coloureds and the natives are provocative and sooner or later there will be an outbreak. There are cases now already where native soldiers make attacks on Europeans in their houses and the Europeans are unarmed. There will be murder and homicide and this Government will have to bear the blame. This Government will have to stand the consequences of it. It will be a wise step to immediately give back the right to Europeans to possess arms, and to give them back their rifles, so that the natives on the platteland will know that the farmers are armed, and that if they get beyond themselves they can be shot. Today there is no fear among them. They know that the Europeans have no weapons and the soldiers in uniform think that they can do what they wish. In view of these incidents I repeat the appeal to the Government to rearm the Europeans, to give back our rifles. Then there will again be a feeling of safety. Today there is unrest and unsafeness and the Government will have to bear the blame, and the relation between European and coloured will perhaps be put back for a hundred years.

We have listened attentively to the speech of the Minister of Finance which is definitely one of the most peculiar speeches I have ever listened to. There is no doubt that riots took place. There is no doubt that property was destroyed, but the whole speech of the Minister was complementary to what was said on this side and defensive of the soldiers who committed the misdemeanours. Did a single word of disapproval come from him of what had taken place? Was there one word of assurance from the side of the Government that steps would immediately be taken to put a stop to that sort of thing? No, not one single word. What did we get? “You must wait until we on the other side have heard the case.” When he har progressed further in his speech it was no longer the other side of the case, but “our” side of the case. Are there then two sides of the matter? Must we deduce from that that it is the rôle the Government is going to play in connection with the case? That he is not going to put a stop to this sort of thing, but that the Government is going to act as advocate for the soldiers who committed the misdeeds? The only deduction that we can make from the words of the Minister is that they are going to act as protectors of the soldiers.

He is the Counsel for the Defence.

Yes. The whole speech of the Minister from beginning to end was in defence of the soldiers. He even went further and spoke of an enquiry that would be instituted. The people of South Africa today do not want an enquiry, but protection against disorder. The Minister can hold the enquiry later. We want to know if protection is going to be afforded. The Minister said that only an enquiry can determine how much damage was done. Naturally the enquiry alone can determine how much damage was done, but we all know that damage was done, and in each case the damage was big enough to give the public the right to ask the Government for protection. The Minister says that only an enquiry can determine to what extent the riots took place. Perhaps they will be able to determine it, but one man is dead and we know to what extent he is dead. The Minister is playing with the matter, and if one looks at the attitude of hon. members on the other side, then it is clear that they are not serious about it. Perhaps they do not approve of it, but not one word of disapproval has come from the other side. Another peculiar thing is that it happened on Saturday night. Here the Government is sitting in Cape Town and nobody in the Government knows what took place. Have they received no official reports? Apparently they do not even take an interest in the matter. Parliament is in Session and it was surely to be expected that this matter would be raised in the House. Now we come four days later and the Minister comes with the excuse that he knows nothing of what had happened. Do the police know anything about it? Has the Minister of Justice had a report from them, let me rather say the Minister of Police? Apparently he knows as little as his opponent in the Cabinet. The Minister of Police has not even got the report. Is it surprising that the public is anxious? Another interesting thing is how the Government newspapers have hushed up what has taken place. In one of the local Government newspapers I saw a little report of a few inches, under a small heading, hidden away under other news. I looked through the other Government newspaper and, speaking under correction, I must say that I could find nothing about the riots. Why are they being hushed up? Because these people have a guilty conscience about the matter. They know that the Government is not taking the necessary measures. The public must not know what is taking place. The public must not know that they are not being protected against this sort of thing. It must be hushed up for political purposes. The Minister says that the troops were drunk. That to me is another peculiar excuse. The Minister says that we must wait for the result of an enquiry of the Commission, but here he already anticipates the report of the Commission with an excuse that the soldiers were drunk. The Minister of Finance must know considerably more about liquor than I do, because to me it is something new that when persons depart from Cape Town drunk the one evening that they are not merely still drunk the next morning but also bellicose. They must have had a very exceptional and unknown sort of drink.

Vodka.

And it was not individuals who committed the deeds, but apparently it was the whole lot or a large part of the troops under the influence of liquor. What is behind it? That is what we want to know. The cause according to our opinion is that the Government has taken certain steps and did not do certain things that it should have done. A stop must be put to this position. Communist propaganda is at work, for it is very clear that the attacks which have been made have been made only, or practically exclusively, on Europeans and European property. We know that the Communists are busy inciting the non-Europeans against the Europeans. Secondly there was of course a total lack of discipline among the troops. They recognise no authority, and did not listen to the officers. Thirdly it is undoubtedly a fact that because coloureds have of late been used as guards over Europeans the consequence has been that the respect which the coloureds must have for the Europeans was undermined. And finally there is the fact that the coloureds have been armed in South Africa while at the same time the Europeans have been disarmed. It was bad enough to arm the coloureds, but when the Government thereafter disarmed our Europeans, they undoubtedly contributed towards undermining the respect of the coloureds for the European. I just want to repeat that we do not want an enquiry, that the Government can hold that later. What we want from the Government is the assurance that this sort of thing will not happen again in the future. I do not know if the Minister knows what the feelings are of the people who live along the main line. I do not know if the Minister knows how the train staff feel and how the people feel who live at the stations. They are filled with anxiety when they hear that the train with coloured troops is on the way. Many people who live near the stations move away for the sake of safety. I say therefore that we have the fullest right to ask from the Government an assurance that the necessary steps will be taken to prevent such a thing recurring.

In the attitude of the Minister of Finance today, we have another revelation of one of the characteristics of the Prime Minister of this country, namely, to let things develop. One day they will act. That is what the attitude of the Minister of Finance comes down to. He asked the House not to draw conclusions from onesided statements on this side of the House, but these are not one-sided statements. They are facts. It is well known throughout the country not for a matter of months, but for years, what is brewing as a result of the arming of coloureds and natives. Undoubtedly the Government knows and the Prime Minister knows, what is going on. The Prime Minister should at least know that day after day there are complaints from the side of the European public that the coloureds who have been armed are a danger to the country. If he does not know that, I would ask him to visit his own camps, such as the camp at Kimberley, for example. Let him walk about a bit on the platform at Kimberley, then he will see day after day how dangerous the matter has already become. To me it is no surprise that such things have happened at Laingsburg and along the line. I do not think that the public will be much surprised either. We expected things. But we have the right also to say that a person of a responsible Government should long ago have been expected to take steps to prevent these developments. But it is the old policy of letting things develop. And the circumstances in which the country finds itself and the conditions which are developing, are being used by the Communists to make propaganda. It is always such circumstances that they exploit. The members of the Cabinet and especially the Prime Minister, should read the book “Russia on the March”, written by an Englishman, and how he explains how the Communists make use of circumstances. It is an Englishman who writes, and he says that the methods of the Communists are not in normal circumstances to make so much propaganda, but when there is war and difficulties, then they use the opportunity to preach their doctrine, because then people are more susceptible to that doctrine. Responsible people such as Ministers should know how the Communists go to work. The occurrences at Laingsburg are another warning to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister of what is coming. In our country we have millions more natives than whites, and we should see to it that these things do not happen. These soldiers should never have been armed. There has been talk of drink. This is not a case of drink. The coloured soldiers behave in a challenging and provocative manner wherever you see them. They are uneducated people who do not know what it is to have weapons, who have no sense of responsibility, and the laxity of the Government encourages them in their attitude. Can you be surprised that these people want to behave like this towards the white population? I have had experience in my own constituency. There was a shopkeeper at a remote place, an Afrikaansspeaking shop-keeper who was against the war. Two natives came from outside and they have probably learnt a lesson from the natives who are armed. They walked into the shop and said to the shop-keeper that he must unpack this thing and that. They practically gave him orders to take one thing after another from his shelves. They were two strongly-built natives. He unpacked things, but as quickly as he did so they told him that they did not want them, and he must put them back again. After a while he said: “This is my shop; do you want to buy anything or not?” Then they challenged him: “Come outside, then we will show you what we can do.” Fortunately he was a strong man, and quickly put them in their place. But that shows what the feeling is, and what is going on. I hope that this incident will now be a final warning to the Government that they cannot any longer let things develop. The strongest action should be taken. We can only protest against the manner in which the matter has been handled by the Minister, and we want once again to issue a warning. The white population will no longer stand for the way in which this matter is being played with.

The incident at Laingsburg is not unique. Only a month ago I drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the misconduct of coloured soldiers at Oudtshoorn. I told him then that in the north end of the dorp a certain coloured soldier came to blows with a young man Sharpe, and that while they were fighting, a woman with a baby in her arms came to the assistance of the white person. The woman was then assaulted by the coloured man, with the result that her leg was broken. Coloureds came running to the place, and got completely out of hand. Then later another white person came to see what was going on, and to see what had happened to the woman. He was also assaulted. He was in the company of a police official, and a policeman was hit on the head with a stone, and the other man’s leg was broken. Two persons with broken legs had to be taken to hospital, and the disturbance continued until late in the evening. Only after military police and other police intervened, were the disturbances checked. I told the Prime Minister then that he must see that these disturbances did not take place, and that he must take care that discipline is enforced among the coloured soldiers. I also made the remark that when you travel round the country, you see that coloured soldiers do not know how to behave themselves. I said that the white soldiers were now under better discipline, but that there was a lack of discipline among the coloured soldiers. But unfortunately, you find the Minister of Finance indifferent, and that the Government is letting things develop. Then they do not take the matter seriously enough and try to defend the soldier. Instead of telling us that he will punish where punishment is deserved, the Minister defends these people and says that he must see whether there was not cause for their behaviour. Does the Minister think that it is necessary to take up that attitude—does the Minister think that from Worcester, from Huguenot Station to Worcester, and to beyond Laingsburg, the public gave cause to the coloured soldiers to behave in this manner? How dare the Minister stand up and ask if there may not have been cause for this behaviour.

I did not say that.

How can the Minister defend the matter? I warned the Prime Minister long ago. I warned him and I told him that these things happened. The opinion has been expressed here that there are certain influences at work among the coloureds and natives—we have said here that the coloureds and natives are being incited, and then the Minister comes and says these are bogeys. We deplore that, and if the Minister takes up that attitude, then I say what can we expect? I have told the Minister that at Mossel Bay assaults were made on the police by coloured soldiers on two occasions. The Prime Minister did not even take the trouble to answer. But the public feels that there is great danger. The public will not stand these things any longer, and I warn the Minister again that if the public take things into their own hands, then the Minister will be to blame. I ask the Minister not to take up the attitude of defending in advance people who commit these misdeeds. He must take steps and see that serious action is taken; he must see that measures are taken to avoid this kind of incident. We have had assaults at Mossel Bay, Beaconsfield, Laingsburg and various other places, and I would again warn the Minister that if the Government does not act, then the people will do so themselves.

One has hardly ever been more impressed than today by the lost feeling of the Government when the Prime Minister is not present. They are like a lot of lost sheep. If the Prime Minister had been here he would also have performed an egg-dance, but he would have been more skilful than the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance did not give us any information and the Minister of Justice, who controls the Police, just sits there and keeps quiet. And the other members on the other side also sit absolutely still because there is information which is being concealed. Nobody accepts the fact that the Government has no information. The Department has definitely got information. It would be flagrant, it is unthinkable that the Government has no information on Tuesday about something which happened on Saturday. If an ordinary person is shot dead, an enquiry is instituted immediately, and reports are sent to the Governor General. Serious things happened here, theft and robbery took place on a large scale—that was on Saturday—and on Tuesday the Government has not yet received any information. I think the Government has got the information but they are concealing it.

The hon. member must not make that accusation.

I am sorry; I shall then say the Government refuses to give information. They have a weak case and the manner in which they are handling it is even weaker. That is what the Minister of Finance did here—he made out such a weak case that we do not know whether he has a case. What he should do is to take Parliament into his confidence. On certain points there will not have to be an enquiry. What he should have done was to tell the House exactly what happened. No military enquiry is necessary when the train arrives at Sonderwater. We can all see what a military enquiry will mean—a military enquiry which will be conducted by a few officers when the train arrives there, but the witnesses of what happened are not on the train. The witnesses are along the line and now a few officers at Sonderwater will have to institute an enquiry. Can the Minister see how ridiculous he is making his Government with such a military enquiry? The Minister should say: “I shall appoint a special commission immediately to institute a thorough and impartial enquiry.” Is the Minister afraid of an impartial enquiry, and have we now got so far that he and the Government are afraid, are they afraid that they will find something which they do not want to find, and the question which occurs is this: Why were steps not taken immediately in order to remove from the train the people who caused the trouble. The trouble began here in Cape Town, and it is clear that the coloured soldiers got out of hand immediately, but instead of steps being taken at once, they allowed these people to continue until eventually there was bloodshed. There are quite a number of stations between Worcester and Laingsburg. Why could steps not have been taken at once? Is there no control over the men? Are there no police officers? We know that the trouble started near Cape Town. Why did the Government or the people in charge not take steps immediately to remove these people from the train, or even to stop the train. No, they were allowed to go on until eventually there was bloodshed, and now the Minister comes here and talks about the other side of the matter. Has the matter got another side? Where is the other side? Who broke into the warehouses? Is there another side? Dit not the coloured soldiers break into the warehouse?

That is what we want to find out.

Did the coloured soldiers damage the train? Are the coloured soldiers responsible for the bloodshed? Where is the other side? The Minister must have the information and he should have come to us immediately and informed us that he is going to appoint a commission of enquiry to go into all the particulars. And the Minister of Justice should get up here and tell us what the position is. The Minister of Finance says the Prime Minister is not here and he—the Minister of Finance—has not got all the information. But it is the Minister of Justice who is immediately informed of the position. If anything of this description takes place in the country, then it is the Minister of Justice who is immediately informed by his Police Force. And he is the man who can give us all the necessary information. I want to appeal to the Minister and I want to ask him whether any information is being concealed, and I want to ask him what information he has in his possession. And there is another question which will be there is another question which will be asked by the public and that is: When is this travelling up and down by the soldiers going to stop? It must occur to one that the coloured soldiers are always travelling up and down. Where they travel to nobody knows, but almost every train is full of coloured soldiers. Where do they go and where do they come from? We hear the farmers complaining about the scarcity of labour, and when one looks at the coloured soldiers travelling about, one’s mouth waters. I think the Government should give is attention to this matter. The Minister disappointed the country with the statement which he made this morning. I say this to the Minister: Only then will the people be satisfied when he will rise here and say that an impartial commission of enquiry will be appointed to investigate the matter thoroughly and to make recommendations as to how this kind of thing may be avoided in the future. That is the least with which the public will be satisfied. What the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) said is quite true. How can we allow, how can the Government allow the coloured soldiers to walk around with weapons, while the white population is unarmed—while all the weapons have been taken away from the European population. What kind of Government is this which is so partial to the natives? How can this be tolerated any longer? And these things will react upon the Government. That is logical. Most of us have warned the Government. We have our eyes open and we can see how the Government is reacting on a special motion of this nature. But it is the first time that we have witnessed anything like this, that a Government is absolutely powerless. It dare not say that a Commission of Enquiry will be appointed because then it will offend the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) and other friends of the non-Europeans.

The hon. member must avoid personal remarks.

The Minister is afraid to rise and to appoint an imparitial commission. He is now in the hands of the coloured people, but the nation will take note and will see that there is a Government whose hands are tied. And that is why they sit here and why not one single member dares to talk. Even the Minister of Justice, who is at the head of the Department which is concerned with matters of this nature, cannot talk. We appeal to the Minister, we ask him again to investigate the matter thoroughly.

Various members on this side of the House have expressed their disappointment at the speech of the Minister of Finance. I am not disappointed. I never expected to hear anything else. How can we expect that the Minister of Finance, who in the past had always gone out of his way to give the coloureds to understand that they should have the same rights and privileges as the white man, should stand up here and make a statement in which he disapproves of the attitude of the coloured troops? That is asking too much. It is notable that nothing has been said by Government supporters. I do not wish to make false accusations, but it seems to me that the Whips have gone round and have given hon. members instructions that they must not speak. There are hon. members on the other side such as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie)… .

Order. The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Yes, I will confine myself to the motion. I wish to point out that hon. members on the other side of the House have not been allowed to speak on this matter in spite of the fact that it is such a serious matter.

