I move—

I would like to take this opportunity of raising a few points in connection with Walvis Bay. The Minister said that he would bring the points we raised here yesterday to the notice of the departments concerned. This is a matter which should receive the serious attention of the Minister and his colleagues because of the anomaly that exists and which should be removed. We have to assume, in terms of the statutes of today, that although Walvis Bay falls under South-West Africa administratively, it is still constitutionally a part of the Union of South Africa. That is an anomaly that should not exist and one is surprised about the fact that such a long period has elapsed without any attention being given to this anomaly. What further complicates the position in connection with Walvis Bay is the fact that South-West Africa is a Mandated Territory and therefore subject to certain international rules which are not applicable to the Union of South Africa and consequently not to Walvis Bay either. It cannot be maintained that Walvis Bay is a part of South-West Africa. It is merely administratively a part of that territory. We have various rulings on that point. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that Section 1 of Act No. 24 of 1922 is still in force and the position is made very clear by that section. It provides that for purposes of administration Walvis Bay shall fall under South-West Africa, but otherwise “it remains a part of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.” We find the same provision in the Act of 1925. We also find it in the decisions of the Delimitation Commissions. The fifth delimitation commission, viz. the Van Zyl Commission of 1927, gave a considered opinion on this point. That opinion has been accepted by the three subsequent delimitation commissions. It has now also been accepted by the Lansdown Commission, who gave a definite ruling on this point. I want to read to the House what the last delimitation commission said in connection with this point—

Now what is the result of this anomaly? It means that the number of adult Union nationals in Walvis Bay—I think the number is now 380—is taken into account for the purpose of determining the number of seats of the Cape Province, but they are not entitled to vote. They are not allowed to register here. That is an anomaly. The second point is that they have no say in this Parliament. A most peculiar position arises in this respect, namely, that these people are taken into account in determining the number of seats to be allocated to the Cape Province and although they are supposed to be voters of the Cape Province, they cannot, however, be registered as voters in the Cape Province. They are ostensibly voters in one of the constituencies in the Cape Province, but they cannot vote in that constituency, because they are not registered. Consequently they have no say in this Parliament. That is an anomaly which has now been existing for a number of years and which we should remove. Walvis Bay is at present still artifically a part of the Union. But this matter also goes further. Politically it remains a part of the Union because it is not subject to the international rules applicable to South-West Africa and the sooner the Government gives its attention to this matter the better it will be. Then there is another point in connection with this matter which is most important. The Minister has introduced this Bill which rectifies the position in connection with legislation concerning Walvis Bay in future. But he should have made the effect of this Bill retrospective. Many laws have been passed by this Parliament in which it was omitted to include South-West Africa and Walvis Bay, and that is a serious state of affairs. I want to mention one instance of such a law. That is the position as far as the Nationality and Flag Act is concerned. Walvis Bay was not included. I only hope they do not know it. But that is the position. I also hope they will not hear me saying it here. It is clear that the provisions of the Nationality and Flag Act do not apply to Walvis Bay. There are also other Acts in respect of which this is the position, but here we have at least one of the most important of our Acts and in respect of which the position is not now being put right. I would like the Minister to consider the advisability of amending this Bill in the Other Place so as to make it of retrospective effect. Because that is the only way in which we can remedy the position. As it stands at the moment, that position is not covered. The Minister may perhaps also through his department ascertain in how many acts the inclusion of Walvis Bay has been omitted. I understand that there are quite a few, although I have only mentioned one of the most important. I intended availing myself of this opportunity of pointing out these anomalies and I trust that the Minister will give the matter his attention.

With regard to the first point raised by the hon. member, it would not be advisable to include that in this legislation. The position of South-West Africa will eventually have to be considered at a peace conference, if not before that time. These are points we will have to bear in mind and I do not think the hon. member expects me to say more about it at this stage. With regard to the important point that this legislation should be of retrospective effect, I want to say that that is a question we have gone into most thoroughly. But the difficulty is this, that in some of the acts from which Walvis Bay has been omitted, criminal offences are created, and the hon. member will realise that it is impossible to apply these acts to Walvis Bay now with retrospective effect. We cannot do it in respect of penal provisions.

Have they not hoisted the Union flag?

It is a pity that this matter has escaped notice in the past, but in view of the fact that some of these acts in which this omission occurs, create punishable offences, it would be impossible to apply them now with retrospective effect. I will again ask my department to go into this matter and find out how many of these acts may be applied to Walvis Bay. Perhaps we can still do it before the Bill is considered in the Other Place.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

When this debate was adjourned last night, I was trying to show that there is definitely a difference between the values of land. Í can understand that there are settlements where the value of the land is less than at other places. I know that there are settlements where the land is of such an inferior nature and is so different from the land at other places, that a settler can hardly make a living on 100 morgen. In other places again he will be able to make a decent living on 10 morgen. The difference is this, that at some places ten morgen can be intensively cultivated. We get intensive enterprise and intensive cultivation whereas at other settlements it may not be the case. We have intensive undertakings on the Olifants River for instance. I feel, therefore, that the Minister cannot treat all the settlements alike. In this Bill he will have to differentiate between land and land. I want to come back particularly to the Olifants River settlement. On the Olifants River the basis of 10 morgen was adopted. That principle was accepted by three Ministers. The late Minister Grobler adopted it; Gen. Kemp adopted it and the present Minister also adopted it, because on the Olifants River the land is cultivated intensively. Lucerne is being grown there, vines and orchards have been planted.

They have a lot of trouble with brackish soil there.

Yes, we get brackish soil at all the settlements, but the measures taken for the prevention of brackish soil these days are so effective that it can easily be eliminated. Now, I was saying that the principle of 10 morgen was adopted on the settlements of the Minister of Lands. He does not allocate holdings of a larger extent than 10, 11 or 12 morgen and I have evidence here to show that the probationer tenants of the Minister make a decent living on 10 morgen. I can give the Minister the name of Mr. Arend Adriaanse. I went through his books and I found that on 11 morgen he made a nett profit of £1,600.

And he still complains that he is not able to pay his tax.

I do not like to challenge the Minister, but the Minister can send a telegram to his extension-officer at Koekenaap and ask him to go through this person’s books and if he owes the Minister one penny then I will pay the arrears. He started off with nothing at all.

He is a rich man; I had someone else in mind.