Nonsense.

That is why I mention this case. There are members such as the hon. member for Rustenburg … .

The hon. member should not name hon. members. He must confine himself to the motion.

I just wish to ask a question. I wish to point out that there are hon. members on the other side who agree with me … .

Those hon. members can speak for themselves.

That is just the trouble. That is my whole point. They are not allowed to speak for themselves. I will not go into that further, because I think it is quite obvious. It is not necessary to emphasise it. This incident which is being discussed is very serious, but in my view the incident itself is not the most serious circumstance. For me it is a question here that the spirit revealed by this incident is of much more significance than the incident itself. The question naturally arises, what is the spirit revealed by this incident, what is the spirit revealed by these coloureds? I think we can come to no other conclusion than that it is a spirit of insolence, a spirit of lawlessness, and a spirit of vindictiveness against the white population that has been revealed by the persons concerned. Now the further question arises what led up to this incident. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has been reproached when he suggested certain possible reasons which contribute towards this spirit, but in spite of the fact that he has been taken amiss I feel that we have the right to show why this spirit is encountered among the coloured population today. There is no doubt that the agitation which is today being waged at public meetings among the coloured population in general, has contributed greatly to the fact that the coloureds have lost the respect which they had in the past for the white man. They can assure us as often as they will, that Communist propaganda has not had the effect that this incident reveals; we declare that it is the case. It is Communist propaganda which has led to this sort of lawlessness. We see daily in the newspapers that it is said that the coloureds should have political equality, that they should have social equality; many even talk of social equality. Can we expect anything else from the coloureds, whose mentality has not yet reached the level that the mentality of the white people has reached, than that they Will be guilty of this sort of lawlessness? The guilty persons are not so much these coloureds and natives; it is the fault of the Government and the fault of those people who incite the coloureds. Reference has been made here to the hon. Minister of Justice. He says nothing. He has a guilty conscience. Under his Emergency Regulations steps have been taken which in a large measure have led to this state of affairs which exists today. He has issued regulations under which a person in uniform is protected in such a way that he may practically do as he likes. I now want to inform the House of something that was told me by a reliable person. He told me that his wife travelled on a tram here in Cape Town. When she alighted two coloured soldiers came from behind and practically pushed her off the tram. When she asked the coloured soldier why he did this, he answered that he did not do it deliberately. He then begged her pardon, but then the second soldier said to him: “Why do you ask excuse, we can do as we like.” That is the attitude that those regulations of the Minister encourage. That coloured soldier can practically not be touched. That sort of regulation has had as a consequence that the coloured soldier is becoming so impertinent today. The coloured soldiers have come to the conclusion that they can do as they like, so long as they are in uniform. That being the case, how can we expect the Minister of Justice to make a statement on the matter. I want to say to the Minister that if he wants to do his duty then he must withdraw that regulation. If he does that he will at any rate have taken a step in the right direction to put a stop to this state of affairs. To revert to the incident under discussion, I would like to put a few questions to the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask him where those coloureds got the liquor from? Are they allowed to take liquor on the train? The hon. Minister of Railways has given us the assurance that no liquor is obtainable on the trains. Is that the rule today, that if troops board the train they can take a whole supply of liquor with them on the train? If that is the case, I want to ask the Minister of Justice if he does not think that the time has come for the Government to put a stop to that state of affairs; that the coloureds shall not be allowed to take liquor with them on the train. The second question I want to ask him is this: I want to ask him if the Government will give the assurance that instructions will be given to European liquor traders in future to ensure that such quantities of liquor are not sold to coloureds. I realise that this is a very difficult thing to do. It will perhaps be difficult to put it into practical effect, but on the other hand I think that the majority of members in this House, even hon. members on the other side, will agree that when a coloured person is under the influence of liquor then he is not always in full control of himself, and it is extremely dangerous to permit coloureds to obtain so much liquor. I think that the time has come for the Government to place a restriction in one way or another on the quantity of liquor that may be given to the coloureds.

I warned the hon. the Prime Minister the other day in my speech on the Defence Vote that there will be serious consequences if he does not act immediately in order to get the coloured soldiers under control. Here we have it today. In South Africa, in the near future, we shall owe much gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition for the motion which he brought before the House today. I cannot understand it; when the train left Cape Town, they should have noticed that the soldiers were drunk; why did they not stop them immediately? Where were the officers? Have they no control over the men? I suppose they are people who had experience of non-Europeans before they were appointed as officers. They simply allowed matters to develop. This is an instance where the officers should have taken drastic action. I want to tell you what happened in the last war. We came from Upington by train, and at a certain stage we noticed that there was a train on the line. Then also there was a dreadful amount of destruction by the same type of soldier. They damaged the train by throwing stones at it. Fortunately Gen. Van Deventer was there, and do you know what we did? We arrested them immediately, and we stripped 25 of them and thrashed them; we beat them until they could not walk. We caught them immediately and arrested them. An officer has great power in time of war. Actually there is martial law; these are not ordinary instances. These are people who are in uniform. In any organisation where there is discipline orders which are given must be executed immediately, and here the soldiers got completely out of hand. Merely to institute an enquiry will not help. They should have acted immediately, and steps should have been taken immediately in order to suppress this sort of thing. We must take note of what is happening in Cape Town. Let hon. members just sound their hooters at certain places at night, and they will see that they will be attacked. Many things happen in Cape Town which never come to light. At present information does not get around so easily. The position is that non-European soldiers assault the Europeans. They hate the white man. At present they simply say that this is their country. The natives on my farm and in that neighbourhood, who have never heard of this sort of thing, also come and tell us that this is their country, and after the war they will get the country back, and the white man will have to go. These coloured soldiers are under European officers. They have already been in uniform for two years, and they should be disciplined. But we simply have to accept the fact that those natives and coloureds have not the mentality of the European to acquire discipline. Imagine, there are officers with that unit, and there are junior officers who tell them what they must do; the officers acted strictly; somebody even said that they used force, but the men would simply not listen. They simply walked over the officers. That is something which we dare not allow in an army. I have had experience of coloured soldiers. Hon. members on the other side may laugh, but I want to tell them that it is not something about which to laugh. What is the future going to be of every man, woman and child in this country, if we do not stop this sort of thing? It is a serious matter, because it endangers the white races in South Africa. The mentality of the natives and coloureds is absolutely different, and we must take definite action against them. I regret that the Prime Minister is not here. In the olden days he warned against this sort of thing, and now he does not do anything. He and his Government can only see one thing, and that is to see the war through. They do not look to the left or to the right; they only see the war path and they cannot see how the future of the white race is being undermined by coloured soldiers. If immediate and drastic action is not taken, then I am afraid that the conditions will develop so that not only one or two will be shot, but where shooting will take place on a large scale.

I want to put this question to the hon. Minister of Finance. He said here that he did not have sufficient information at his disposal, and that he first wanted to institute investigations and to have more information at his disposal before he could come to any conclusion. I now want to ask him where those soldiers are going. We know that they were going to Sonderwater, and I want to know from the Minister what they are going to do there. At Sonderwater there is an Italian prisoner-of-war camp, and they are, of course, sent there in order to guard the prisoners of war. When we note that fact, when we note what they are going to do there, we put our finger on the cause of the trouble. The Minister of Finance said here this morning that he knew too little about the case to pass judgment now. But certain things are surely clear to him, and must be clear to him. What is his verdict in regard to those things that are clear to him? It is clear that there was bloodshed and that there was disorderliness and that there was lawlessness, but nevertheless the Minister did not give us any indication that he was going to take action. That is the crux of the matter. The Minister cannot say that what took place was unexpected. We on this side warned at all times that that type of thing would take place, but the Government did not take any notice of our warnings, and for that reason we have every right today to say that the Government is guilty, that it behaved in such a way that it promoted that type of thing. We have had all sorts of excesses taking place in recent times, because coloured soldiers behave themselves in a disorderly way, and the Government was too lax to take action. Last year I referred in this House to a case where a troop train with coloureds stopped alongside the train in which my wife, my little daughter and I were. The provocation which we had to put up with and invective we had to listen to, cried out to heaven. I warned the Government, but the Government did nothing, and was as silent as the grave. Today we again have the position that the Government of the day is silent, that it simply sits dead quiet and waits to see how matters in the future are going to develop. The way in which these matters are kept silent and are defended, instead of action being taken in the interests of white civilisation, is simply an incitement to those coloureds to go ahead and to agitate, and in our history it is yet going to cause one blood-bath after another if we do not stop this sort of thing, and the responsibility for it will rest upon the Government because they failed to act betimes. The Minister of Justice is here this morning. We warned him repeatedly the previous Session, and again during this Session, that there are subversive activities in progress in the country, and he simply asked us: Where are the signs of it? Here he now has the signs. If he cannot see that sign, then he is simply blind to the subversive activities in our country. When we pointed out the subversive activities to him and the agitation that prevails, he simply said that it was spooks. He will call such things spooks …

Until he himself becomes a spook in the land.

Yes, until he himself will be a spook in the country, and not only that, but a spook in the history of Afrikanerdom. I want to put this question to the Minister of Justice. There he sits with his responsibility—as much of it as he possess—and I put this question to him: Supposing that this had happened in normal circumstances, and there was a Minister of Justice at the head of affairs who knew his duty towards the people; supposing it was white troops who simply smashed the windows of the railway carriages and who committed things of that nature, would those people have travelled further in that train that night, or would they in the first place have slept in prison? In normal circumstances that would have happened. Why is the Government so disinclined to act; why does the Government lend its protection to coloured soldiers who act in that way? Is the uniform they are wearing the reason why the Government is protecting them; is the reason that the Government needs them and that the Government is a party to this agitation that seeks the destruction of the Boer nation in this country? I want to put this other question to the Minister of Justice. How under the sun can he, as Minister of Justice, justify the occurrence of such riots and excesses on the train? It began at Huguenot and it went on at station after station, until it terminated in bloodshed at Laingsburg. Never in all our history have we had such laxity on the part of the authorities. But if they had been Europeans, then the Minister of Justice would have been only too quick to attach blame to them, to give the appearance that they are acting against law and order, and his first instructions would have been that they must be arrested and shoved into gaol. Where coloureds are busy inciting feeling between European and non-European, and when they cause affairs of this description, then the Minister of Justice does nothing, and he is as silent as the grave. I want to ask him, if his father had sat where he is sitting today …

Order!

I want to ask the Minister if every Afrikaner statesman, let us search through our history, would not have acted otherwise than he has acted today. That sort of thing is happening everywhere in the country; excesses are taking place, but the Minister of Justice remains silent. The Minister of Finance has told us here that action would be taken after the commission of enquiry had concluded its work. Death and plunder will take place in the country, but the Minister of Justice will not so much as move a finger to take action. After the death and plunder has taken place, an enquiry will perhaps be instituted. When the commission some day appears with its report, then we wonder if the Minister of Justice will act, and then where will be the people who are the cause of the riots which have taken place? I want to tell the Government in this House that this is a serious question. You can go to any European person in the country who still has a grain of feeling for the correct relationship that should exist between European and non-European, and you will find that those people feel deeply aggrieved about this lawlessness that perpetually comes to light in respect of coloured soldiers. I travelled by train two weeks ago, and when I woke in the morning there was a swearing and cursing in progress such as I have never in my life heard before. It was the coloured soldiers who were on that train. I have mentioned similar cases here before, but the Government is simply deaf, and we shall find out that they will remain deaf also on this occasion. They will be just as lax as before, and for that reason I say that the Government is responsible for the consequences of this sort of thing in our country. I want to say here again that the Prime Minister himself wrote years ago in his “Century of Wrong” that this arming of coloureds and natives, the arming of coloureds and natives in the Boer War, is repulsive to the Afrikaner, and that it is going to create such a feeling with the European population, if England continues with it, that the result will be that the Cape will tear itself loose from the British connection. I can tell the Government that the Afrikaner people do not intend to tolerate this sort of thing, and the Government must act in connection with such cases, or it must expect serious consequences in the country. There are today members on the other side who felt with the Prime Minister when he wrote those things, and they must realise today what a serious position is arising in the country. I want to say again to the Government what one of the things is that accompanies this attitude of the coloureds, and I want to say what my eyes have seen. I have seen a train coach of Italian prisoners, and the armed guards on that train were all coloured soldiers. When they reach a station then we see how the coloured guards alight; how they present arms on the station and click their heels together, and how they are busy on the platforms goading the Europeans in an incredible manner. We ask the Prime Minister here in this House to ensure that in the future European guards shall be used to guard the Italian prisoners-of-war on the trains. We pointed out to him that there are enough white people in the country to do that work. We pointed out to him that this sort of thing will have evil results for European civilisation and that it is a shock to the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa, that it will create conditions of which we cannot now see the limits. What was his reply? He simply said that he was going to continue to do it, and that he was going to have these European persons guarded by armed coloureds. There have been complaints about conditions at Sonderwater, where the Italian prisoners-of-war are. I personally saw at the Premier Mine, when I went there to do certain work, that the permits had to be taken from us by an armed Hottentot. I and others had to hand our permits at the gate to an armed Hottentot. Can the Minister realise what impression this makes on the feelings of the Europeans? These are the things that are happening in our country today, and I say that if this Government is worth a grain of salt then it will not allow this sort of thing to continue but will defend those who may demand protection. If it cannot do this, then the sooner it stands aside the better it will be. Who must be protected by the Government in the country? The Government must in the first place protect the European community. What is happening now? When Europeans travel on the trains they must experience a lot of skollies smashing the windows, and in what condition must the people in those trains not be? Those people have a right to protection, and the Government ought to protect them. In the second place, we expect protection for railway property; it is the property of the people and not of the Government. Not only do we expect protection for State property, but we also expect protection for private property. What must now happen regarding the damage caused to private property, as referred to here at the various places where this troop train stopped? We have heard that a butcher shop, a bank and other buildings have been damaged. Damage has been done that will cost pounds to restore. They simply started here near Cape Town, and they continued with their work of destruction until they reached Nelspoort. State property and private property was damaged, and the Government was too lax to take action. I would now like to know who is going to pay for that damage? Have those Hottentots enough money to pay for it; will the Department of Defence confiscate their pay to defray the damage? And then finally, I want to make an earnest plea here for the protection of the railway staff of the Union. Europeans on the Railways are goaded from time to time by the coloureds, so that it has become an evil in the country. Every railwayman is going about with a cropped-up feeling as the result of these insults. The condition of good service in any department of the country is a courteous and helpful staff of officials. Can we expect to have such a staff of officials if they are exposed to treatment of this nature? European Afrikanerdom is being goaded in this manner, and every day we get more and more of it. The public is coming into conflict with those things. We would now like to know what is going to happen in the future. Will the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance again tell us in the future that they did not know about these things? The Minister of Finance said here today that when he first heard about these things two days had already passed. It is going to happen again in the future, and then the Minister must realise that we have brought home to him the responsibility for it. On what he is going to do, or not going to do, will depend what will happen and how things will develop in the future as regards this sort of thing. I just want to say this, that the result of this sort of thing is that white Afrikanerdom will rise as one man and say: So far no further. European civilisation is worth protecting in South Africa, and it will ensure that it is protected.

Did I hear correctly when the Minister of Finance informed the House that this commando of coloured troops was on its way to Sonderwater?

Yes.

In other words, these troops are intended to guard the Italian prisoners-of-war there.

Not necessarily; you cannot come to that conclusion.

But they are going to Sonderwater.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

The hon. Minister of Finance said, in reply to a question which was put to him, i.e. whether the soldiers who did these scandalous things at Laingsburg, were on their way to Sonderwater, that that was so, and when I asked whether they were going there to guard the prisoners of war, he said that it might be possible, but that he is not sure about it. I want to refer to what I said in this House on a previous occasion. The question whether this type of soldier is used at Sonderwater as guards is one which will interest hon. members who have relatives in Italy as prisoners of war. Everyone who has visited the camps at Sonderwater, gets two impressions—at least I did, and I think everybody who went there did. The one impression was that the prisoners of war there are treated exceptionally well. The camps are kept very clean. That point I already explained on a previous occasion. But the second impression, and the strongest impression which one gets, is this, that the guards there certainly do not come up to expectations as military guards. Immediately you get to the camps, you can see that the coloured soldiers are not the right kind of guards. The impression which they create is not only one of being undisciplined, but also an impression of audacity and insolence.