Everything he owns today he made out of that plot of land. Then there is also Mr. John Smith. The basis of 10, 11 and 12 morgen was adopted by the present Minister and by previous Ministers on the Olifants River settlement and all the owners of holdings have that extent of land and even less. I merely wish to point out that the whole Olifants River have adopted that principle of closer settlement and I feel that in such circumstances an exception should be made. It would not be fair if the Minister were to say that intensive undertakings such as in these cases, which are close to the market of Cape Town, should be made subject to the restrictions laid down in this Bill. It will handicap these people most seriously in their enterprise and it would be most unfair. Those who possess large areas of land, like Senator Dan Retief and Mr. Paul de Wet, will suffer most seriously as a result if they were not able to sub-divide the land at any later stage and sell it. I take the case of Mr. Paul de Wet who has to get approximately £1,500 out of 200 morgen. Supposing now that he had such a charitable desire that he wished to sub-divide the land in order to make it available to beginners, then he will not be allowed to do so. That also applies to Senator Dan Retief and others. I think, therefore, that the Olifants River, particularly in view of the fact that it used to be governed by a board, should not be made subject to this Bill. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that this scheme used to be governed by a board, but we know that there was some dispute over the water rates, there was a conflict, with the result that the board was suspended. I assume that it has only been temporarily suspended and not permanently. This undertaking is an excellent one, one of the best in the country. In view of the fact that so many of our poor found refuge there and in view of the splendid settlement they have developed there, I will be grateful if the Minister would consider regarding the Olifants River as still being governed by a board, even if at the moment it is being governed directly by the Minister. We are looking forward to the day when we will have the privilege once more of having the irrigation scheme on the Olifants River being governed by our own board. I am making a plea for this concession and I know that the owners on the Olifants River will welcome it most heartily. On the other hand, I do not think there will be a single person on the Olifants River who would approve of this measure of the Minister if he is going to place these restrictions on the scheme I have been pleading for here.

When the Minister outlined the objects of this Bill, he said that they were of a dual nature. The first is to make some change in the working of the water courts and the second has some relation to the lands and the distribution of water under the schemes. But the Minister also knows that he is making some radical changes and many of those changes are not yet evident at this stage. In the first place : will these radical changes apply to the existing Government schemes or are they only going to apply to future Government schemes? If they are going to be applied to the existing schemes, then I want to ask the Minister this, whether there are not cases where the powers mentioned in this Bill have already been exercised on existing State schemes. I am of the opinion that the Minister has already availed himself of these powers, that they have already been exercised on existing schemes and we would like to know where the Minister got the authority from to do that. I wish to refer in the first place to the provisions in the Bill which appear in Clause 2. In this clause it is provided as follows—

The Minister first of all determines the irrigation area and then he determines the extent of the land. But there are instances where the Minister has already done this and where he has made such determinations. I also want to refer to the next sub-section—

That also the Minister may determine, and the clause further provides that the Minister may at any time extend or reduce the extent of such land as he may desire. Now I want to put this question to the Minister. Is it really impossible for the Department of Irrigation, when a dam has been completed and the land properly inspected, to find out exactly what the area should be under such a scheme, which should be scheduled as irrigable land? I am raising this point because I know that in the past there have often been cases in connection with large irrigation schemes where too much land was scheduled at the beginning, so that the area had to be reduced subsequently and we can imagine that the opposite may also happen. Is it impossible for the officials of the department to make an accurate calculation in order to determine what area of land would be irrigable under such an irrigation scheme? We have had a lot of experience in the past in connection with irrigation schemes in our country and I would think that in the light of all the experience it should be possible for the department to make an accurate calculation. If a calculation of this nature could be made approximately, why is a provision of this nature being included in this Bill? I want to point out to the Minister that this provision is a dangerous one. Let me put the matter to the Minister in this way and then he will realise that this is a dangerous provision. If he were the owner of the land and another person was the Minister, then he would realise very fully what the danger is. It is quite clear that this section provides that the Minister may at any time enlarge or reduce the land under such a scheme. It is not necessary for me to quote the section any further. The value of the land will depend upon the actions of the Minister in connection with the extension and the reduction. The value of the land is of course dependent upon the area of the land which is irrigable and the area which is not irrigable. I maintain, therefore, that this is a most radical change that is being made here and that it amounts to this that the Minister will be able at his own will to increase or reduce the value of the land. Any Minister could in future increase or reduce the value of the land because be will be able to say to the farmer that instead of getting water for 50 morgen, he will only be getting water for 25 morgen.

You are not putting the position quite correctly.

I just want to say that as it stands now, it looks very much like that and if it is not so, then these clauses will have to be drafted differently. There is another principle involved here. The Minister provides here that there may be no sub-division of this land and if this Bill is being applied to existing schemes then I want to put the matter to the Minister in this way that under the existing schemes there are farms which are large enough to be sub-divided. Those farms could be reduced and provide more people with a living, but if that were to be done now, those people would not be able to get any water for that land. If the farms are already on the small side and if such a sub-division were going to be uneconomical, then it would be a different matter. I agree that we have to guard against a congestion of people on irrigation schemes. We do not want a congestion there, because the result would be that those people will become a burden to the State. I agree that we should not have uneconomical holdings. But on the other hand we get instances where the farms are of such a nature and of such an extent that it could easily be done. The value of land varies. There are such instances where a further division of the farm would not be uneconomical, but under this Bill it would not be possible any more. The Minister is simply taking that right away under this Bill. He says very plainly that as soon as there is any sub-division, then the flow of water to that farm; would immediately be cut off. I may say this that the question of regulating the water on irrigation schemes is not something that should be controlled or stopped from the office of the Minister. There should be consultation with the people on the scheme itself. We have a dangerous principle here. Now there is just this one other question I wish to put to the Minister. A person may have a fairly large farm under an irrigation scheme. The farmer may have two or three sons and it might be possible for them all to carry on farming economically. But if this Bill were adopted, this farmer would not have the right to divide his land amongst his heirs in such a way that each of them may get an economic holding. Because the moment he does that, the flow of water to that farm would be cut off. This is a point in respect of which we would very much like to receive some concession. There are definitely such cases where such a division could be made, just as there are other cases where it could not be done. I feel that this will be a serious encroachment upon the rights of land-owners. By this section in the Bill certain rights of these people are simply taken away from them and they will be at a loss what to do. This is an encroachment upon the rights of the farmer to his land and I do not think that we may do this, as far as the existing schemes are concerned. I would be very glad if the Minister would explain these points to us and if he would agree to meet us in respect of them.

It has been brought to my notice that certain professional men are very much perturbed about the terms of Section 2 of this Bill which might affect them detrimentally. These professional men are civil engineers and land surveyors, and they are afraid that their emoluments might be reduced, if departmental officials are employed to do the engineering work and land surveying in connection with these schemes. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that their fears are unnecessary because these professional men are very much perturbed about the terms of this Bill insofar as they affect them.

I want to associate myself with what hon. members on this side of the House have said. It seems that the Minister of Lands by this Bill is systematically depriving farmers of their private rights. I have a few farms in my area which adjoin Crown lands. There used to be irrigation schemes on that land. There was a big dam there and a number of farmers used to get their water out of that dam. Afterwards the dam burst and as a result they were no longer able to get water from it. But I am afraid that if that dam is repaired again and if it is put into use again and irrigation is restarted in that area, the Minister will then be able to tell these farmers that they are not allowed to sub-divide their farms, because the dam will have been repaired and the land comes under the irrigation scheme. If that happens there can be no doubt that those people’s lands will deteriorate in value. If an individual buys land in future, he will, of course, first of all ask what servitudes are on the land, and if that land comes under a scheme so that the Minister of Lands is given a say in regard to sub-division, it means that to all intents and purposes there is a servitude on the land, because the farmer will not have a right to sub-divide his land. That servitude, of course, will depreciate the value of the land. I feel that a Bill of this kind is so drastic in its effects that I cannot possibly support it. If it is passed it simply means that the farmer no longer has any say over what he wants to do with his land. Laws are continually being passed here interfering with the rights of the farmer. We already have this position in regard to cattle it is wrong. We force the private individual into such a position that he cannot do with his cattle as he wants to, nor with his land. This is the kind of legislation which I have the strongest objection to. I want to know from the Minister what the position is going to be in regard to the farms I have mentioned. Is the Minister going to apply this Bill to those farms as well if the dam is repaired? Possibly the Minister may consider it necessary in future to repair the dam which will mean that we shall have an irrigation scheme in operation there again. Will these farmers come under this Bill then if they want to sell their farms? I am afraid it is going to cause a lot of dissatisfaction and I shall be very pleased if the Minister will explain the position to us so that we may know what his intentions are, and whether these people are going to come under this Bill.

I am surprised at the ideas which are put forward by the Opposition in regard to this Bill. The whole position is that a number of the difficulties which hon. members opposite anticipate, can be dealt with under the ordinary Irrigation Laws of the country, and they can be solved in that way. It seems that hon. members opposite are of opinion that this Bill will be taking the place of all the country’s Irrigation Acts. That is not going to happen by any means. They think that this Bill interferes with a number of existing conditions. But where I want to congratulate the Minister is that he is introducing a new idea into this country in regard to irrigation. The country’s wealth does not depend solely on the people who have their land along the rivers. The more we can spread the wealth among the population, the better chance the country as a whole has to become rich. There is another matter which hon. members opposite have often recognised, and that is that this is not an agricultural country. Our country is more of a pastoral country. The Minister has now come forward with provision in this Bill to give cattle breeding a better chance. The whole idea of the Bill is to use the country’s resources more effectively so that cattle breeding will also be given better opportunities under these irrigation schemes. I am afraid that the Opposition is opposed to that. They are opposed to any more farmers having the benefits of irrigation.

We are not opposed to it.

Why then do hon. members object to this Bill? The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) created the impression that this Bill was depriving people of their water.

That is so.

The hon. member is perfectly conversant with our Irrigation Laws and he knows that this Bill only deals with the question of flood water.

Only the surplus.

Yes, we know that the water which has been stored is surplus water.

Read the Bill and you will see that the normal flood is also to be divided.

We are talking about storage schemes. The lower riparian owners are entitled to the normal flood. The hon. member admits that. You cannot take away the lower riparian owners’ rights to the normal flood even if they don’t come under a scheme. Here you retain it. Here the Government steps in and creates schemes— the Government does so— it is not private people who do so— the Government creates schemes where the people themselves cannot do so. The Government gives them rights which they have never had before and gives them water, but the Opposition disapproves of it.

That, of course, is not so.

The hon. member for Swellendam said that this was a socialistic Bill.

Of course it is.

The other day he said that the mines should be nationalised. When he said that it was not socialism.

The mines are a key industry. Their position is entirely different from that of farming.

If it touches their own pockets, they don’t want socialism, but if it affects another man’s pocket, then they want to share in the wealth.

You know better than that.

That is their socialism. They want to interfere with another man’s wealth but you must not touch their pockets. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) spoke about the value of the land being dependant on the quantity of water which was available. Well, the Government brings the water there. The man has never before had any water nor has he provided any of the necessary capital to construct the irrigation scheme. Barring the little bit he pays for water rates, he does not pay for his water, he only pays to a certain extent for the maintenance of the scheme, and I make bold to say that the irrigator does not even pay the full amount of maintenance costs.

Are you talking about yourself?

I know a great deal more about irrigation than the hon. member does. I am exclusively an irrigation farmer and I have always been one. I don’t know whether the hon. member even has a windmill or anything like that.

I have more windmills than you have water for.

The hon. member is just letting off a lot of steam. He now complains about the Minister being able arbitrarily to reduce or increase the quantity of water. Our idea is to improve the country’s cattle farming and the properties in this country by irrigating land to enable people to make a better living. I think the Minister referred to the fact that areas might become brackish or that there might be cases where a farmer has 50 morgen but only needs 25 morgen for his farming needs in which case the Minister could say that he need only pay rates in respect of 25 morgen.

But assuming a farmer only wants 25 morgen and the Minister says no.

I think the Minister will agree to an amendment when we are in Committee from this side of the House to meet this position in that regard.

Only from that side of the House. That is exactly the objection to which we have referred.

But the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) said that he could not support this Bill because it was a hopeless measure.

I said I could not support the Bill in certain respects.

This is a new class of legislation in connection with irrigation, and we do not yet know what its effects are going to be, but it leaves an opening for schemes to be extended in future if the Government wishes to do so. Hon. members know, the hon. member for Swellendam knows and other irrigation farmers know, that in respect of certain classes of products, too much is already being produced for the market and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), when he was Minister for Agriculture, received a number of deputations which objected to Government schemes competing with the type of schemes already in existence and members of those deputations complain that they could not make a living under those conditions. This scheme of the Minister’s mainly contemplates the promotion of cattle breeding in other parts of the country. And that is why it is something new. We must give it a chance. I personally want to congratulate the Minister on the underlying idea of this Bill of giving one man 500 morgen and another man 1,000 morgen, although they do not need water for so much land— I congratulate him on his intention to divide the water in such a manner that as many owners as possible will be given an opportunity of making a living.