I think the hon. member can refer to that in passing, but we are not discussing Sonderwater at the moment, and the hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I want to draw the attention of the Government to certain things in connection with the Defence Force, and it has a bearing on the occurrences at Laingsburg. My argument is this: In South Africa there are undoubtedly many prisoners-of-war. Many of our men are sitting in the camps and we know of the occurrences which took place some time ago in regard to the tying up of prisoners-of-war. We know how the action of the one party immediately reacted on the policy of the other party. My argument is that this occurrence at Laingsburg should open the eyes of our Government to the dangers threatening our prisoners-of-war in Italy. The danger is that our people overseas will suffer as a result of the fact that our Government is using guards who should not be there. When I was at Sonderwater, there was a Colonel who took me round, and we came to one place where a few of the troops lived. It was a kind of barn. One of the troops was lying there and the other one was leaning up against the wall. The Colonel walked past and neither of the two troops got up to salute him. The Colonel said to them: “Don’t you think you should salute your Colonel when he is passing by.” They then got up very sleepily and saluted him. I said to the Colonel: “If I had been in your place, and I had a sjambok with me, I would have fixed them.” He then said: “Yes, they are like that here; on the battlefield they are good.” The reply which came to my mind was this: “Why don’t you then send the coloured troops to the North; we shall then see whether they are also as brave and insolent.” I think the Government should consider our boys who have been locked up overseas, in the hands of the same power of whom we have prisoners-of-war, and whom we are guarding by means of troops which should not be there at all. I think this is something which everybody should consider, but there is a further point in connection with the general aspect of the matter, and that is that the Government should consider the matter from an historical point of View. It is a good century ago when one of the greatest tragedies took place in South Africa, one of the most dreadful things, which was felt after a decade and which is still felt in the hearts of the nation, and that tragedy was the occurrence at Slagtersnek. What was the result of that tragedy? Those were also coloured troops; the same kind of troops which were connected with the Laingsburg incident.

I think the hon. member must confine himself to the motion. I do not think that that matter has anything to do with the motion.

You must forget it.

The hon. member says that I should forget it. I cannot forget it, and I hope that the Government will not forget it either.

I am not rising here to satisfy the inquisitiveness of the hon. member. I have always been able to justify my standpoint in this House. I want to say immediately that I strongly deplore the incident that has occurred. I also want to add that I disapprove of it in the strongest terms. I regret that such a thing has taken place under discipline. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said this morning that he did not want to drag this matter into politics, but he had hardly resumed his seat, or someone or other on his side stood up and dragged in all sorts of little incidents, and thereby they themselves destroyed the force of their motion. If they had confined themselves to the incident, then there would have been some value in their motion. It is a serious matter; I want to admit that. Their complaint against the Minister of Finance is totally unjustified. The Minister of Finance told us that he did not have the facts at his disposal, and that he could therefore not make a full statement. He said at the outset that he deplored the incident, and then one after another stood up on the other side to allege that the Minister silently approved of it. As soon as one has to do with a serious matter, then one gets that sort of attitude, which creates more and more disrespect for the white man in the eyes of the coloureds.

Are you trying to, justify them?

That hon. member can speak in his turn. We must confine ourselves to the facts. I am sure that while hon. members on the other side were busy accusing the Minister of Finance, I am sure that at that moment the hon. Prime Minister, who is responsible for the Department of Defence, was already busy taking steps to put the matter in its correct perspective.

I am glad that the Rt. Hon. Minister of Defence is now here. I am glad to learn from the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) that he feels sure that the Prime Minister as Minister of Defence has the information by this time and that he will immediately …

I did not say that.

The hon. member said that he is sure that the Prime Minister would immediately take steps to obtain information.

The right steps.

Then I just want to say this. I am glad that the Prime Minister is now here, so that he can impart the information to us. Before I come to the hon. Minister of Railways, I just want to say what the reply was which the Minister of Finance gave us here this morning. I would like the Prime Minister to listen to it. The hon. Minister of Finance said he deplored that such a thing had happened, but he did not say that he disapproved of it. That is precisely our grievance on this side of the House. The Minister of Finance said that he would cause an investigation to be made into the matter, because we had heard of the matter, and that we must hear it from “our” side. Supposing he appoints a commission of investigation; is it then necessary to find out if the coloureds took too much drink? If it is ascertained for instance that the coloureds took too much drink, will that then justify the step? If it is found for instance that other persons such as Communists are behind this incident, will that then justify the step? Surely it is not necessary to institute an enquiry to disapprove of a thing like that. The mere fact that they had done such a thing is objectionable, and we expected of the Government side that they would immediately tell the coloured troops that they disapprove of such a thing, and therefore we are glad that the Prime Minister is now here so that he can tell the House and the country on behalf of the Government that it disapproves of such things, and that he will take immediate steps to prevent such things in future. That is what we expect of the Government. I see that the hon. Minister of Railways is now here. But in view of the fact that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is also here, I want to tell him also that the people who are the most concerned about this occurrence are the persons who must board the train on Sunday and Monday and tonight. The persons who are concerned are those persons whose wives and children must travel by train. A person who has now to send away his wife and child by rail will ask himself what is going to happen while they are travelling on the train. Therefore I would like the Prime Minister to make a statement; therefore I would like the Prime Minister to make a statement that will reassure the public who have to travel by train. I can imagine how worried I would have felt if my family had to board a train last night or on Sunday evening on which there were coloured soldiers. Then I would like the Prime Minister to tell us what steps he will take not only to protect the public, but what steps he is going to take to protect the railway staff, the ticket examiners and the conductors against such occurrences as have now happened. I am glad the Minister of Railways is now here. I am surprised that such things can happen. I wish the Minister of Railways would one Sunday evening—it is usual on Sunday evenings—pay a visit to the Cape Town station when the coloured troops depart. One evening when I travelled to the North I tried to count the number of coloureds standing on the station platform. I counted them in groups; there were between 300 and 400, and their behaviour was not always exemplary. A coloured woman, for instance, boarded the train, and the conductor had to chase her out because it was too full; one of the skollies took her handbag, and she never saw it again. But the aggressive attitude they adopt so that a white man cannot walk in safety on the station is something that cries out to heaven. I wish the Minister of Railways would go there to convince himself. Now these people go out of Cape Town in this excited state of mind, and if they have drink to make them even more jolly, one can understand what the result is going to be. It is the public who now feel that they are not safe on the trains. It is the railway staff who feel that they are not safe. I would like the Minister of Railways to make a statement that will reassure both the public and the railway staff.

I feel particularly sorry that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister could not be present here from the commencement of the debate. I feel certain that this long-drawn-out debate is due principally to the tactless reply of the hon. Minister of Finance. We at least expected after what had happened that the Minister would express his disapproval. We expected that he would give the people outside the assurance that the Government would ensure that there would be no repetition of this incident. This incident may be ascribed principally to drunkenness, that resulted in man-slaughter. The public must be protected. What has already been said here in connection with the danger that threatens passengers on the trains is only too true, and a lot can be added to it. We all know what recklessness takes place on the trains. We all know that there are no glasses left in the train as a result of the reckless action of certain persons—that in every compartment there is only one feeble little light at which nobody can read. These are inconveniences that the public must put up with, and it is all due to the transport of troops. But to leave that matter there. My point is that the enquiry in connection with this matter will prove that drunkenness was the cause of this incident. I want to ask the Minister if the coloured soldier is really allowed to obtain drink on the station and to take quantities of drink with him. It is very clear that the soldiers had drink with them on the train. I hope that the emergency regulations of the Department of Railways do not permit the sale of drink on the stations to soldiers. If the coloured soldiers are permitted to board the train intoxicated and have enough drink to keep them drunk for the following twelve hours, then things will naturally become so dangerous that no person will venture to board a train. I say I feel convinced that the enquiry will prove that those things happen under the influence of liquor. Every fighting general on earth knows that alcohol is the greatest and the most dangerous enemy of the soldier. Just look at what is happening on street-corners and on railway stations such as De Aar and other places where liquor is sold to soldiers. Dozens of them sit in public outside beside the bar, each with a bottle of liquor, and it seems as if that uniform creates an unquenchable thirst. Is it then to be wondered at that all those things of which we heard in the House today are happening? We thank God that the coloured and the native have not the right to buy drink in the northern provinces. I am therefore glad that the Prime Minister is here. I want to ask him if perhaps liquor had something to do with the capture of those thousands of soldiers at Tobruk … . .

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Assuming that those coloureds on the train were armed, what would then have happened? I presume that they did not have arms with them. But the position is nevertheless serious enough. We demand from the Prime Minister that he should give the country the assurance that he would ensure that a stop would be put to this disorderliness on the trains. We must all travel by those trains. We cannot do otherwise; and we would like to have a guarantee from the Government that those people will not be allowed to board the trains in a state of intoxication, that there will be proper discipline, and that where a man is drunk he will be immediately put off the train.

I regret that I am coming into the debate at such a late stage. Unfortunately I could not be here this morning and consequently I could not listen to a large part of the debate, but I want to intervene in the debate immediately because I take up the matter seriously. Here is a portion of our troops in the country who got beyond themselves, and who did things that are deplored by everyone, and by nobody more than by me.

Deplore!

Hitherto I could pride myself on the fact that with all the shortcomings and faults of an army such as ours, built up from civilians of all colours in the country, from whom one could not expect the same measure of discipline that one finds in standing armies such as those in Europe and in other countries of the world; notwithstanding all the difficulty we have had to contend with, I was proud of the fact that we have brought into being an army out of the ordinary population that was fairly well disciplined; and now I am being put to shame. Now I am being put to shame, and things happen that are deplored and disapproved in the highest measure not only by the people outside but by me as Commander-in-Chief. I wish to give the House the assurance that whatever I can do, that whatever can be done on behalf of the Government, to put a stop to such action, shall be done, and all the necessary steps shall be taken against it. I bitterly regret that such a thing has happened. I do not want us simply to start shooting about blindly and to seek all sorts of causes All I have been able to find out so far in a few moments at my disposal is that liquor had quite a lot to do with the matter, but I am not quite certain that liquor was the only trouble. Liquor was of course the chief cause, but I do not know if it was only liquor, and I want to have a thorough enquiry instituted, and I will ensure that a thorough, enquiry will be instituted to probe the matter to the roots so as to prevent a repetition of such a thing.

Will it be a military enquiry or a civil enquiry?

It will be the strongest military enquiry possible, and if it is necessary I shall also have a civil enquiry instituted, but I shall begin with a military enquiry. I want to know how such a thing could happen. It was a troop train. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. C. de Wet) said here that the public must be protected. Of course the public must be protected. But in this case the public was not concerned. It was a troop train, a train on which there were several hundreds of coloured soldiers.

How many European officers were there?

That is the question. That is precisely what I want to have investigated. It is easy to shield behind the accusation of drunkenness. But I want to know how it can happen that a troop train on which there are hundreds of European and coloured troops a position can arise under which such a thing can happen. I want to give this House the undertaking and also the country, that this matter will be sifted out.

What will happen to those troops at Sonderwater?

They assemble there before they go to the North.

Will they be used to guard the prisoners-of-war there?

I do not know if these troops will be used for that. Coloured troops are used to guard prisoners-of-war, but whether these troops are fit for that is another matter.

They are not fit for it.

I do not think they will be used for that. Sonderwater is an assembling dépôt for troops just as Pietermaritzburg is, before they go to the North. I imagine that these people were here on on embarkation leave, and before they left they were jolly and they departed full of drink. I know the difficulties with which we have to cope in the Cape Province. The purchase of liquor is free to coloureds, and I can comprehend that these people went to the train fairly full of liquor and also with liquor in their pockets.

The train should have been stopped.

No, the sooner they got away from the station the better. I think it was wise to let the train go right through to its destination. Do not let us fight about the matter here blindly, seek all sorts of motives and use all sorts of arguments to try to give an explanation of a matter about which we do not know enough. At the moment we can give only general views. We know that there was bad discipline; there was drunkenness, and things happened that are a disgrace to the army and to the country. In these circumstances I will ask the House that we should not tarry longer at this matter, that we should not now try to seek an explanation while we have not yet got the correct information. The explanation will come. I promise the House that the enquiry will be thorough and factual.

Will the result be made public?

Yes, it will be made public, and if it is necessary it can be discussed in this House. It is not something that should be kept covered. It is a matter of first-rank importance to us, and even if this discussion had not taken place here it was my intention, when I heard of this occurrence, to view it in a very serious light. If we allow such a thing, then there will not only be chaos in our army but also in the country. The discipline of which we were hitherto proud must be maintained, and all steps must be taken to probe the matter to the roots, in order to know what the cause of it was and to apply punishment to European and coloured who deserve punishment. In these circumstances I do not want to go into the matter further. I realise the seriousness of it and the necessity for a thorough enquiry, and if it is necessary we can again go into the matter after we have the report. I therefore hope that the House will accept my undertaking to do everything necessary to see that the matter is sifted out and that steps are taken to prevent a recurrence.

If ever there has been justification for a motion of this kind in this House that justification came today from the Prime Minister. Just let me say this, that the Prime Minister by what he said here made good to a very large extent the wrong done by the Minister sitting next to him. Instead of admitting the facts before him so far as they are known, he tried to hide behind the Commission of Enquiry which he says has to be appointed in order to bring the facts to light. The Prime Minister does not take up that attitude. He admits in the main at least that the facts are correct, that the position is serious and that a stop must be put to it, and he goes further and says that he guarantees it will be done. His tone is very different and the assurance he has given us is very different from what we had here today in the course of this debate. Let me remind hon. members that even when the facts are admitted and the seriousness of the position recognised there are still a few things which we cannot get away from, and these matters go to show that there has been neglect. The one point is in regard to drunkenness. The Prime Minister says that drink did play its part and he says it may play a part. Now we must, in view of the facts that are known, and in view of the fact that these things have happened more than once, whether there should not have been proper supervision to prevent those coloured men boarding the train in that state of intoxication, and especially whether supervision should not have been exercised to see that they did not take any drink with them. Should not steps have been taken to prevent them from rushing bars and drinking places when arriving at stations? I feel that in this regard there has been definite neglect. The other point is this, when it was found at Huguenot what the position was, and particularly when at Worcester, the disturbances among these men assumed a serious form, arrangements should immediately have been made, in view of the fact that it was a troop train, to keep that train at a particular place until such time as proper discipline had been restored among these troops. The position should not have been allowed to develop from bad to worse until eventually at Laingsburg it reached its zenith and resuted in loss of life. The Prime Minister stated here that he did not think that drunkenness was the only factor in the case. I don’t think so either. I think there was something very much more serious, and I feel it is essential to get at the root of the matter. I am glad the Prime Minister realises that too. The other Minister resented our referring to it. I am glad that the Prime Minister stated that we must get at the root of the whole trouble. I only want to mention one thing. The Government has done a thing which, from the point of view of the coloured people, may be to their advantage. The Government has decided, according to a reply to a question here, that a permanent Coloured Commission is to be appointed to act as a link between the Government and the coloured community so as to give that community the opportunity of expressing its views through those channels. I am not going to say that that is a good or a bad thing. I am merely stating the facts. Hon. members know that strong protests have been lodged against this proposal by the coloured people. They reject the proposal and they are doing so under the leadership of Communistic agitators, and we quite understand what is the reason for their doing so. It is because they do not in any way wish to be regarded as a separate community. They simply want to be equal in every respect. And that is demonstrated by their attitude in regard to the coloured commission announced by the Government. That is an indication of what is going on in their minds. It shows what they are aiming at, and that really is what is at the back of this whole matter. I conclude by saying that if we, on this side of the House, representing a large section of the community, object to coloured soldiers behaving in the way they have done, behaving in a way which causes the Prime Minister to state that the position is serious, as he has done, and if we find, simply because they don uniform they are given the franchise, and are thereby able to overwhelm the vote of the white population, if we object to that hon. members will better than ever before realise why we adopt that attitude.

Motion put and negatived.