I want to congratulate the Minister on the new principle which is being introduced here in connection with irrigation. It will prove most beneficial to the country in future. This restriction on the number of morgen a farmer can get under irrigation, is a new principle and it is a good principle. We have cases in this country today where one-third of an irrigation scheme belongs to one man, 500 and 600 morgen, and the taxpayers have to pay for it. Irrigation schemes are constructed at considerable expense to the State. Large amounts have been written off under those schemes. I know of one instance which would make the House realise what the position is, if they had the details before them. I know of one instance where a single farmer benefited to the extent of £10,000 through the amount owing on a scheme being written off. Is that fair?

In some cases even bigger amounts have been written off.

This is a specific case which I know about. Is it sound to maintain that principle? That is why I welcomed the Minister’s new ideas in this respect. I think the provision under which land must not be divided is a very sound one because today you will get a man who has a piece of land under irrigation. He thinks he can make a living if he divides it among his four sons, and the only result is that you have a number of poor men accumulating in an area where one or two men might have done well. I thoroughly agree with the Minister. I want to raise an objection in regard to Clause 2 (3) but the Minister has assured us that he will meet us there by fixing a minimum so that the land cannot be divided into smaller parts. The hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. Serfontein) remarked that the man might have a big bit of land and the Minister could prevent him from dividing it. All this is Government land—we are not referring to private irrigation schemes; this Bill deals with Government land where the owner has received everything from the State—he is given new rights, and there is no question of his having any vested rights.

What are those other concessions which the Minister is prepared to make?

The hon. member should not be in such a hurry. The Minister has agreed to fix a minimum below which nobody will be allowed to sub-divide the land. I am glad the Minister has agreed to this concession, and I shall move it in Committee. I also intend moving a new sub-clause at the end of Clause 3. I don’t propose going into that now because the Minister has agreed to accept it. Where you get big irrigation schemes like the Olifants River Irrigation Scheme, it is possible for farmers to make a living on a smaller piece of ground and the Minister is willing to make concession in that regard, and in the circumstances I need not go into the question any further now.

I am grateful to hon. members for the manner in which they received and criticised this Bill. I never object to criticism if it is constructive and not destructive criticism. There are certain respects in which this criticism was helpful in promoting this Bill, and I shall deal with that in a moment. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) pointed out that our Irrigation Act was passed as far back as 1912, and that amendments have been brought about from time to time, and he thinks the time is overripe to introduce a consolidating Bill. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) also pointed that out. I am aware of the fact that the time has come to have a consolidating Act. There are defects which I would like to rectify, but, as I said when I introduced the second reading, I am introducing amendments which are absolutely necessary in these days, and for the moment I want to confine myself to those amendments. We have nearly reached the end of the session, and throughout the time I have been in control of the department we have been at war. We had so much work that it was impossible to think of introducing a consolidating Bill. I hope it will come but I cannot promise that it will be next session.

But the Minister is not prosecuting the war.

What do you mean? That I do not carry a rifle? I do not want to promise that we are going to do it now. I do not want to make promises like the hon. member over there who promised to introduce a consolidating land settlement Bill three years before he relinquished his portfolio, although he did not introduce it. I feel, however, that we must do it as soon as it is possible, but I make no promise. I admit that certain amendments are desirable. I pointed out that it is necessary, in the first instance, to change the impossible procedure and the costs in connection with water court cases. That is the request of the judges concerned, and it is only on their suggestion that these amendments are being brought about. The hon. member for Swellendam spoke of the tariffs which are too low and the costs which are too high. That is quite correct. I just want to say that a new tariff scale has been drafted, and as soon as the Bill is passed these new tariffs will come into operation. One of his difficulties will then have been solved. The hon. member also spoke of irrigation boards which should be established, so that they can take a greater part in the administration of the irrigation undertakings in their districts. Take Breede River, for example. If they apply, the department makes investigations and if we get a majority of two-thirds of the irrigators the board will be appointed.

That cannot be done under the existing Act. It is unlawful.

My information is that if they apply to my department for the establishment of such a board, investigations are made and if the vote of two-thirds of the irrigators is obtained, the board is immediately established. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) spoke of the composition of the water court. He stated that the judge was a Government official and that the assessors are also appointed by the Government, and he asks what hope the farmer has in these circumstances. The hon. member is a lawyer; he is a member of the Bar. The judge is appointed, like any other judge, by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government, and I thought that any person would hesitate to make such a remark, because it is a reflection on the integrity of the judge and also of the assessors to say that a farmer has no hope of success because these officials are appointed by the Government.

Unlike other judges, this judge is appointed for five years.

Yes, but that does not matter. He can be transferred to the ordinary court. He is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government.

For five years.

It does not matter whether it is for five years or twenty-five years.

It does matter whether the Minister is appointed for five years or twenty-five years. You can ruin the whole country in twenty-five years.

The judge is appointed in this manner, and one of the assessors is an engineer. The names of the engineers are thrown into a hat and then they draw lots and the one whose name is drawn is appointed as assessor. I just want to point out that the Government does not always win. Only recently we lost a case at Kimberley, as the hon. member for Kuruman stated.

That case was heard before a Cape judge who had been appointed permanently.

My information is that this judge is not appointed for five years, but for an indefinite period.

In this case it was a Cape judge, a judge of the ordinary court.

I am now speaking of the judge of the Water Court. Hon. members are splitting hairs. The judge of the Water Court is appointed for an indefinite period, and apart from that two-thirds of the water court cases are heard by ordinary judges of the ordinary court. It is not always the Government, therefore, which has the best chance. The Government does not receive any preference. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is also a lawyer, and he has always dealt with irrigation cases in the area in which he lives. There is a big irrigation scheme in that area, and I believe that as far as irrigation laws are concerned, the hon. member has them at his finger tips. I do not think it is necessary to deal with the rest of the Clauses of this Bill. The whole criticism was directed against Clause 2. The hon. member for Swellendam criticised it most. As the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) said, we are introducing a new principle here as far as our irrigation policy is concerned. When establishing irrigation schemes, we have never thought— and it has never been done—of giving water for the settlement so that the farmers can make money out of it; to enable them to sell the excess land which comes under irrigation to other people; but to give them only enough to enable them to establish fodder banks and to save their cattle in the event of drought, which recurs as regularly as the sun rises and sets. That is the principle, not to give anyone more than he needs. As far as possible we want to give the farmers enough for their requirements. We do not want to give one farmer too much and the other farmer nothing. That is the policy.

But we are not opposed to that.

Instead of the hon. member for Swellendam being helpful in connection with this policy, he asks what right the Government has to take water away from these people. Well, it is not their water.

It is not the State’s water.

If we accept what the hon. member has just stated then no water belongs to the State or any one of the settlements where dams have been built and where we have made provision for water.

No, it belongs to the land.

But these farmers who are given water are a distance of 50 miles and 100 miles or more away from the schemes. The water is led by means of canals for hundreds of miles, is then dammed up and distributed.

Clause 7 deals with that.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that we are continually being asked to dam up water, to dam up rivers. We want to use the water in the best interests of the country. Now the hon. member asks what right we have to take the water.

The water belongs to the riparian owners.

Order, order!

The hon. member is trying to put me off my argument. I did not disturb him. I say that the water where we dam up our rivers is surplus water which would otherwise have flowed into the sea; that is the water we use. Does the hon. member want to suggest that we must not do it? During the previous session the hon. member stated that we did not have the right to take water from the river; but this is surplus water which we dam up. We have had many droughts in our country. Do you know what the country lost as a result of three successive droughts, of which the last was in 1933? During those three droughts the farmers in South Africa suffered direct damage to the extent of £15,000,000. The indirect damage cannot be ascertained. Now we come along and we say that we want to try to help the farmers, but we do not want to help them in such a way that the hon. member for Kuruman, for example, will have sufficient ground to enable him bequeath it to two or three sons, because then he would be getting too much. We only want to give him enough for his own requirements on his farm. We want to give twenty or thiry or fifty morgen, depending on the quantity required for farming, and if there is anything over we want to give it to other farmers who need it. We hear a great deal about the future, about post-war development, about social security; we say that we want to develop the agricultural industry in South Africa, because the time will arrive when we will no longer have the mines to fall back on. We will therefore have to develop our agriculture in such a way that we can increase the income of the farmers, so that we can increase our national income. With regard to the future, when we can no longer depend on the mines, we will be dependent to a great extent on farming, and we want to give water to the greatest possible number of farmers. We must protect them against the terrible losses which they have suffered in the past in times of drought, but we cannot give them more water. We cannot give them more irrigable land than they require for their protection and for the erection of fodder banks. Why should we give a man 30 morgen if he only requires 20 morgen? That is our policy for the future. Do you know that if we carry out this policy—and on a later occasion I may be able to make a statement in connection with our plans for the future—if we carry out certain schemes we will be able to give at least 10,000 farmers water for twenty to thirty morgen. If that is not an enormous asset to the country, a national asset, I do not know what is.

You do not need this Bill to do that.

But we do not want to give too much so that the people will just make money out of it.

Again the old story.

In building dams, we had two methods with regard to the use of irrigation water in South Africa. The State invested millions of pounds in irrigation works. The one method was to construct the dam and then to see whether there was land which could be irrigated. Vaaldam was the biggest undertaking of its kind in South Africa. The water is taken out of the river and led for a distance of 250 miles to the land which is available, 250 miles from the river. These schemes are constructed for irrigation purposes. What is the position in connection with land settlements? I must tell the House—and I think the country would also like to know it—that we have, to mention a few, the great irrigation undertakings of Olifants River, Hartebeestpoort, Loskop, Vaal-Hartz and Pongola. What is the position in connection with land settlements? The position is that at Karos-Buchuberg there are only 600 settlers at the present time; there are 300 at Vaal-Hartz and none at Pongola. We have a small number at Loskop, and even today the crop on the settlements is so large that if these settlements are developed, we will have such a big over-production that, you may take it from me, it will dislocate the whole agricultural economy of South Africa.

But you are still putting up houses at Kraaipoort.

That is foolish. I am only saying that if they are all developed, whether tobacco or wheat or lucerne is produced, the production will be so great that it will dislocate the agricultural economy of our country. It must be remembered that the settler who grows his products there, is subsidised nearly 100 per cent., and the ordinary farmer has to compete with the subsidised product of the settler, and he receives no subsidy.

But all this has been taking place under the existing laws.

That is the future of the farmers in South Africa if we carry on with this land settlement policy; if we continue to establish more settlements. The farmers will get to the position when they will not be able to sell anything which they themselves produce and on which they receive no subsidy, because they will be faced with competition from the subsidised product of the settler. Let me say—and that is the future of the farmers in South Africa— that in establishing settlements you must in the first instance have the land. And do you know that there are cases—the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) recently spoke of a predilection for land— do you know that there are many hard cases even at Vaal-Hartz and Loskop where farmers who for generations and generations have inherited those big farms from their forefathers had to sell the land unconditionally. Whether they wanted or not, we simply said that we wanted it for settlement purposes; and we had to pay big prices for it. Hon. members must take that into consideration. When one thinks how many millions of pounds the State had to write off—not one of those schemes ever carried out their obligations—one realises what it meant to the State. The hon. member for Swellendam said that we had written off £80,000. I think it is probably three times £80,000.

I spoke of Bonnievale. I spoke of one scheme, not of the whole river.

The hon. member said that £80,000 had been written off.

You are misrepresenting the position.

I hope the hon. member will give me a chance. You did not speak the truth when you said that we had no right to that water.

On a point of order; the £80,000 of which I spoke referred to one scheme, the Sanddrift scheme, which Bonnevale controls.

That is not a point of order.

I just want to say this; at the moment the Government is assisting them with a further £100,000. I say that the position of the settlements is such that I want to ask any member, even my friends on the other side, after I have explained the position to the House, whether they want us to go on spending millions of pounds on settlements and go on writing off millions of pounds. Do they want that? Do they want us to dislocate the whole future of the farmers in this country completely?

You are making the wrong speech. You are making your speech on the next Bill.

Do they want that?

That is correct; his speech is on the next Bill.

That is one method which has been followed in the past, and I say that it is impossible until such time as the population of South Africa has developed to such an extent that it will be possible to absorb all the products of the settlements—until that time arrives I would be the last person to come to this House and to ask for the establishment of further settlements and for the construction of further dams for settlements. I said that there were two methods. The second method is the board method.