I move—

I know it is not customary to address the House on a motion of this kind, but I feel that a word or two of explanation is due to the House of the introduction of this measure at this time. This Bill represents the considered and increasingly urgent wish of the nursing profession and it wishes to put it before the House in the hope that the Government may, by reason of its reasonableness, be prepared to give it time this Session. But even if this hope should not be realised, the profession feels that the House and the country should be made familiar with its legislative aspirations. I have only to add, sir, that the introduction of this Bill at this time should not be taken as any evidence of lack of confidence in the Public Health Commission now sitting. The members of the Commission have been acquainted with the intention of the nurses to take this step and they have expressed themselves as not unsympathetic towards it.

I second.

Agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 26th March.

I move—

In March, 1937, a resolution was introduced into this House by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) asking for the appointment of a commission “to enquire into and report upon the inequalities and discriminations from which the women of South Africa suffer, and also the legal and economic disabilities under which they still are placed.” That, sir, was as the House will notice, a motion in very much wider terms than the motion which I am asking the House to accept. The motion of the hon. member for Parktown was accepted by the then Government and a commission was appointed som eighteen months later, but in consequence of the war the operations and proceedings of that commission have been indefinitely suspended. But, Mr. Speaker, that was not the only motion of this nature which came before the House. As far back as 1934 the hon. member for Von Brandis introduced a similar motion, and it was also accepted by the House, but no further action was taken upon it. The motion which I am introducing is in very much narrower terms; it asks for the removal of the disabilities and inequalities suffered by married women under the common law of the Union of South Africa. It is necessary in order that the House may understand clearly what my object is, that I should indicate for the benefit of those who are not aware of those inequalities, exactly what the disabilities and inequalities are from which married women suffer. In order to illustrate the position clearly, I propose to take the case of a young unmarried woman, and a young married woman of 25 years of age, and see what difference marriage makes in her status. I assume that she has been earning a living for herself from the age of 21 until she reaches 25 years, when she marries. During that period she is able to engage herself for work, she is able to enter into contracts, she is able to open a banking account, she is able to acquire assets, purchase securities, and she is able to dispose of those assets without interference from any person or anybody whatever. And during that period she will have had sufficient contact with the world to be able to understand the nature of contracts and the nature of the obligations which she takes upon herself as a citizen of the country. Now, at the age of 25 she marries, and the effect of that is that her position entirely changes. Let me take the case of a woman who gets married in community of property under the provisions of our common law. A large proportion of our marriages are in community of property. The latest figures which I have been able to obtain show that something like 70 per cent. of our marriages are under the provisions of the common law, under which there is community of property, and the balance are under antenuptial contract. In the year 1939 there were 15,897 marriages in community and 7,046 out of community. It is clear from that that the large majority of marriages are in community of property, and I shall therefore first deal with the status of the wife in terms of such a marriage. The position of a wife in such a case has been clearly set out by the courts over and over again, and Mr. Justice Jacob de Villiers, in the case of Endler vs. Freedman in 1923 stated that our law admitted of no doubt. A married woman is a minor under the marital power of her husband, and she cannot either sue or be sued, and as she is a minor her position, according to Van Leeuwen, is similar to that of persons who are dumb, idiots or imbeciles. As far as the law of contract is concerned, Mr. Justice Wessels puts the position clearly in his “Law of Contract,” vol. I cf. 716 and cf. 717, which I should like to quote to the House. He says that according to the old Roman Law, a woman had complete equality with her husband, marriage did not deprive the woman of her independence, and the property of the husband and the wife remained distinct and each spouse was, as a general rule, free to make contracts as he or she thought fit. A woman could assert her rights in a court of law without the assistance of her husband, and she could even contract with her husband—

So this absurd position arises that a woman or a widow who marries a minor of 20 years of age by that fact becomes a minor herself, and the husband whom she marries, by virtue of the marriage becomes a major. That is one of the absurdities that result from the law. As I have pointed out and the passage I have quoted points out, she can modify the terms of the contract by an antenuptial contract, but that antenuptial contract does not in any way take away from the husband the marital power unless that marital power is expressly excluded, and not all antenuptial contracts entered into in South Africa provide for the exclusion of the marital power. If a married woman wishes to enter into a contract with a third person, that third person will not, if he has his wits about him, enter into that contract without the consent of the husband, because of the fact that even if there is an antenuptial contract it does not follow that the marital power is necessarily excluded. If a married woman wants to open a banking account, to purchase stock, or enter into a contract of employment or to deal with any savings she may have, not one of those arrangements can she make without the consent of her husband, although it may be in respect of money which she herself has earned or has brought into the community. That being the position, you can at once see that she is put in a very unfortunate position, so unfortunate in fact that if conditions arise under which it is essential that she should go into the world and earn a living, the husband would be entitled to claim that her earnings be paid over to him. Cases of that nature have actually occurred. There was one where a woman who was a teacher. Owing to conditions which arose—the husband either refused to or was unable to earn a living—she went out and earned a living as a teacher in order to assist to maintain a family, and the husband insisted that the salary should be paid directly to himself. There was another case in which a woman, having quarrelled with her husband, went out and tried to obtain employment, and did actually obtain employment, and the husband intervened, cancelled the contract between the employer and his wife, and demanded that she should return to his home. Why is it that our law contains these curious and unfair provisions, provisions which even the old Roman Law did not contain? The reason is that we are the inheritors of legal ideas which were in force in a number of the ancient Germanic tribes. Under their system the male head of the family was the person who represented the whole family, and the woman had to take her place under his tutelage, and it is that system which has come down to us and which we have adopted in the provisions of our Roman Dutch Law. But, Mr. Speaker, a demand has been made for many years for an alteration of that law. A generation ago the position of women was quite different from what it is today. In the past it was regarded as rather a misfortune if a woman had to go into the world and earn her own living, but today it is regarded as a misfortune if a woman cannot do that. It is the aim today of every reasonable and far-seeing parent to see that not only his son, but his daughters are also in a position to fend and provide for themselves. Our law was not alone in containing these handicaps against women. Many other countries contained them. For example, the provisions of the English Law were even more drastic than the provisions of the Roman Dutch Law, but in 1882 the Married Woman’s Property Act was introduced, which removed all the disabilities which a married woman suffered from, and she then became entitled to acquire property, to dispose of her own property, and to enter into contracts in exactly the same way as she was entitled to do before she became a married woman. Even in Southern Rhodesia in 1928, an Act was introduced which eliminated marriage in community of property, and did away with the marital power and even allowed certain persons who had married prior to that date, to come under the provisions of that Act. In many other countries of the world this idea of the woman being able to act for herself as a free and independent person has been declared. For instance, in Norway, while there is still community of property, each of the spouses has a general power over the whole estate and the woman is not under the tutelage of her husband. In Sweden the position is very similar to what it now is in England, that is to say, the married woman is entitled to act as a responsible adult citizen. In Germany, the wife may dispose personally of her own services without the husband’s interference and acquire for herself the proceeds of her labour. In America there has been a widespread alteration of the law almost in everyone of the States. There is a book by Sophonisba P. Breckenridge, called “Marriage and the Civil Rights of Women” which reviews the position in the U.S.A. and on page 3 of this book she says:

And in America they have gone further. They have even allowed, under certain circumstances, the wife to acquire a nationality different from that of the husband, where the husband is an alien. We still recognise the principle in our law that the woman, if she marries an alien, becomes an alien except in certain very special circumstances.

It is true that the vast majority of married couples are able to live together in complete happiness and security, no matter what the law is; and that, of course, is the case in South Africa. But the weakness of the law only becomes evident when there is trouble in the family, when the husband becomes characterless, or a drunkard and unreliable. It is then that the legal rights of the married woman become of the greatest importance, and it is then that she should be in a position to fend for herself, and take an equal and unfettered part in maintaining the home and the children. These are circumstances which our law does not provide for; these are circumstances in which our law break down completely, and these are the circumstances which the proposal I now put before the House is intended to remedy. Mr. Speaker, a number of distinguished women are members of this House and entitled to vote without control by anyone on the gravest matters affecting this land, on matters of law and order and peace and war. In fact, they have done so, and it seems absurd that in the matter of the simplest contracts or matters concerning the disposal of their own earnings, they cannot act without the consent of their husbands. I take, for example, the case of my hon. friend the member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon). She is an advocate of the Supreme Court, entitled to advise upon and conduct cases in any court of the land, and yet she herself, cannot sue or be sued in the simplest action without the consent or assistance of her husband. That is an absurdity which shows how necessary it is for the law to be altered. When the matter came before the House in 1937 the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was Minister of Justice, and I would like to quote what he said in connection with the motion then before the House—

Mr. Speaker, we endorse all those words excepting that, I am afraid, that they have a very real sense of inferiority and of grievance. There are thousands of women who have formed themselves into organisations to remove this grievance. I have, for example, a letter before me from the National Council of Women of South Africa which is in these terms, referring to the motion I am moving—

I can assure the House that there are thousands of women in this country who feel that they are not being fairly treated, that it is an injustice that when they take upon themselves the greatest responsibility that a woman can assume, the responsibility of marriage and bringing up a family, that they should by that very act degrade themselves in their personal status as citizens of this country. For these reasons I ask the House to accept this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to second this motion, because I am one of those who believe that legislation in this matter of freeing married women from the difficult and absurd position our law very frequently places them in, is long overdue. It is so long overdue that the women of this country have almost begun to despair of having their case considered. As the mover has pointed out on several occasions, the most recent being in 1937 when the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) pleaded most eloquently the case of the women, the Government of the day has promised either to appoint a commission or to consider legislation on the subject. In fact, however, nothing has yet been done. Last year on the Justice Vote, I myself pointed out to the hon. Minister of Justice, who I regret to see is not in his seat at the moment, that the various difficulties under which women labour had been so increased by war conditions that they were in such a situation that really something had to be done about it. I suggested to him that possibly he might move in the matter by an emergency regulation. This he promised he would do, but sir, I am now informed by him that his legal advisers have found it impossible to move by way of emergency regulation. So that we are now back to the position in which we started many years ago. For 40 or 50 or more years eminent lawyers and politicians of all kinds have insisted that the absurdly anomalous position in which the marital power of the husband places married women, should be rectified, but as I say, nothing has yet been done, and as far as we can see it begins to look as if the married women of this country will have to face the post-war world still tied down by mediaeval law, still in the position of minors to their husbands. Now what the women want really is this: They do not, as far as I can understand their desire, want to do away entirely with community of property; it is not so much that they are against community of property, because after all in every happy marriage there is practical community of property. In a happy marriage nobody considers any question of whose property is which, but trouble does arise because in the present economic circumstances of the world the married woman feels that she is entitled to and does want the ownership and control of her own property, she does want at least equal guardianship of her children. That is a point on which the mover of this motion has not yet touched, but it is a vital point. Because a woman, according to the common law of the land is herself a minor under the guardianship and control of her husband, the logical consequence of her own minority is that she cannot be the guardian of the children that she has brought into the world. That guardianship then rests with her husband. He is the natural guardian. He has sole custody and control of the children in law and so much is that the case that the guardianship of the children can be taken away from the wife after the husband’s death. The position is this, that even after the death of her husband, the guardianship of the children that she has brought into the world does not go to the woman unless either her husband has died leaving no will, or he has not expressly appointed some one else the guardian of his children. For he has that power too; only then does she become guardian. And that, sir, is a position that the women of this country feel they can no longer tolerate. I want to differentiate, moreover, and to explain to the House the difference between the guardianship which the marital power gives to the husband, and the ordinary rights of guardianship, and on that point I cannot do better than read an extract from a very cogent article by the late Dr. Bodenstein, written in our “Law Journal” as far back as in 1917. Dr. Bodenstein was then Professor of Roman-Dutch Law in Amsterdam, and this is what he says—

Well, sir, that is the crux of the position, and whatever may have been the rights or wrongs of the case among the warrior groups and the mediaeval tribes on whose tribal rules our law of persons is based, can there be anything more absurd, more anachronistic in these modern days, when in half the marriages one sees not only the husband but the wife also contributes to the general estate, than to say that she has the right to work and contribute to the general estate, but no right whatever to control or administer it. I maintain that is an anomalous position which could only have been allowed to continue up to the present day in remote corners of the world, such as South Africa was in the past. But South Africa is no longer a country in a far-off corner of the world; we are to-day in immediate communication with the Western world and a part of it, and the situation has arisen when it seems to me that this House must address itself to the task of considering what can be done to abolish the martial power of the husband, which makes and creates all these difficulties for the wife. I know that in many countries overseas, and in countries, more particularly in the Scandinavian democracies where perhaps we have the most enlightened form of democracy, community of property is still maintained. For my own part I have an open mind of that matter because I do appreciate that there are a number of advantages attaching to it, but what I am clear about and what I hope the House and the country will be clear about is that the time is more than ripe, that the time is long overdue, for the abolition of the marital power of the husband, which does so unfairly weight the scales against the wife. In England, for instance, there is today, when it comes to the children, equal guardianship, with the guardianship vested in both husband and wife, and if ever a matter crops up in which the husband and wife cannot agree in regard to the guardianship of the children, the courts have taken up the attitude that what matters is not whether the father is the guardian or the mother is the guardian, whether the guardianship should rest in the husband or whether the guardianship should rest in the wife, but the courts have, and I think very correctly, taken up the attitude that what matters to the State and to the country and to the children is the interests of the children. And so, Sir, in any dispute, the courts simply take up the line that they are not concerned as to whether the husband is right or whether the wife is right, but that they look to the interests of the children, and it is on that that they base their decision. If I may say so, that is a very proper and sound basis, and I hope that we will adopt that basis in this country. I know that it is has been contended and it is still contended by many people that wartime is not the time to legislate in matters of this kind. Well, I differ most strongly; I say as I have said before in this House, that it is particularly in time of war that men’s hearts and minds are fluid, that they are jerked out of the ordinary ruts, that they are forced to examine the institutions under which this country lives. It is I say just in time of war, because men have to fight for what they believe in, that they are forced to examine the institutions under which they live, and so there is no reason why it in time of war we cannot look too at this common law of marriage, under which the legal position of the woman has not been changed since mediaeval times. Then there is one further point of which I would remind the House and it is this; when it comes to the law of persons it is significant that the only chapter which has not been altered since mediaeval times is this position of the married woman in this country, and it is more than time it was brought up to date, and I say that wartime is just the time to do it because we are criticising institutions, because we are considering the form of Government under which we live. And when we find as has been obvious for years that the law under which the married women of this country labour is a wrong and bad system—that is the very time to alter it, and I have no hesitation in saying to the House that just because we are at war we should introduce amending legislation now so that the married women of this country, like their unmarried sisters, may be enabled to face the post-war world with all its crucial difficulties, at least with a free heart and a free mind as regards their own immediate position under the law of their country.

We have heard argued by the proposer and the seconder of this motion the purely legal side of this question. I feel that perhaps I am entitled to put up the human argument on all these matters. I, as you know, have fathered and mothered this motion into the House, and I feel that I must go on and still fight this battle which one day I hope will be won for my sex. I said that I wanted to deal with the human side of this argument. What is this human side? That human side is to try and get men to understand what women feel about this matter. That, Sir, is our very grave difficulty. I think I am entitled to say in this House that whenever these matters, which have perhaps their basis in sex, come up for discussion, they are treated sometimes with a triviality which has hurt all women, not only me but all women throughout this country. I have the right also to say that although the matter brought up in this House, and which took up our time, was an important matter—I am not debating that, and we had those benches opposite filled to overflowing—I venture to say that that was not a problem or a matter of such grave concern to every family in this state as the matter of the whole basis of family association. Look at the benches opposite. Am I to presume

I am here; is that not sufficient?

Am I to presume that hon. members opposite are not interested in all these problems, which I say that every woman throughout the country feels very deeply indeed. This is our problem.

Suffragettes.