That is the best system of the two.

I have often said—and I want to say it again— that Breede River is the only one of its kind which yielded so much and which was such a success. And I shall tell you why I say that. The Treasury derives a great deal of revenue from the wine industry; that is quite true; I admit that, and it is for that reason that the scheme in my hon. friend’s area recently received a further £100,000. It was for that reason. But let us see how much has been written off in the past. Here I have the figures. On the Breede River Valley …

But it is not your money.

These are five schemes; it is not only one scheme.

What about it? They are adjacent to one another. It is a whole valley. All the schemes belong to it. We did not give £100,000 to Bonnievale only. We have written off a total sum of £284,000.

It must be a small Soviet.

An amount of £284,000 has already been written off, and we are again giving £100,000, i.e. a total of £384,000. What is the position in connection with those board schemes? What is the system under which we constructed irrigation works? Olifants River has a board system. The farmers come together; they form a board and then they make application for the money which they require—£100,000 or £200,000—to construct the scheme, and not one of them has repaid a quarter of that money to the State.

But it was a Government scheme.

That is not right. It is a Government scheme today but it was a board scheme. The board borrowed the money; it was a board scheme; and Olifants River did not pay anything either. I had to come to this House and write off an enormous amount to clear the books and because they failed to take care even of their administration and did not Day anything, we changed it last year from a board scheme to a Government scheme. That is the reply which my hon. friend wants. There you have boards where enormous sums of money have been spent. The State paid millions of pounds, and that was the position of those boards. As soon as they make an application to build a dam— the Government builds it for them and they obtain the money—the speculation starts. The land is bought for a song before the dam is built, and once the dam has been completed they speculate to their heart’s content. Two hundred, three hundred and four hundred morgen are scheduled. In the majority of cases these people did not even pay the water tax.

Who is making the money? Is it this side of the House?

Yes, that side of the House. I know of one man on that side who made so much money— well, I would rather not go on.

What did the judge say?

I shall tell you; if you make that remark to me outside the House I shall deal with you.

What did I say?

I say then the speculation starts. They schedule as much land as they possibly can—200, 300 or 400 morgen. They do not even pay the water tax. They cannot cultivate the land. It just lies there and then they sell the land at enormous prices—£50, £100 and £150 or more per morgen. And what is the result?

Why do you not prevent it?

They sell that land to people who cannot afford it, to people who cannot pay the purchase price, with the result that nothing at all is paid. The water tax is not paid. Many of them are enormously wealthy by the time they leave. They sell everything and they leave the land in the hands of the people who cannot pay, and the result is that the Government is saddled with these people. I say that the result of that board system was nothing but speculation, pure and simple, whereby some people became very rich and others very poor, and we had to write off the money.

Shame!

Now I want to ask hon. members this. In view of this experience, can I come to the House and ask the House to give further loans to these boards? I am convinced that no one in this House, not even hon. members on the other side if they want to do their duty, would expect that. They will say the Government must not give another penny to the board. It is impossible to continue on that system.

Why do you not alter the law?

I am altering it and now you say that I am depriving these people of their rights.

And so you are.

Hon. members have full opportunity of making their own speeches, and they must allow the Minister to make his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was the position in the past. I say that as far as the land settlement policy is concerned, we have got to the point where we cannot carry on with it. The land settlement policy, the policy of irrigation, is very expensive. We are fast moving to a point where we will dislocate the whole agricultural economy of this country. The second system is the board system. I am convinced that even my hon. friends on the other side will say that we must no longer lend money to the boards, not one of whom has discharged its obligations. Now we come to Clause 2.

Are you still dealing with that clause?

This is only the beginning. We intend going further. We are going to introduce a new principle. In the future, when any dams have to be built or irrigation works constructed, the Government itself will make them, and the Government will take that water and give it to the farmers on the extended scheme—as I have said, not to make the farmer rich, not to enable the farmer to say that he has too much land and that he wants to sell or divide; no, only enough for his requirements. I am absolutely convinced that if we can extend it, we will be able to convert this country, where we suffer from drought, into a paradise in comparison with what it is today. We are giving effect to this principle today. North of the Vaal River there is a series of farms, below the Vaaldam. They cannot get water there. These are all dairy farmers. They have no water. Many of these people have become bankrupt. In times of drought they have to fetch water with a cart and a few oxen. We are now bringing a canal north of the Vaal River through these farms, and we are going to give every one of those farms—there are approximately 60 farms—20 morgen to irrigate. That is the beginning. Can hon. members realise how it will convert those farms? At the moment they are in the grip of drought. They have no water to drink, and here a canal will run through the man’s farm and he will be able to get ten or twenty morgen of land to irrigate. He will double his income. But he will not have the right to sell the land or to divide it, because the condition attaching to.it is this: “Those ten or twenty morgen are given to you on condition that it be regarded as an integral part of your farm; you will not be allowed to divide it; if you want to sell, you will have to sell the whole farm, but you cannot divide or sell that piece of land.” The people accepted it with open arms. Now my hon. friends on the other side want us to allow them to divide the land. If such a man wants to divide his land, it is proof that he has too much land. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Kuruman, wants to do that.

How much land did you buy?

I come under the Act. I bought in the open market.

So the Minister is allowed to buy, but the hon. member for Kuruman may not do so. He inherited the land but you bought it!

I say that I come under this Act just as any other person does.

Why then do you reproach the hon. member for Kuruman?

I shall tell you in what respect I blame him. This scheme falls under the Kraaipoort dam. The dam had already been built. The farmers were already there. The dam was almost full. We then established a settlement above Modder River. It is not a big settlement. But we decided that we would give each of the farms between the dam over Koffiefontein up to Jacobsdal, water for irrigation. Those farms are brackish. Their carrying capacity is low. We then decided to give the people water for irrigation. I went to Koffiefontein and met the farmers there. I do not know whether the hon. member was there.

I was there.

Mr. Havenga, the previous Minister of Finance, was there. The hon. member for Kuruman was there, and also the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), and at that meeting we told the people whose farms were on the banks of the river and who came under the canal: “We are prepared to schedule so many morgen for every farmer, and to supply you with water.” We also said that they would have to pay for it.

You are talking yourself to a standstill.

And we agreed to give everyone 50 morgen, on condition that they would not be allowed to sell it. That was very clearly put to them. The condition was that they would not be allowed to sell or divide, and they accepted those conditions with open arms. Today my hon. friend comes along and he still wants to have the right to divide.