This is a matter of fundamental importance. It goes past honour. It goes down to the roots of our society. I want to prove that today; because women have never given of their best; they have never been able to contribute their ability to the State as a whole, because of the feeling of inferiority which does flow from these disabilities under which they suffer. That, Sir, is my argument. I must be believed because I am a woman and I know it. If there is any woman in this country who should know it, I know that a sense of inferiority has deteriorated and militated against my own ability in this House. I can tell the House that, and I know that it is true of all women. Until the women feel that they can take their place alongside the men, as equal citizens with them, you will not get in any state in the world that upward flow of help, of sharing the responsibility, of making use of the special qualifications which all women possess. That is our problem, the problem of making men understand that we feel these things deeply, that we have a sense of injustice about it, and that we are determined to fight on until these matters are put right. That is what I want to try and do in the House this afternoon. I know that the idea is that married women are extremely fortunate; they have good homes, they have husbands to work for them, they are sheltered and taken care of. I frankly admit that to be so in the vast majority of cases. I absolutely subscribe to what the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister said to me some years ago, that probably nowhere in the world are women better treated by the men than in this country. I accept it absolutely, but that is not all. I think you might easily resolve this question as to whether we are right when we say that we are left with a sense of injustice, by simply asking the men whether they will change places with us.

An emphatic no!

There seems to be a reason for that. I leave alone one of the main reasons which is quite obvious, the reason of which we are proud, namely that we have to bear the children and that we have to have the tediousness of looking after the children.

The tediousness?

I think that emphatic “no” rests on something different; it rests on the economic aspect of the whole question. This motion of the hon. mover does not concern the economic aspects of this question, but I do assure the House that it naturally flows from those disabilities under which women suffer. That is a point I want to go into very shortly. I have tried to explain to the House that there is a sense of inferiority which women have and which comes from this lack of the same rights and the same privileges that men have. You must admit that if you have not got the same privileges as someone else of your own standing in life, it must inevitably lead to that sense of inferiority, and that sense of inferiority goes with us right down into every aspect of the life we lead. It certainly carries itself into the economic aspect of our lives, and it is that psychological aspect of this lack of full citizenship which is felt by women very heavily in the economic world. To begin with, the assumption that women are inferior flows from it, and I think also the assumption that our work is inferior. That is a fact that cannot actually be proved, but yet is has followed as a consequence of these disabilities. Now, Sir, although by 1934 fourteen countries had declared in their written constitutions that distinctions based on sex had been abolished, yet there is today no single country in the world which can claim that all discriminations against women, whether political discriminations, economic discriminiations, legal or social discriminiations, have been abolished. The rights which men have gained for themselves, we know with what fierceness they have fought for those rights. Those rights must be regarded as the natural civil rights of the population of the State; but nowhere in the world have women attained to everyone of those civil rights that men have. I say that men fought for them hardly, and I think they would give them up very hardly too, although I would just say in passing that many foolish people on the opposite side of the House have seemed only too willing to hand over some of those rights in their new orders and other institutions. All these rights that I speak of have not been granted in any country in the world; in one country or another some of these rights have been granted to women, but not all in any country. But some rights have been granted, and no disastrous consequences have flowed from it; in fact, quite the reverse has been the case. It is extremely hard for us, therefore, to understand the basis of the terrific opposition to help women to attain equal citizenship with men. It is extremely hard for us to understand that, because in a democratic form of government, the idea of justice to all classes is inherent in the idea of democracy, and no country can be said to be just which does nothing to remove unfair discrimination. That is a truism which I think cannot be gainsaid, and if the consequences of inferiority flowing from lack of full citizenship flowed to us, then I think that you can only say that shame must attach to that state which takes advantage of that function of women to give them not greater but less advantages in that state. Now I want to deal very briefly with a few of these disabilities. In my previous motion I asked for a commission of investigation, and I am still going to ask for that commission of investigation, because I know this matter to be fraught with the very greatest of difficulties; it covers a very wide field because of the antiquity of our common law; it perhaps goes down to the very heart of peoples’ thoughts, and I feel that only by the process of investigation can we come to the right conclusions. I want to say this that I was supremely disappointed with the commission that was appointed, because a commission of this nature which is going to lay the basis of our marriage laws in this country for all times, a commission which is enquiring into such matters, must be of the very highest standing. It is no good bringing a report to this House if the legal members of the House cannot feel that they can trust the judgment of that commission. It is no use appointing a commission which has not behind it the full weight of authority. I say that very firmly, and I do hope that when the Government implements its promise to appoint such a commission when the war is over, it will bear in mind that it is useless unless it can carry weight one way or the other. I have reaffirmed my request for a commission, because, in spite of the fact that there is a great deal against it, there is a great deal to be said for our community of property law. I am here to do the best I can for women. I have a sense of responsibility and I feel that if there is something of good in common law marriages, we must try to retain it if that is possible—not on the principle of getting the best out of the two forms of marriage, but because in my opinion it is the family that is the basis of our social state and not necessarily the individual, not in these matters. And what is good for both spouses and the children is what should be taken into consideration.

Do you want to retain community of property?

If the hon. member will allow me to go on, I will enlarge on that subject. We have been told that 70 per cent. of marriages in this country …

Far more.

The figure was given by the proposer. We have been told that 70 per cent. of marriages in this country are in community of property. I will admit quite frankly that with regard to the financial side of marriage it is unlikely that many women in this country, at any rate up to this day, bring much property into the marriage, and of course, they are safeguarded by community of property in a way which they are not safeguarded by antenuptial contract, because by antenuptial contract after a lifelong service side by side, the one spouse can still will away his entire property from the other spouse. I feel that before we do away with this good point of community of property marriages, we should first of all set up some succession law which would follow as a natural corollary to that succession law we passed in 1934, which dealt only with intestacy, and where the wife was given a child’s portion. In Scotland and New Zealand, in most Australian states, in France, Germany, Australia, Holland, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States there is legislation which reserves a certain portion of the testator’s property to the children of the surviving spouse. An attempt was made in England in 1931 with a joint committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider a similar Bill, but nothing came of it. I think that is a logical provision to make in a marriage, because a wife’s contract, owing to social customs and traditions, which is embodied in marriage, imposes on her such functions which are of a nature which impede her from bringing much financial assistance into the family, and also impedes her from setting aside monies for her old age. In other words, she takes her share of the family responsibility, but she gets no salary. I do not want to destroy the benefits of community marriages, until some such provision is made in our laws whereby one spouse, who dies first, cannot totally disinherit the other spouse unless there are very specific reasons for it. You could not bring legislation of that sort into this House. You could not destroy community of property marriages without the closest consideration of what that step will lead to. That is what I asked for, a commission of enquiry, consisting of people of the highest character and ability, to ascertain what is necessary and what is long overdue. There is another point I would like to make, and that is with regard to the guardianship of children. That, I think, perhaps above all, is what women feel most. They have a very deep sense of unfairness. I again ask the House to believe that, because I know it to be the case, and men cannot understand it. We feel that our preponderant share of responsibility justifies our assumption that we should have an equal share in the guardianship of our children. We have, as a matter of actual fact, had to break down the parental control over children. I do not suppose that many members in this House are aware of that. But we have; in taking evidence on the Children’s Commission, the evidence of deserted wives, we found it necessary, as a result of that evidence, to bring in a clause under the Children’s Act of 1937 which under certain circumstances does remove the parental right from the father — only temporarily, because he can re-apply at some future date. But it is obvious from that that there are cases where the interests of the child only must be taken into account. There you have already had a breakdown of the parental right of the father; and what we want today is to go further, to recognise quite simply that a woman is equally responsible with the father in these matters. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Solomon) that we should follow the English act in this matter. I do not feel that I need go any further in this connection. There is another point which hinges very strongly on it, and that is the bann placed on married women in services—in Universities, hospitals, Provincial Councils, teaching services—a bann placed on married women as to their right of service. We are afraid, Sir, that after this war, as after the last war, women are going to slip back in their rights of employment. I fear that very greatly. The rights of the whole sex were wiped out in this House by a clause in the Civil Service Act without one single word being said in this House in their favour. I have looked up every record that I could, and I find that no voice was raised in this House on behalf of the women. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I am afraid that I shall not be here when the next Parliament meets, and I do not know whether the other women are going to be returned to this House, and I want to say here and now that I think it was a shameful thing which was done without a single voice being raised against this matter. I ask those hon. members who are here to see that our services rendered in this war are not going to be treated in the same manner they were treated after the last war. A very grave mistake has been made—quite apart from a grave injustice—a very grave mistake has been made by continually putting off these things that eat into our souls, because I am convinced that you only get the best out of people by freeing them and by lifting them. Those of us who have comfortable homes, who have protection and everything we need—the shoe does not pinch us, but the shoe does pinch very many women in this country, women who are breadwinners and who have to fight their battle to make a livelihood not only for themselves but for their families. This is a family matter. If you can free women forever from that inferiority in which the centuries have placed them, you will be doing a service for the world that will repay you very well. When slavery was destroyed in a country like Russia, you got an uplift of the whole population. I am convinced that you will find that in all these things that are worth while, the influence which women wield will be in the interests of the State. How can you expect our tremendous feelings ever to come to the top unless we are placed in a position of authority in the forums of the world where we can voice those feelings? My heart went out to the women of Germany who threw themselves under the feet of the first troops that marched through Germany on their way to Poland. They threw themselves into the street to try and stop their men from marching. If the women of the world had had greater influence, it is possible perhaps that this war would not have come. Unless we are lifted shoulder to shoulder with the same sense of responsibility, the same feeling of equality of men, we cannot make all those qualities that are worth while in us come out and be of service to the State. May I ask the hon. Minister to appoint that Commission when he can in order to show that the Government is honest, that they honestly mean to investigate those points that are getting women down, and thereby make us understand that there is justice in this land of ours.

Despite the apparent lack of interest in the subject matter of this discussion, I think that the motion is one of first-rate importance. The last speaker rather suggested that in the past this class of discussion has been treated by menfolk with a degree of levity. I do not think that that is the case, taking it by and large. But I think it would be more correct to say that there has crept into such discussions a sort of competitive feeling, and that it has been regarded as a conflict of interests between the sexes. For that, I think to a very large extent the responsibility devolves upon the womenfolk because of the spirit they have introduced into these discussions. In previous discussions on this matter there has been a tendency to make it invariably a plea by women for women, as if the matter rested there, and I venture to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that approach to the matter misconceives the fundamentals of the situation. For that reason I am rather glad, in a sense, that this afternoon the motion was introduced not by a woman but by the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis). Speaking as a distinguished member of the bar, the hon. member has enabled those who believe so rigidly in the sanctity of the common law, and who deride the temerity of those who would seek to alter it in any degree, to say to themselves that if that view can be expressed by one with so long and outstanding a record at the bar, it is one which is inherently acceptable. It may be said that the time is not opportune to introduce drastic legislation of this kind. I take the contrary view. I think the time is most opportune, because if we are going to have what we hope and pray will be a general clean-up of our whole system, we must not neglect something which is so material and so substantial a part of that system—that is the rights and status of married women. I am not going to be long despite the fears of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), but I want to say this in addition. We have long accepted the principle of equality as between the sexes socially and politically, and it seems illogical to stop short of giving effect to that equality in all departments of our national life. I am less concerned with the dignity and status of women and their sense of inferiority than I am with the real disabilities which flow from the status of married women. I am not going to touch on those aspects of the matter which have already been dealt with by previous speakers, but I want to draw attention to one feature which has not been touched on, and it is that which bears on the question of domicile. The matter was bad enough before the war, when we had a woman married to a non-Union national, an alien. Under our nationality laws the woman acquired her husband’s nationality. Now in the event of that woman desiring to sue her husband, he having meanwhile deserted her and returned to the country of his origin, she has to seek out his domicile and would be denied the opportunity, as a right, of suing him in any of our South African courts. That position, as I say, obtained before the war, and it has become now by virtue of the war, a very serious problem because of the number of marriages that have taken place between men in transit through the Union and in temporary residence and South African women. Such women who would be desirous of severing the matrimonial union would be virtually without redress because they would not be able to invoke the assistance of the South African courts. I raise this matter for two reasons, the one to draw attention specifically to that problem in itself, but also because it is an illustration of the fact that by virtue of the inferior status, the fact that she does not enjoy equal rights with her husband, the married women can be placed in what is from every point of view, a most serious situation. There is a good deal I had intended to say, but I do not want to prevent the debate being brought to a conclusion and the hour is already late. I think it follows from what I have said that the motion has my wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that I am all in favour of the motion as introduced, and not for the suggestion which has been put before the House for the appointment of a commission. Speaking for myself, I do not want a commission. We know what the grievances are, we know what the disabilities are, and there is no use in appointing a commission to find out the disabilities under which our women suffer in this country; they are matters which are known to every lawyer who has made anything of a study of this subject. I want to touch upon one or two matters very briefly, because certain aspects of the disadvantages under which women are labouring have not been touched upon, or have not been sufficiently emphasised. Some of us have had experience in our everyday life, and the only way to appreciate the difficulties is to translate them into the first person. I want first to touch upon a matter which has become more and more a matter of everyday occurrence, and the effects of which will come up for decision after the war. Hundreds of our South African girls are getting married into a different national status to our own. Immediately they marry they assume the national status of the husband, and not only that, they lose their original nationality even if the marriage is dissolved. I want hon. members to try and conceive what that means, if one of their own womenfolk contracts a marriage by which she accepts the nationality of her husband and cannot regain her own nationality if the marriage is dissolved. There is in our naturalisation laws provision by which the Minister can, under certain conditions, grant the right of a woman to be naturalised after marriage. I can understand the argument that where a woman marries an alien who is at war with our own State, she may fall under the control and coercion of that man, but there is no reason why if she makes a declaration at the time of marriage, when there is no war in existence, that she wishes to retain her own nationality, that she should not be allowed to do so.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 28th January, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 24th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I wish to put a question to the Minister about the position in which the farmers are today in regard to obtaining barbed wire. The farmers badly need barbed wire and they find it impossible to obtain any. I believe that some time ago an announcement was made by the Government that it was going to take steps to make barbed wire available, and I should like to know from the Minister how far the Government has got with that. Loads of barbed wire are taken to the military camp at Tempe. I can quite understand that the military forces require barbed wire, but I still want to know from the Minister what difficulty there is in regard to meeting the farmers.

I hope the hon. Minister will bear with me if I again refer to the subject of the Deciduous Fruit Board. I have discussed this matter on several occasions, and unless the Minister assures me that he is going to tackle the matter seriously I shall be compelled to raise this question with him again. I can assure the Minister that if he does not effect some change in the way we in the Transvaal are being fobbed off now-a-days I shall not leave him in peace.

I stated that I first of all wanted to investigate the matter.

We have already had four seasons during which the fruit farmers of the Transvaal have been penalised for the sake of the handful of fruit growers in the Cape Province and as this House is not going to meet again before the next fruit season I want an assurance from the Minister that he will see to it that a change is effected. Yesterday when I discussed this matter he said that I should go and ask the fruit farmers whether they were satisfied.

The question is which fruit farmers.

I contend that a large proportion of the fruit farmers in the Cape Province are not satisfied; only a small proportion are satisfied; those people who get something out of the Exchequer. Last year they received £500,000 of Government money. During the past season they got £500,000, and I can quite understand that that small lot of farmers will be satisfied, but there are large numbers of fruit farmers who not only get no subsidy but who have to compete with those farmers who do get a subsidy, and I can assure the Minister of Agriculture that those fruit farmers are not satisfied. The prices they get for their fruit are satisfactory, and that is the reason why I am not asking for a subsidy now. The price is satisfactory, but I can tell the Minister that that price is not the result of anything the Deciduous Fruit Board has done, it is not the result of the work of the various schemes and boards, it is not even due to the efforts of the Marketing Board which has been created. The satisfactory price is due to the fact that money is plentiful and that things are going well. So far as that is concerned I say that it is a fact that satisfactory prices are being obtained, but I want to repeat that the way we are being treated by the Deciduous Fruit Board, by that section of the farmers who used to export before the war, gives us no cause for gratitude towards the Government. I have not got the time to go into all these points. But I can tell the Minister that the way we are being treated by the National Fruit System in Johannesburg is not giving us any cause for satisfaction either, No evidence has been produced so far to show that the farmers selling under that system, or forced to sell under it, feel that they have so far benefited by that system. The Minister tells me that I am not well informed. I told him on a previous occasion that he was not well informed, so we are both on the same basis, and that is why I want to express the hope that we shall investigate the whole matter and thoroughly go into it to see what can be done in order to place the fruit industry on a sound basis and in that way get the best conditions possible for the fruit farmers. The Minister in his reply to me said that most of the fruit of the Deciduous Fruit Board, the fruit which used to be exported, is now being used for drying purposes, and is being sent to our factories. I want to ask the Minister to pay a visit to the Johannesburg market and see what things look like there. He will find that throughout the Season the Deciduous Fruit Board every morning puts large quantities of fruit on the market and that fruit competes with the fruit which we sell. He has also told me that the representation which we have on the Deciduous Fruit Board is adequate. Whereas the Western Province farmers have nine representatives on the Deciduous Fruit Board there is only one representative for the whole of the Free State and the whole of the Transvaal. In spite of that he says that we have ample representation. Well, I do not believe the Minister was in earnest when he said that one representative for the whole of the Free State and the whole of the Transvaal as against nine for the whole of the Western Province is adequate. The Minister in his speech also said that the Deciduous Fruit Board supplied fruit on the Johannesburg market when that fruit was not in season in the Transvaal and when we did not have fruit to supply to that market. In other words he conveyed the impression that they did not compete with us. I don’t know during what time of the year that is supposed to happen. We supply fruit from the middle of November until the end of March. I want to tell the Minister that in my personal case from the end of November until the present time—I spoke to my home yesterday—fruit has gone from my farm to the Johannesburg market every day. I want to ask the Minister when it is that we do not send our fruit to the market, and I want him to tell us when the Deciduous Fruit Board uses the Johannesburg market to sell its fruit there. I hope the Minister will appoint a commission of enquiry and I hope he will also acquaint himself of the position of affairs in regard to the fruit industry. The deciduous fruit industry is in a state of chaos and the position is hopeless. In the Cape there was a shortage or fruit this year, while on the other hand there was too much fruit on the Johannesburg market, and yet the Western Province is sending fruit there.

And they offload their grapes on us.

That is not right either. We are not opposed to competition, but competition must be fair and just. If the farmers from the Western Province send fruit to our market and there is open competition we have no objection, but this small crowd of people have already been paid £1,000,000 over four seasons by way of subsidy from the Exchequer, and then they come and compete with us who have not received a penny. I therefore say that I hope the Minister will see to it before the start of the next season that this anomaly, this scandalous position which has arisen, and which is being created by the Deciduous Fruit Board, is not allowed to continue. If that Board is allowed to carry on then those parts of the country whose cause I am pleading should be given more representation. We realise that the farmers who used to export before the war are suffering hardships today. They are unable to export their fruit because we are at war, they are suffering hardships, but we are in the same position. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister what is the policy of the Government in regard to the importation of wool packs from India. I have a letter from a leading firm of wholesale merchants in Port Elizabeth complaining that they have no wool packs, and although they have bought and paid for a large number of wool packs, they cannot get the necessary shipping. I would like to tell the Minister that this is a very important matter to wool farmers. Grain can be put into elevators, but we cannot do the same with our wool. I would urgently ask the Minister to go into this matter and try and get priority for the importation of wool packs to South Africa.

When I spoke last Friday I was talking about the Dried Fruit Board. I made it clear that the wine farmers get no subsidy, but if a subsidy has to be paid, on raisins and sultanas for example, then they have to contribute half.

They should actually have contributed the whole subsidy this year.

I almost wonder at the fact that the Minister did not just take all the wine.

That was the agreement.

I do not know of such an agreement. I am a director of the K.W.V., and I do not know of such an agreement. The position is quite clear. The wine farmer is expected to pay half the subsidy on raisins and sultanas, and the only reason why the wine farmers pay that subsidy is to encourage the people to make sultanas and raisins. If that is done, then the product of the vine is in a sellable form, while the farmers are already saddled with a surplus of 50 per cent. If the wine farmers are asked to bear a part of the subsidy, then they ought to have a chance to derive benefit from it. But now the Dried Fruit Control Board comes and fixes the price at a period when the farmers were practically finished making sultanas and raisins. What benefit is there in that for the wine farmers? Because the price could not be used to encourage the people to make sultanas and raisins. It is not the first year that this has happened. It happens every year. Then I come to the question of currants. It took me three years to convince the Control Board that they could pay 6d. per lb. for currants. They gave it this year. They should already have given it two years ago. It was unfair to postpone the fixing of the price so long, because it was an injustice to the wine farmers, and also the people who made raisins and sultanas. Then I want to ask the Minister if he thinks that is fair of the Deciduous Fruit Board, where the Government pays £16 and £12 per ton for the export grapes to the people who previously exported, and where the wine farmers now receive £5 per ton and received £4 2s. 6d. in the past, that the Deciduous Fruit Board presses those grapes and simply throws them on the neck of the wine farmers? I have no objection to the subsidy which is paid by the Government to those farmers’ I concede it to them with the greatest pleasure. If the Government pays them £60 per ton instead of £16, I will be satisfied. But the grapes that are then delivered to the Deciduous Fruit Board must not then be offloaded on the neck of the wine farmers. Instead of their being sold or given away to poor people, we find that they are placed on the wine farmers who already have a surplus of 50 per cent. This year there will be some 20,000 tons of grapes. If the Fruit Board receives those grapes, then the farmers will already have received £16 and £12 per ton for them. But now the Fruit Board presses those grapes with the result that the wine farmers must pay £5 per ton through the K.W.V. for them. That means that we shall have to pay about £100,000 for those grapes. We cannot make wine or brandy from them. We can only make spirits from them. The wine farmer is in the position that he has to pay excise to an amount of £3,400,000 on his brandy. The farmer gets only £297,000 out for that brandy. Then he has to go and pay another £100,000 to the Deciduous Fruit Board for these grapes. The only right that the Fruit Board has to demand this payment is under the emergency regulations of the Government. If the Government wants to subsidise those people, I have no objection to it. I am glad if a farmer is assisted. It is the fault of the war that those people cannot export, and for that reason it is right that the Government should pay them the subsidy. But I want the Minister to understand that those grapes can be bought cheaply or given away to the poor people, and then we are doing good with them. The K.W.V. gave away 1,500 tons of grapes in one year to schoolchildren, and where this Fruit Board receives the subsidy from the Government they can do the same thing. The Railways are prepared to transport them free of charge. It is simply a scandal that those grapes are pressed and that the Fruit Board receives the power under the emergency regulations to throw them into the distilling pool and the K.W.V. has to pay them £100,000. That money means much to the wine farmer. It means much to them with reference to what they get paid out for their wine. The grape farmers do not get that money. The money goes to the Fruit Board, and the farmers cannot become shareholders. The Government has helped them to put up distilleries, and they sell to the merchants who are so anxious to put the wine farmers in their place. I want to make a request to the Minister now. It makes one’s heart sore to see all the injustice that is done to the industry. I want the Minister to ensure that the grapes that are over are not converted into wine, even if he has to let the wine run into the sea. They can do it. It is not fair to bring the poor wine farmers into difficulty by overloading the market because grapes are distilled which cannot be exported. In the past, in the case of export grapes, the bunches were thinned out, but today they are pressed and the market further overloaded. I think it is a reasonable request that the wine farmers’ market should not be spoilt by the grapes which cannot now be exported. The Deciduous Fruit Board does not seem to me to do much, and I think he ought to dismiss that Board. They were not able to expand the market. They do nothing. All that they do is to try to push into the market the grapes which otherwise were exported. Mr. Dorfman, of Stellenbosch, taught them what can be done. If the grapes are pressed, they get only £5 per ton, or a halfpenny per lb. Now he sells at Salt River and he has already sold 60 tons. Why can the Deciduous Fruit Board not get a few places on the parade and sell grapes there at 1d. per lb.? What happens now is that grapes are bought for 1s. 3d. for 10 lbs., and the box costs 1s. And it is to the advantage of the consumer? No, only the man who must sell the things gets the benefit of it. There are innumerable fruit stores, every second house in Cape Town is a fruit store. At Kalk Bay, a little place, I counted eight fruit stores the other day. They must all live out of it, but the farmers get nothing and the consumers have to pay till they burst. [Time limit.]

We hear that the wine farmers are having such a difficult time, and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has spoken about the distribution of fruit. I want to say something about maize. The Minister gave the assurance the other day that he, as regards maize, will take immediate control in respect of the incoming harvest. I will be glad if the Minister can give more particulars about the machinery he wants to create to exercise control. I think that the past has shown us that there is much room for improvement. Better machinery must be created. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has said about marketing that the markets must be under control of the Union Government, that the Union Government must take them over. I personally hope that this will not be done. In the first place the farmers will get yet another section of the public who will be against them. But I agree that uniformity is necessary, and to achieve this there must be uniform legislation. Therefore I would rather see legislation introduced which fixes regulations for better marketing in the Union. There can be agents.

That can be done under the Marketing Act.

Let it happen then. Otherwise we will have a double system of marketing. We see now already that the farmers are leaving the market and forming separate markets and a double system will never be the cheapest system of supplying goods to the consumer. Therefore I think that the best method is to use the local authorities for marketing, but under regulations of the Union Government. Let them be the agents. Then it will work much better. Then I want to say something about the position of the mealie farmers, especially in the Free State. There are people who every year suffer surprising losses through springhares and it is impossible for the farmers to get shotgun cartridges now to destroy the springhares. I understand that a request has been made by the people who import the cartridges that priority should be given to the importing of cartridges, but I am told that the Department of Agriculture must first obtain the priority for the importation, and I understand further that the Department of Agriculture has failed to apply for priority.

I recommended it immediately.

I am very glad, because it is a very important matter for the maize farmers.

I want to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) in connection with the rationing of fertiliser. It will surely not be contrary to the Minister’s policy in the past to give a full ration to the small farmers who require ten or fifteen tons of fertiliser and to deduct it from the big farmers. This is not contrary to the policy in the past, because then also great concessions were made to the small farmers in respect of the subsidy from the levy fund on maize. Further I want to point out that last year already there were farmers who could not get any fertiliser with the result that in the past year already they have been practising soil exhaustion on their lands. Now I want to ask the Minister to take this into consideration when application forms are considered. When the information is sent in, let the Minister give extra consideration to these cases. Then I want to say something about the price-fixing of the products. Where our country is now experiencing a state of emergency the Minister has accepted a policy of giving a guaranteed price to the wheat farmers for the next year’s harvest. Will the Minister not also give the maize farmers a guaranteed price for the next year’s harvest? I think that in the case of the wheat farmers it is a minimum fixed price. I do not say that it is a favourable price in respect of which a guarantee has been given, but can the Minister also not do so in the case of the maize farmers. According to the statement of the Minister the findings of the Wheat Board and the Marketing Board were that the production cost of the wheat farmers amounted to 33s. 11d. a bag. This means that that was the cost of production of the harvest that has just been reaped. But the Minister has failed to give that price to the farmers for the harvest that is now being harvested. For the best wheat this year they get only 30s. a bag. On what basis does the Marketing Board fix the production costs? On what do they base the 33s. 11d.? Surely on the existing price of the things that are necessary for the farmer. On those prices the farmer had to produce last year’s harvest. The Minister shakes his head. On what basis then is the price fixed 3s. 11d. higher than last year’s production cost. Now the Minister will agree that the same factors which play a part in connection with wheat also play a part in connection with the production of maize. In other words, factors that are responsible for the increased production costs of wheat are also responsible for the increased production cost of maize. The Minister by the guaranteed price he has given to the wheat farmers admits that their production costs are higher. Therefore the price has been raised. What factors are taken into consideration in determining production costs? In the first place production costs are determined by the capital investment. If the prices of land have increased where wheat is produced, then it has also happened where maize is produced. If fertiliser has risen in price for wheat, it has also happened for maize. If bags are more expensive for wheat, then it also applies to maize. If labour costs more in connection with wheat, then also in the case of maize. The same factors which increase the production costs in the case of wheat also operate in the case of maize. But what does the Minister do in connection with the maize farmers? He comes and gives them 1s. a bag more than last year and then the Minister wants to say that it is a wonderful price. Last year I had to deliver my maize, which cost me more than £1, to the State at 15s. a bag. Then there is another point. The Minister has admitted that there has been an increase int production costs, that he makes a difference between one product (wheat) and another (maize), while the same factors apply as regards increased production costs. But apart from this the Minister now expects the maize farmers to begin harvesting immediately to help him in the state of emergency in which he finds himself. While we have repeatedly advocated that the moisture percentage should be increased from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent., the Minister has now done so, but he says that he will accept the maize as long as water does not drip from it. The Minister must realise that if you thresh wet maize, then the machine cannot remove all the grain from the cobs, and in the second place the leaves are ground fine so that grain is lost with every cob, which would have been won if the mealie cobs were dry. I can give the Minister the assurance that if you thresh wet maize, it means a loss of six or seven bags on a hundred. The Minister now expects the farmers, without extra compensation to sacrifice this out of love for their country, while the Minister shows no particular love for the farmers. The Minister says that the price of 16s. is based on an estimated harvest of 22,000,000 bags. Then the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Verster) has asked whether the Minister is going to fix another price if he finds that the harvest is not going to be 22,000,000 bags. To this the Minister said: “Wait and see.” If we wait and see, what is the Minister going to do then. The Minister now wants the farmers to thresh maize at their own loss to help in the state of emergency. If it later appears that the harvest is not so big as the estimate and the Minister goes and increases the price of 16s. to 17s. 6d., and I believe that he will eventually be forced to do so, then the farmers who now at their own loss thresh their maize, are also going to get another 1s. 6d. less per bag. What is the Minister going to do?

In that case I will be obliged to meet them.

I am glad that the Minister undertakes to do this, because otherwise my advice to the farmers will be to wait and see whether the Minister will not later have to fix a higher price.

That possibility is very small.

I think the Minister is wrong because production costs have risen greatly and the increase which the Minister has granted this year is not sufficient.

I wish to raise again two aspects of the mealie control position which I brought to the notice of the Minister at an earlier stage of the present Session but to which the Minister so far has not given an answer. My first point was a plea for better elevator storage provision. I welcome the Minister’s decision to set up a Mealie Advisory Board for the Transkei and adjoining territories. I realise that its recommendations will in many respects necessarily be of local relevance. In some respects, however, its recommendations should have wide applicability and not least in regard to storage. I trust that this Board will reinforce the plea which has been made often in this House for the hastening of a policy of building strategically placed grain elevators for the storage of maize, to be used and distribution effected therefrom during the peak months in times of shortage. So far as my own Province is concerned, so far as the existing storage facilities—the Durban elevator—are concerned, I wish to reinforce the plea which was recently made at a meeting between representatives of the Mealie Control Board and the Zululand Chamber of Commerce. I want to urge that this year the fullest and earliest possible advantage should be taken of the existing elevator facilities in Durban so that the difficulties of distribution during those peak months of October, November and December, may be lessened and a recurrence of last year’s difficulties avoided. My second point which I want to raise again concerns the distribution of mealies in outlying native areas in my own constituency. There the position is, as the Minister knows, very different from that in the Transkei. The main difference is that in about 95 per cent. of the areas concerned, unlike in the Transkei, mealies are not grown locally in such guantities that they are sold to the local traders for eventual re-sale. The normal channel of distribution, the normal supply of maize during the peak months in those native areas, is necessarily the small local traders, and the break down last year of the normal mode of distribution was the main reason why in those areas there was such an acute shortage of food for natives as to occasion in certain parts starvation, and certainly very serious malnutrition. The margin of profit allowed to the local storekeeper was and is still so patently inadequate that many of them were compelled—and a great number may yet be compelled—to decline to deal in mealies at all during the months when they are most needed for the native population. As you will remember, Mr. Chairman, the Native Affairs Department have in some areas to step in and make available supplies of foodstuffs for immediate distribution in areas where that distribution had broken down. Generally speaking, I believe that the price fixation of commodities dealt in by traders has been fair. It has generally been based on the normal pre-war margin of profit. Thus, if I may just take two examples, one fair, the other unfair. The margin of profit allowed to a trader on three tins of jam by the existing regulation is 7d. That is the same margin as obtained in 1939. But the margin allowed to a trader on a whole sack of maize is 7½d. one quarter of the normal pre-war profit, and I do submit again, as I have done before, that no trading concern could be expected to come out on such a small margin when regard is had to the difficulties, the growing difficulties of transport. Other difficulties are encountered in connection with the heavy handling of maize, storage losses and the like. And for that reason I wanted to reinforce the plea which I have previously made here for a reasonable margin of profit for the small trader. The small trader is acknowledged by the Native Affairs Department and others as being a legitimate indispensable economic wing of Native Administration, and the claim which they have set up through their Chamber of Commerce for a margin of profit of not less than 1s. 6d. per bag seems to me a very reasonable one. That claim of 1s. 6d. per bag is less than 10 per cent. of the price which is now fixed for the sale of mealies for the coming season, and I do not quarrel with that price. I accept it as fair, but I do plead that the indispensible distributor in outlying areas, the small trader, should be entitled to not less than a 10 per cent. margin. If the combined cost to the native consumer, the eventual purchaser of the maize, is too high, then I submit that the remedy would be some form of subsidisation. I welcomed the Minister’s statement earlier in this debate that a strong case had been made out for the subsidisation of foodstuffs to natives, and that he proposes to act in consultation with the Native Affairs Department in that regard.