Did you give the people 50 morgen, or water for 50 morgen?

We give them water for 50 morgen, of course.

You did not say that; you said that each man got 50 morgen.

Surely it is clear. That is foolish. I say that we agreed to give the people 50 morgen.

You have already said it.

Yes.

Don’t repeat so often.

It is clear that 50 morgen is too much. I have just had a case where a person wants to sell at a huge price.

You could have put this Bill through long ago.

And I say that we will adhere to the agreement that that land shall not be sold or divided.

But in terms of this Bill you, as Minister, may reduce or increase it. I am asking a fair question.

This is the new policy, that we are going to supply the farmers with water. I want to say that there is another scheme which I do not want to mention at the moment, where we will carry out the same policy and give the water to the farmers, and on the recommendation of the Irrigation Board those farmers will get land on the same condition. The Irrigation Commission recommends anything from 10 to 50 morgen, according to the size of the man’s land. The hon. member for Kuruman was fortunate in that he came in under this 50 morgen system.

Can you, as Minister, once this Bill goes through, say that 50 morgen is too much; can you reduce it? I am only asking a civil question.

No, I cannot reduce it. It will stand; we adhere to that agreement which we made with them.

But you say it is too much.

I said it was too much because my hon. friend now wants to sell.

You know that is untrue:

I say that there is a case where the man sold ….

Why do you say that I want to sell?

I say that you want the right to divide.

You know that you have misrepresented it.

The hon. member did say that.

But now you want to be able to tell him whether or not he can divide.

I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad put that question to me, and I shall reply to him in a moment.

You have not even, started yet.

I just want to say this. My hon. friend says I have not yet started. He also farms in a valley where there is a board scheme, and where a huge amount of money has been written off. These people are in a critical position, and their only salvation in the future is to get water on a permanent basis under this system. Hon. members now want to suggest that we are taking water which does not belong to us.

How do you know what my attitude is?

How could he know it? You have not said anything.

Order, order!

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad asked me about sub-clause 2, in connection with the increase or reduction of scheduled land. He asked whether we had the right to increase or to reduce it at will. That is not the intention. The intention is this. My hon. friend said yesterday that he also had 50 morgen at Pongola. Now he wants to know whether I have the right to reduce it, or whether I can take the water away. That is not the intention at all. The intention is this; there may be persons who feel that they have been granted too many morgen. Such a person can come to the Government and say that he cannot cultivate all the land, and ask for it to be reduced. In that case the Minister has the right to reduce it in the schedule. He might also ask for it to be increased. He may have too little land, and in that case he can make application for an increase. When that is done I go into the matter. I have a Land Board and also an Irrigation Commission, and the matter is dealt with on its merits. The man may say: “A portion of my land has become brackish; it is not suitable for certain purposes; will you be prepared to schedule another portion?” This clause gives the Minister the right to meet the people in such cases. That is all that is intended. Nothing more and nothing less. The hon. member for Kuruman spoke of land which we bought twice and which was worth nothing. He gave the House the impression that the Government had bought that land through its Land Board which was worth absolutely nothing. The hon. member knows that that is not correct. One can buy any farm—I do not care where—but that farm will not be 100 per cent. suitable for the purpose for which one buys it. In this case we bought ä farm which is adjacent to the river. We required the land for settlement. We also had to have grazing. At Vaal-Hartz we have no less than 100,000 morgen for grazing. I admit that we paid a high price.

You paid as much as for irrigation land.

What happens is this. The Land Board values the land. The mistake which was made in that case was this. In the past, if we wanted to build a dam, we bought the land before the work was started, and we bought at the ruling market value. In this case the land was bought after the dam had been constructed. Now we have this position. The dam has already been built. The water is in the dam, and the man claims that water. I think I have now replied to all the points. I took some time to do so. What I want to emphasise especially is this, that this new policy is the only salvation for the future of the farmers of South Africa, namely, to dam up the rivers, take the water and give it to the farmers, but safeguard them against the terrible losses which they are liable to suffer in times of drought. My hon. friends can say what they please, but the time will arrive—if we can carry this policy into effect—when every member in this House, and also my hon. friends on the other side, will thank me for introducing this policy and for introducing this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 27th April.

Before Clause 2 is passed, I should like to move—

I move this because Clause 2 constitutes practically the whole Bill. It is very long. It has paragraphs and sub-paragraphs and it deals with the whole question of settlement. It defines how the land is to be allotted, how the land is to be kept in order, how it is to be occupied, how soil erosion is to be combated, how burrweed is to be eradicated and what types of people are not to be allowed on settlements, and in those circumstances it will be easier and it will expedite matters if my proposal is agreed to. I hope the Minister will not object to the clause being dealt with in the way I suggest.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Paragraph (1) (a) of sub-section (1) (a).

I want to move—

I am moving this because we know that many of the settlements are in areas which we know are fever stricken and where it is impossible for people to stay 11 months. Under my first amendment the Minister can determine how long a man is to stay on settlement land. Our experience of the Minister and his department unfortunately is that they are fairly drastic in their attitude. The Minister will remember the case of Meiring which was dealt with by the court the other day. The issue was that the Minister or his department contended that Meiring has not occupied his farm or his holding in terms of his contract. But what was the position? That man had been interned, the Government of which the Minister is a member had interned that man, and when he came out, the Minister cancelled the contract because he had been away from his farm. The Minister is a member of the Government which had the man interned so that the Government is the cause of his being unable to carry out his contract. In the circumstances surely it is not reasonable for the Minister to cancel the contract. It shows that there is something wrong. I do not think this clause should be passed by the Commiteee in its present form. This case is really one of the most serious we have ever experienced. Here we have a case of a man being interned— the Government was responsible for his internment, and when he comes out of the internment camp, he is considered to have broken his contract although he was not in any way responsible for his inability to carry out his contract. Surely that is wrong. It is so very easy today to have a man interned. Here we have a case of a man being interned and the Minister stepping in and cancelling his holding. It is scandalous. We have had instances of people living in these fever stricken areas, getting ill and being ordered by the doctor to go away for a time. There, too, the Minister can simply cancel the contract. I think the powers which the Minister is asking for are too big, especially after the experiences we have had.

The hon. member I am sure, knows that this is his own law. Does he want to destroy his own handiwork now?