I did not say that.

And whether or not a subsidy is granted, or whether such subsidy goes necessarily through the trader, I do submit that the trader should be put in a position to enable him to continue that service of being normal and useful, as he is the sole mode of distribution in those outlying areas. [Time limit.]

I want to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister to see whether a change cannot be brought about. In many cases the various boards which the Minister has appointed take the farmer’s produce over from him. He is compelled to give it over to them, and the boards can do what they like with it. If the farmer suffers loss as a result of their negligence or incompetence, in some cases great loss then the farmer has absolutely no right of recovery on the Board or the Government for compensation. Let me give an example. There is a control board for perishable products. It takes all the fruit from the farmers which is normally exported to Europe and if it as a result of its negligence or incompetence allows the food to go bad, then the farmer has no right of recovery on the Board or the Railways and Harbours which to a certain extent must exercise control.

That is one of your old laws.

What about it? I want to mention a case which actually happened. I go back a little to the harvest of 1934-’35. One of the big farmers exported 50,000 trays of peaches to England. The first lot of 4,000 or 5,000 trays arrived in excellent condition. Then the Perishable Products Export Control Board decided to introduce a new method of pre-cooling for peaches, and they did so in the middle of the season with the result that practically every peach that was sent to England, arrived there in a bad condition. This particular farmer received a good price for the first four or five thousand trays that arrived. Afterwards about 58,000 trays arrived completely spoilt. It was not only his, but the fruit of many other farmers, mine also, that arrived there in a rotten condition. The farmers were very worried about the matter, and they made a request to the Board to find out whether it was the new method that was applied and they received a reply from the secretary of the Board saying that they refused to tell the farmers what method they were using. When the matter continued in this way, the farmers began to feel more worried about what could happen in the future. They again wrote to the secretary and asked what methods would be applied in the year 1935-’36. The reply was that more or less the same method would be applied as the previous year when all the fruit went bad. Then a group of farmers decided to make a case against the Railways. The case was in the first place to demand that the Railways should say, or that the Board for Perishable Fruit should say what the method was which they used; in the second place it was demanded that they should not use it again, because they said that they would apply the method again the following year. They asked for an interdict so that they would be allowed to make any arrangements with the pre-cooling of their fruit for conveyance to England. They lost the case because the court did not have the power to interfere with the affairs of this Board. Then the farmers asked the Board directly, seeing that their fruit the previous year was practically all spoilt, to give them the right to export their fruit through the Imperial Cold Storage and other private establishments. The Board refused to allow it. The following year—1935-’36—the whole peach harvest arrived in England in a rotten condition. They had applied a method that had been proved to be a wrong method. They refused to tell the farmers what that method was, and whether they had employed another method for the second year. Then the farmers went and made another case, and now I come to the point I want to put to the Minister. The Minister smiles but it is a matter about which the farmers feel very strongly.

But that is something that happened ten years ago already.

I am telling what has happened in the past, because I am afraid that something of this nature can again happen in the future. The farmers then made a case against the Railways. When the case had proceeded half way, the Railways denied that they had any power in connection with the export board, and the farmers were compelled to again make a case against the Export Board. The judge gave a decision that under Article 13 of the Act of 1926 no one had a right of recovery against the Fruit Control Board for any damage caused by it. One farmer alone suffered damage to the extent of £20,000, and it was clear that the loss was caused by the bad pre-cooling of the Fruit Board. If the case had fallen under the Railways, then that farmer would have had a right of recovery against the Railways, but against the Fruit Board he had no right of recovery. The Fruit Board refuses to allow the farmers to handle their fruit in another way; the stuff goes bad under their control, and the farmer has no right of recovery. Now I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to change the legislation, if it is necessary, or to take the necessary steps to see that a repetition of such a thing is not possible. If that Board takes the farmer’s produce and if the produce become spoilt as a result of its negligence, then we ought to see that the farmer does not suffer loss. If the farmer of his own accord takes the fruit to the Board, then he does so on his own risk. But he is forced to do so, and if he is forced to do so, then that Board ought to be responsible for the produce of the farmer which it handles and the Fruit Board should give compensation to the farmer, I think the Minister will agree with this. The farmers feel worried about this. We must give all our produce to the Fruit Board, and we sit in fear and trembling of what can happen there. We have had these cases in the past and the farmers cannot get a penny compensation, even if it is proved that these people were negligent and incompetent. Unless we can prove mala fides, we cannot get a penny compensation, even if those people were negligent.

The farmers say they were negligent, but they again say they were not negligent.

It was not necessary to prove that they were negligent. The case was thrown out on the grounds of an exception, i.e. that the court had no power in respect of the Fruit Board. They are protected. It could quite easily have been the fault of those people, but they are protected under the Act of 1926 and other boards are again protected under other Acts. It is that protection which placed the produce of the farmer in danger. I think that the Minister must go into this matter in all seriousness to see whether an arrangement cannot be made.

I have from time to time brought the fruit industry to the attention of the Minister here. I want to say further that the fruit industry is in a very serious and difficult position. As we have heard, the Deciduous Fruit Exchange had control over the product that was exported, and I just want to say that according to information that I have, these people whose products are now being delivered to the Deciduous Fruit Exchange had a golden chance to distribute their grapes in the country, and they did not make use of it. It was explained to them that they have 200 markets in the Union to sell their grapes, but they preferred to offload them in quantities of from 15,000 to 20,000 cases on the big markets like that of Johannesburg, where these farmers who previously exported, competed with themselves. The smaller markets are not used by the Deciduous Fruit Board. The grapes which were packed as they were previously packed for export were sent to those markets, and they were sold as first class grapes. The same farmers sent the same class of grapes in ordinary packing, and then they were sold as third grade. The grapes which were packed on the basis of export grapes were subsidised. We are eager that the farmers should receive a subsidy, because those grapes are kept out of the distilling pool. But those grapes are put on the market and they receive 1s. 3d. a case. The case itself costs 1s., so that 3d. is received for the 10 lbs. of grapes. Is it not possible, while the tremendous loss is there already, to sell those grapes to the school children at 1s. 6d. a case? They will be only too keen to buy them for that, and then we can in addition make the regulation that the empty case must be returned, so that it may be used again the following year. Then the loss is immediately eliminated, and the school children inland will have the opportunity to eat sound grapes, which will mean much for their health. The rest can be sold to poor people, or given to them, but why must these people now be subsidised and then allowed to compete on the ordinary market with the farmers who did not previously export. I want the Minister to think seriously of eliminating the loss to some extent in this way. The schoolchildren will buy tens of thousands of cases, and we can make the stipulation that the case must be sent back. I will not continue with this any longer, because this matter has already been thrashed out, and our time is short. I want to talk to the Minister about the rationing of feed. I know that the Maize Control Board is in the difficulty today that it has no maize. There is a shortage. But our people in these parts need maize, and for several months now we have had to buy 10 lbs. of maizemeal in the shops for 1s. That is the most that the shopkeeper can get for us. If the farmer asks for a permit to obtain maize, he must fill in a form, and after 14 days, instead of his getting maize or the permit, the form comes back and he must fill it in again. I have here a letter from a contractor who had his quota, because he had to maintain 30 mules to carry out his municipal contract. Eventually a small quantity was granted him, but before he could get it, another message was received that he could get maize. He was told that he should try to obtain undergrade oats. He could get the oats from a local storekeeper, but before it could be delivered to him, the next regulation came out saying that he could no longer get oats. Then he was told that he should buy rye. He immediately applied for rye, but before he could get it, that right was also withdrawn. The situation is very serious, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that next year, when the new crop is there, these difficulties will not again be repeated. I may say that the permits are not only beginning to give trouble now. For several years now they have caused complaints among the farmers. They send a permit away for maize, and when the maize should come, the permit comes back because there was something wrong with it. I want to point out that the Department warned the farmers that they should sell or slaughter their fowls, because there would be a shortage of maize, and the result of that was that the people must today pay 3s. 6d. per dozen for eggs, which are not worth it. I understand that in Durban they were even 5s. per dozen. It is all due to the shortage of maize products. Can a plan not be made to ration feed in such a way that there will be more for this form of farming? Costs of living have risen very high, but this shortage of feed causes them to rise immeasurably higher. We find that the feed is withheld from these people, but on the other hand oats is allowed to the owners of race horses. While I talk of that, I want to point out something else. I have been told that the owners of race horses went around in Malmesbury and offered £1 per bag for oats on the farm, and they would take it away. When the Minister talked here yesterday of the black market, he said that if he began to prosecute people, we would come just now and say that he should leave the people alone. The Minister has really given an invitation now to the people to trade in the black market, because he said he would not prosecute them. I think the Minister must put his foot down to see that it does not go on any longer. Things are going on that are to the detriment of the producers. On the other hand I want to point out that the consumers are immeasurably greater in number than the producers, and there are tens of thousands of them who cannot make ends meet with the salary that they receive. Although they receive a cost of living allowance, they are not able to live properly with the salary they receive. If we now allow this black market to continue, and allow oats for race horses to go on to the black market, how can the people then obtain oats for the fowls? The result is that eggs cost 3s. 6d. per dozen, and it is unfair to the consumers in the country.

Mr. Chairman, ever since control boards were set up under the Marketing Act, there have been expressions of dissatisfaction with their activities in my part of the country at any rate. Whether that dissatisfaction pervades the whole of South Africa I am unable to say, but from observations and Press remarks I should be inclined to think that it is practically universal in the Union. First of all, that dissatisfaction was directed at the activities of these boards, but eventually is reflected upon the personnel of the control boards, and today I think that dissatisfaction exists both with the activities of the boards and the personnel. There are various reasons for this, but I think the special reason is that they do not comprehend exactly what is required of them, and they do not make necessary provision for the proper distribution of the articles which they control. It seems to me that there is almost universal amongst these boards an element of selfishness, that is to say they are looking after one portion of the community only, and that is the producers, they have no time for either the distributor or the consumer, their one idea is to obtain the largest possible price for the products of the producer. Well, of course, a lot may be said for that, and they are primarily boards set up to look after the interests of the producer, but I do say they should have some consideration for the distributor and quite a lot for the consumer. A proper co-ordination of all these, I think, would lead to a better appreciation of the boards themselves, and of their activities. Let us take one or two instances. Let us take the Citrus Control Board. But there are many others. We have the Citrus Control Board, we have the Mealie Control Board, we have the Wheat Control Board, we have the Meat Control Board, we have the Dairy Control Board, and I believe we have a Hide and Skin Control Board. Whether that is the total list or not I am not sure. However, we will take the Deciduous Fruit Board; complaints from all over the country are to the effect that the procedure is wrong. The deciduous fruit first of all goes to the cold storage, is cooled and then distributed. But this cooled fruit has only a life of five days, and the result is that most of the fruit arrives at the distant markets in a rotten condition and has to be destroyed. Take citrus fruit; the Minister gave me some figures the other day which showed that the average number of pockets of oranges put up for sale at the Durban market was 11,040 per week. I have taken the trouble to work out a few figures in connection with that, and according to the 1936 census the number of Europeans in Durban was 95,460; Asiatics 88,585; natives 70,782; a total of 254,825 persons in Durban. The amount of citrus put up for sale in Durban would provide these people with approximately three oranges per week per person. But there are other contiguous areas which I conclude are served by the Durban market, and there are in the combined areas Europeans 105,108; Asiatics 151,867; natives 357,832; a total of 614,000. The amount of citrus put up for sale by the Citrus Control Board would therefore work out over this entire population at about 1.2 oranges per week per person. I contend that this is far too few. I think the population of Durban and the contiguous districts could consume far more than that, especially since there has been a large increase of population. Europeans and others, in Durban since the last census. Moreover, we have to take into consideration the large number of people who are coming in by the convoys and another large number of people who come in from other countries. I have to conclude that there must be less than an orange per week per person provided by the amount sent up for sale by the Board. Well, sir, the Board promised me that they would hold in reserve a number of pockets of oranges so that if there was a tremendous shortage at any time which they could not meet within four or five days, they would call upon these reserves to provide a sufficiency of oranges for the people of Durban, but in the Minister’s reply to me he referred to the pockets of oranges reserved for convoy work, but did not say anything about the civil population of Durban and the shortage which is due to the large influx of people. I hope the Board will see that plentiful supplies will be reserved for the civil population of Durban in the months to come. In regard to mealie control, I do hope that the babyish action of the Control Board last year will not be repeated. When a number of small traders asked to be registered in order to purchase mealies from the natives, they were told that as they were not registered in 1941 they would not be registered in 1942. I do hope that that will not be repeated, because it is a scandalous state of affairs. These traders have asked me to obtain from the Minister an assurance that they will be allowed to purchase mealies from the natives during the coming season, and I hope that any application which is received from these traders in my constituency will be acceded to immediately without any demure. Mr. Chairman, farmers’ associations in my constituency have passed resolutions condemning and expressing no confidence in the Mealie Control Board. It may be that the Mealie Control Board has improved its methods and will do what is necessary, but when I get an expression like this from a Natal farmer, it certainly seems to me that something is wanting. He says: “The activities of the Mealie Control Board are turning honest farmers into scheming, lying, law-breaking citizens of the Union.” Well, that is what they say; it is not my expression. It is an expression of opinion by a Natal farmer. Whether this dissatisfaction affects the whole of South Africa I do not know, but certainly it is a matter for consideration when a responsible farmer makes use of an expression like that.

Yesterday I asked the Minister to make a statement on the meat position. I went into the various aspects of the matter and showed that his interference last year was a complete failure. I have mentioned the grading system which the Minister is busy carrying out on an export basis. I want to end by saying that the difficulty in connection with the grading system is that at some places the meat is graded on the hook and at other places on the hoof. At Johannesburg it is graded while the animal is alive, and at other places it is graded on another basis. The position now is, as I have told the Minister before, that I know of two farmers who sent away sheep of the same quality. The one sent them to Pretoria and the other to Johannesburg. At Pretoria, the farmer received 17s. a sheep less than at Johannesburg. Another case is that of a neighbour of mine who sent away the same class of sheep. He sent a few trucks to Johannesburg and a few to Pretoria, and at Pretoria he received 13s. a sheep less than at Johannesburg. If the object is to steady the market, then I want to contend that this sort of thing has the opposite effect. Let me now mention another example which assists in this sort of thing. The Minister of course knows that the Kaap Sentraal is a cooperative which markets thousands of sheep. All their sheep are graded when the sheep have been slaughtered. Now agents go about outside with the story and they tell it to the farmers that they must not send their sheep to the Kaap Sentraal, because the meat is graded there. They advise the farmers to send it to the open market and the result is that the Kaap Sentraal suffers. They have dared for example to tell me at the Maitland market that there must be something wrong with Kaap Sentraal. They are busy creating an impression among the farmers that they must leave the cooperative and deal on the open market. I only mention this case to show the Minister what the result of such a thing is. His grading system which he does not carry out in full has the effect that the farmers are incited against that co-operative. I have told the Minister before that the farmers have asked for a fixing of the price of meat, and when this is done then it must graded, but then there must be a price fixed for the farmer in respect of the various grades. And it must be done throughout. Now the Minister has tackled a matter for which he was not prepared. He did not go into it properly how he wanted to grade. He did not take steps to see that he got control of the cold storages and the abattoirs, and it is impossible to make a success of this. The Minister can also not say that he has reduced the price for the consumer. He cannot say that he has stabilised the market. All that he has done is to bring loss to the farmer. Now the Minister comes with something else which is very important to the farmer. From all sides he is urged to ration meat. I want to say this today, and I say it now, because I know the Minister’s officials are also here. If ever they have indulged in a farce, then they are doing so now. Why people want to demand a rationing system puzzles me. Do they want to ration meat because there was a drought? Do they want to ration meat because there was a poor lambing season last year? Let me tell the Minister that the lambing season this year will in all probability again be poor. But is that sufficient reason for rationing meat? Does the Minister not know that in the past we also had great droughts in which we lost 7 and 8 million sheep, and it was never necessary to ration meat? It is not necessary to ration meat because the less sheep you have on a farm, the more rapidly do they breed. If, for example, you have 1,000 ewes on your farm and you get, for example, an 80 per cent. output of lambs, then generally you will get a 90 per cent. output of lambs if you have only 500 ewes. In proportion, the fewer sheep you have on your farm, so much the better is your lambing season, and the Minister knows how droughts in the past showed us that we do not need to worry. The Minister is afraid that the livestock will be slaughtered off. The price is good today, but that rationing will prevent farmers from putting their sheep on the market in these good times, that is what the Minister is busy doing, and one day after the war when the depression comes the farmers will be able to do it, but then they will not be able to get a good price. Assuming it to be true that the livestock will be considerably decreased, by so much more it will guarantee a good price for the farmers after the war. I want to tell the hon. Minister that he must be careful; he has now increased the price of wheat; he has raised the price of mealies. But now the Minister must remember that the farmers will not plant fodder again so easily to feed the sheep during the winter. The Minister must remember that. The man will now want to harvest their wheat and maize. He will not be so ready to throw the lands open to the cattle because he can get a good price for it. I want honourably to acknowledge that the Minister is encountering a few difficult months. The rains have long kept off and the usual areas where there is production have had little rain. If the Minister tells me that he is going to get out of his difficulty by rationing meat then I say to him this afternoon in advance that he is busy putting his head into a beehive. It cannot be carried out in practice. The areas which must provide Cape Town with meat are those in the North-West here in the Karroo which principally farm with Afrikaner- or crossbreed-sheep. If the Minister now wants to prohibit ewes being put on the market or if he wants to lay down that the ewes must be of a certain age then he will find that a revolution will occur among the farmers.

I am very sorry to have to delay the Minister’s Vote at this late stage. I know that he is anxious to put his Vote through, but I want to apologies to him for these few minutes that I will require to touch on a very important matter that has been raised before. It is held against this side of the House that we, as representatives of wool growers, allow certain members of the Opposition, and particularly the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) to act as plenipotentiaries and experts on behalf of the wool farmers, that we allow the hon. member for Cradock to give his own interpretation of the wool position, and that he tries to foist on the Minister and on the Department of Agriculture views that by no means have the approval of the majority of wool growers in this country. A lot has been said in the past about lost millions under that wool contract.

You were going to tell us something about the wheat price.

I have dealt with that, but the hon. member was not here. I have certainly dealt with it. As I have said, we have heard a lot about lost millions on the wool contract, but we have not heard a word about the millions gained under that contract. There has been a perpetual change of front here, a perpetual change of policy in the treatment of that wool position. At first we heard in this house that Italy, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and the Balkan States would all be buyers of our wool. That was the position at the time, and I must admit that even I sometimes almost doubted whether it would not have been better for us to have an open market, but as the independence of those countries disappeared, and the blockade was applied to those countries, the circle became narrower and narrower, until ultimately only Japan and America remained out. It has been thrown at my head in this house that Japan and America could still have been buyers in the open market. But Japan and America have also disappeared, and since their disappearance the question of an open market has gone overboard completely. Today we hear nothing at all about that open market. Instead we now hear about nothing but the weak business methods of the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the formulation of that wool contract.

Why did America go out of the market?

America is today the ally of England, and America could have obtained all the wool she required from Australia and New Zealand, and she does not need our wool.

That shows how much you know about wool.

I want to assure the hon. member that I know as much about wool growing as he does. I am a practical sheep farmer while he is a dentist. Moreover, I represent wool farmers, and I know much more about wool growing than that hon. member knows about dentistry. This contract which has been concluded has been concluded with us by Great Britain in respect of wool that Great Britain did not need. She had sufficient wool supplies under the contract which she had with Australia and New Zealand. The proof of this is obvious. Today our wool is lying heaped up in our wool stores, but the difference is that instead of it lying there as unsold wool, it has been sold and the money has been put into our pockets. I want to say to those hon. members that we would have been in a chaotic position if we had not concluded that agreement with Great Britain. We, as wool farmers, are fully conscious of the advantage we have under that contract, and I say on behalf of a large portion of our wool farmers that gratitude is due to the Minister of Agriculture for that contract, and there is to my mind not the least doubt that history will yet show the wisdom of that wool contract, and that it is not necessary for me to praise that wool contract to the skies. If the contract had not been concluded, and matters had gone differently, we would have been saddled with our wool and would not have been able to sell it. What would the wool farmers in this country have said of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Department of Agriculture if that had happened? There would have been no end to the condemnation of the Minister and the Department, and quite justifiably. The Minister and the Department have had the opportunity to make use of the opportunity in the interests of the country, and they did make use of it, and thereby they got us this wool scheme under which the farmers of South Africa are doing well. I want to go further and ask the Minister to try to obtain for us a fixed wool price also after the war; let us get co-operation between the wool-producing countries such as Australia, New Zealand and other wool-producing countries; let us discuss the question of our wool at a round-table conference, and approach the Imperial Government and the American Government to try to obtain for us a fixed price for our wool after the war. We are aware of the progress of synthetic fibres since the last war, and undoubtedly these fibres will make still greater progress in this war, and we shall find ourselves up against serious competition from those synthetic fibres, and of artificial silk after this war; and we know that wool was in a very unfavourable position even before the war broke out. More than once I have viewed the future position of our wool industry with fear and trembling. Tens of thousands of farmers in this country are absolutely dependent on the wool industry. Wool reached such a low level before the outbreak of war that I felt sorely afraid, more than once, about what would happen if this position continued. People have invested big capital in first class stock. They did not mind what they paid for first class rams and ewes in order to build up and improve their studs, and they also succeeded in improving our sheep to a high pitch of excellence, and after they did this they were faced with that serious position of low prices of wool, and I fear that we shall again arrive at that position unless we now take the necessary steps, unless we have the necessary consultations and try to get a fixed policy in connection with our wool after the war is over. If we can get something in that direction, if it can be obtained through the initiative of the Minister or the Department, then they will have done something in the ttrue interests of this country, for which they will not only have the thanks and appreciation of the population, but for which they will also go down in history as farsighted statesmen. I repeat that the wool farmers owe the hon. Minister and the Department a big debt of gratitude for that wool scheme under which our wool position has been insured up to a year after the war, as well as during the war.

When my time expired yesterday, I was discussing the position relevant to wheat. In connection with broken wheat, 10 lbs. is allowed for first grade. If there are 6 lbs. more broken wheat, it becomes second grade. In that event the farmer must sacrifice 8d., and he thus gets 2-4/5d. for that wheat. If there are 12 lbs. extra then he gives that 12 lbs. as a present to the miller and in addition he pays him 4-2/5d. because he takes it as a present. If there are 20 lbs. more broken wheat in the bag, then he gives it as a present to the miller and in the case of “A” wheat he pays 2s. 6d. to the miller because the miller takes it as a present and in the case of “B” wheat he pays him 2s. If there is 30 lbs. more broken wheat in the bag, then he gives that 30 lbs. as a present and in the case of “A” wheat he pays 4s. 5d. and 3s. 11d. in the case of “B” wheat. And if there is 40 lbs. extra broken wheat in that bag, then he gives it as a present to the miller, and because he is so kind to take it as a present, he pays 5s. 9d. to the miller in the case of “A” wheat, and 5s. 6d. in the case of “B” wheat. I do not think it is necessary for me, if my figures are correct—and I now ask the Minister to go into the matter, and to say here across the floor of the House if those figures are right or not, and if they are right I can say here that an injustice is being done the wheat farmer without the consumer benefiting by a single penny. And now still this in that connection. If a difference is made in that manner between the different grades, then the loss that the farmer suffers will of course be all the greater. I have only mentioned this one case of broken wheat and I want to ask the hon. Minister and his Department to give their attention to the matter and to see that no injustice is committed. Let me say immediately that the wheat farmer does not in the least want the Minister and the Government to do any injustice to any section of the community. We know that in connection with the price of wheat and the price of bread four parties are concerned in the matter. We have the wheat farmer; we have the miller; we have the baker, and we have the consumer; and I know that it is surely not an easy task to hold the scales evenly between those four parties. On the other hand I must say this to the Minister, that he was certainly not very successful in his attempt to hold the scales evenly between the four parties. I do not think we can find a greater blunder than this: One morning the consumer finds that he must pay 6½d. for his bread, and the day after he finds that he must pay 6d. for the same bread. There was a ½d. difference in the price without the consumer knowing why the difference had come about. I do not think that the Minister is busy creating confidence with the public. It was said here yesterday by certain hon. members that the officials in the Minister’s Department have been thinned out. I do not know if this is so, but if it is the case then I want to say to the Minister that it is now precisely the time to increase the number of officials instead of thin them out. Where the Minister lays this additional work on the officials he cannot expect to do with a smaller number of officials. If more officials are appointed and a few extra pounds are paid to additional officials it will be money well spent. I want to come to another little matter, and that is the question of fertiliser. I must say to the Minister that the wheat farmers are in a hurry for the orders they have placed to be executed. Last Thursday I got into touch with the secretary of one of the big co-operatives, and he said to me that there are various farmers who are sitting with their hands in their hair because their orders have not yet been delivered. I do not know what the reason for it is, but I want to say to the Minister that it is getting very late, and I trust that the Minister will give his immediate attention to this matter. I want to ask the Minister further whether he is not prepared to have tests made of the fertiliser that is now being delivered at the stations. There is a feeling among farmers—I do not know if it is grounded—but there is a feeling among farmers that they do not always get fertiliser in accordance with the analysis. It is not the duty of the individual farmer to go into that matter. I want to ask the Minister if he is not prepared to have a few samples taken and to have these samples tested in order to see whether the quality of the fertiliser which the farmer gets is according to the prescribed analysis. There is another little matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is that he has not yet given me a reply in connection with the apricot farmers. I want to ask him if he is not prepared to make a statement in this House in connection with the prices that the apricot farmers received this year; whether he is not prepared, in view of the fact that the apricot farmers suffered a particular loss after he has fixed the price—the crop was very much smaller than he estimated and the Minister has created a precedent here when he said that the production of mealies was much less than he anticipated and that for that reason he is going to increase the price—now we say that in view of the fact that less apricots were produced he should also increase the price of apricots. For that reason it is necessary that the apricot farmers should be compensated. I have often lodged protest, and I want to ask the hon. Minister if he is not willing to give the Western Province a representative on the Marketing Council. I think it will be to the benefit of agriculture in the Western Province in general if the Minister would place a representative of the Western Province on that council.

I just want to inform the hon. Minister of Agriculture that the first complaint from the farmers of Bethal arrived here yesterday by telegram. The Eastern Transvaal Co-operative Society which represents 5,000 members telegraphs that they demand 17s. 6d. for their mealies for the next crop. As I have said before, that is the minimum; that is the lowest price at which the farmers of Bethal can see their way clear to sell their mealies, and while there is still time I want to appeal to the Minister to consider that fixed price of 16s. and to grant to the mealie farmers the price of 17s. 6d. to which they are justly entitled. Then I would like to know from the hon. Minister what he is going to do with that money lying with the Mealie Control Board. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should distribute that money immediately among the mealie farmers. They are entitled to it. In view of the fact that there is no levy on the mealies this year, and in view of the fact that the Mealie Control Board will not have work for such a big staff, the position is not the same as it was last year. I want to propose to the Minister to give the members of that Board a year’s holiday. According to the report of Die Vaderland of Saturday 20 March the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) stated that he has asked the approval of all the mealie representatives in Parliament, in other words all the members of Parliament who represent mealie growers, for the price of 16s. I do not know of any price of 16s., and I want to state here that I do not identify myself with that. Where we had a discussion the price was fixed at 17s. 6d. and there is thus no word of truth in that statement. If the hon. Minister is not prepared to give the Mealie Board permission and to grant the price of 17s. 6d., then I have another alternative that I want to propose, and that is that we should have an open market, and then I am convinced of it that our mealie farmers will get 30s. this year. Then there is another matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and that is that this Karoo Company which sells manure to the farmers is robbing the farmers. The farmers are protected under the law insofar as imported fertilizer is concerned. The company must deliver to the farmers what it sells to them and the onus rests on the company to prove this, and the farmers need not pay him if the manure does not contain the necessary constituents. But what is the position in connection with Karoo manures? There are still some court cases pending, and I therefore do not want to say much about the matter. But at tests at Onderstepoort it has been proved that the half of that Karoo manure consists of sand and soil. I want to plead with the Minister to introduce legislation or to issue a proclamation because this is a Government which governs by means of emergency regulations and proclamations—to protect the farmers; I want to appeal to him to introduce legislation in connection with the Karoo manure that is being sold to the farmers in the interior. Then I would like to ask the Minister what provision he has made for ploughshares for the mealie farmers. These are almost unprocurable. The tractors no longer have tyres. Paraffin is dangerously expensive, and difficult to obtain. For trek oxen £17 to £20 per head is now being paid. Apart from this there is the prospect that there will be no more fertilizer next year. Now I want to ask if Iscor cannot manufacture the ploughshares. Surely it is not sufficient that only trench mortars and ammunition should be manufactured. It is important that agriculture should be provided with what it needs. If provision is not made next year’s crop is going to be a total failure particularly as regards mealies.

When my time had expired, I was busy speaking about the Fresh Fruit Control Board. I said that they had not created any markets. They send the stuff to the markets that are there and obtain nothing for the fruit. While the farmers get nothing for the fruit, the price of fruit remains as expensive as before. One has to pay 4d. per lb. for grapes, while the man who brings it to the market gets ls.3d. for 10 lbs. There should be arrangements to send grapes to every train along the railway line. It seems to me that all they do is to throw the grapes which were previously exported on to the the market and the farmer who had the market and did not export also loses the market which he had. Or otherwise wine is made from the surplus grapes and that makes life difficult for the wine farmers. But now I want to come to something else. I want to ask the Minister on what principle the price of barley which the brewers buy has been fixed at 20s., while the price for wheat is increased to 36s ?

Last year it was 18s

Yes, that may be, but the price of wheat was 21s. 6d. before the war, and is now 36s., while the price of barley was 16s., and is now 20s. Why that difference in the increased price? The breweries are enormously wealthy and do not know what to do with their money, while the barley farmers have been struggling for years. There is only one buyer for the breweries, and he does as he likes. Why cannot the barley farmers get 25s.? There is an enormously big market for beer and one can oly get three bottles at a time today. They make enormous profits. Seventy-five per cent. of the selling places are tied to the breweries to whom they have provided money. It is unfair that the barley farmers should not get more. Then I also want to ask the Minister if he cannot make a plan to give the poor man a chance to buy small quantities of barley and wheat. I must buy a bag. The poor man cannot afford to buy a bag, but he needs a permit and can only buy a bag at a time. On the form that he must fill in he must say how many fowls he has how many chickens he expects and then 1s. stamp must be put on every application. Why that additional taxation? The poor people must pay 15s. or 16s. for a bag of oats or barley and then 1s. in addition in taxation. Why must this be? It is a form of taxation that is unfair.

I am busy going into the matter.

I am glad of it. Then I want to ask the Minister if he cannot negotiate with the Rhodesian Government to have the discrimination against us as regards Customs, lifted. The last agreement made with Rhodesia meant that the interests of the wine farmers were sacrificed on account of the cattle farmers. Our Government would not allow a certain class of cattle to come into the Union, and then the Rhodesian Government in its turn placed a high excise on our brandy, so that one can today buy French Brandy cheaper in Rhodesia than the brandy from the Western Province. That is not fair. While we assisted Rhodesia with a few hundred bags of mealies, while we are co-operating with them in a good spirit, there is the opportunity of negotiating and of removing the unfair discrimination.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 24th March.