Yes, but in my days we did not experience what we are experiencing now. We did not intern people and after that cancel their contracts. We never abused our powers and it is because we feel that there is an abuse of power that we say that we cannot allow those powers to remain in the Minister’s hands. The Minister cannot deny the facts of Meiring’s case. The judge himself said ….

That is not the end of it yet.

What does the Minister mean by that?

The case is still going on.

If that is so, then I cannot discuss it. I suppose an appeal has been noted.

The case is still sub judice. I have given instructions ….

If an appeal has not yet been lodged, the question can be discussed here.

Well, if an appeal has not been lodged, I am entitled to go into it. Meiring’s family worked his holding as well as it possibly could be worked while he was away. If the case has now been settled, they can go and stay there again.

We shall see.

The Minister cancelled the contract, but fortunately Meiring was able to go to court and the court held that if the Minister himself was the cause of the man not being on his holding, the Minister was responsible, and the court found against the Minister. And now the Minister says that this is my Act. He says that I want to destroy my own handiwork. Yes, it is my own Act, but we feel that we cannot give the Minister these powers which he has abused in such a disgraceful manner.

I have just received information that Meiring did not win the case. He only got judgment on an exception.

No, he won the case.

No, he did not. He got judgment in his favour on an exception against the procedure.

The finding of the court was that the Minister had been wrong in the action he had taken and that he had not had the right to cancel the contract. I therefore move the amendment which I have read. I feel that 11 months is very unfair to people in fever stricken areas. A man may get ill and the doctor may instruct him to leave the area and to go and live somewhere else for a time. The Minister has told us that no new ground is being issued at the moment and that he is holding up the issuing of land until after the war. Land will be allotted to returned soldiers and a good many of those people may be ill and will not be able to stay on their land continuously. If they leave their land, there is a danger of their contract being cancelled. I hope the Minister will agree to our amendment.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The Minister of Lands always takes up this peculiar attitude that as soon as a motion is introduced, as soon as an amendment is proposed, he says: “Yes, but now you are trying to alter your own law. This is the law which was introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad himself.”

Yes, but that is so.

But has not the Minister himself amended any number of laws which he himself has originally produced?

Yes.

Is it not the custom to amend laws and to delete parts of those laws?

That is not the point.

It seems most peculiar to me, because the procedure is generally adopted. Look at all the amendments that are passed here. I want to say this—a Minister would be a superman if he did not from time to time propose amendments to his own laws. We admit that that provision appeared in the law of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and we admit that we now want to amend that provision, and this is the reason why we want to amend it. We have a Minister now who is so autocratic that we cannot give him the powers which we can give another Minister. This Minister is known as an autocrat. He insists on enforcing his will on the people who have the misfortune of being under him. As he has now shown that he abuses his powers and has actually abused those powers, we want to amend the law to prevent him from further abusing them. I can mention another instance. I was at Buchuberg the other day. There was a man there who had been discharged from the army and because that man had not carried out his obligations under the Settlement Act for 18 months, he was given notice that unless he carried out his obligations, his holding would be cancelled. Imagine ! Here we have a case of a man who had joined the army and this is how he was treated. As this Bill is giving the Minister too much power, it is definitely necessary to amend it. It is essential to make provision for the owners of these plots to have a reasonable amount of time during which they can be away from their farm—naturally a man should be on his farm but circumstances may arise, making it necessary for him to be absent. We should take all the circumstances into account, and I therefore say that we must not give the Minister too much power. We know what may happen. If the Minister has too much power, he may abuse his power. He may be unsympathetically disposed towards a certain section and he may cancel their contracts. We want to assist the Minister in getting this Bill passed, but we are trying to be as reasonable as possible and we are trying to propose amendments which are reasonable.

I also want to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The Minister, of course, assumes that all we are out for is to oppose him, but that is not so.

One would have thought so.

The deletion of the particular part dealt with in our amendment, will assist the Minister in these difficult times through which we are passing. It will assist the Minister to make the position easier while the war is on. The Minister will find out that he has a number of settlers who are in the army today, they are not on their land—and if he wants to be consistent and treat them all alike, he should cancel contracts of all those people who are in the army today. Now if we delete this part it will give the Minister the opportunity to exempt those people who have joined up, so that they will not be compelled either to leave the army and return to their farms or otherwise to lose their land. I therefore think that this proposal is in the interests of the settler and I think it is also in the Government’s interests to accept it. Now in regard to the other part under which a settler is expected to be on his land for 11 months out of 12, I regard this as a very drastic provision. How can we possibly decide that a man shall be 11 months out of every 12 on his farm. It is impossible. Conditions may arise, making it impossible for him to stay on his land. The man may get ill. He may be sent away to another climate and under this clause he will be forced to lose his farm. I think it is most unreasonable. In some cases a settler may join the public service—or otherwise a man may become a member of the provincial council, or even a member of Parliament— he may even become a Minister. And as long as the law reads as it does now, the man will have to make up his mind either to accept the other position, or stay on his land. If he accepts the position, he will have to give up his land. He cannot do both. He cannot be a member of Parliament and be on his land 11 months out of the 12. He has to do one of the two. And that is why it is important, not only to the settlers, but also to the State, that we should amend this clause as proposed. As it now reads, it is quite wrong. Our proposal says “for a reasonable period”. Well, if that is agreed to, then the department and the Minister have it in their own hands to see that the settler does not abuse the position—they can see to it that a settler does not go and live somewhere else and does not desert his land. The department can decide whether the man has been away from his land for an unreasonably long time. I therefore think that in his own interests and in the interests of the settlers, the Minister should accept the amendment.

I am sorry I cannot accept it.

I am sorry the Minister is not prepared to accept this reasonable amendment. Of course the Minister is going to detain the House quite a long time if he insists on carrying on in the way he is doing now. Why does he not get up and say why he does not want to accept it?

It is not the Minister who detains the House but you people are doing it.

The Minister said that he could not accept the amendments. Well the least we can expect of him is to get up and tell us why he cannot accept them. We expect the Minster when putting a clause into a Bill to tell us why he does so, and if amendments are introduced to improve a Bill, he should tell us why he cannot accept those improvements. Why must he act like a dictator, why should he not give us his reasons? All he does is to get up and say : “I cannot accept it”. If that is the way we are expected to carry on the sooner the House finishes up the better. All the members who have spoken on these amendments have told the Minister that they want to support him, they want to help him to get a good Bill on the statute book. But the Minister does not even take the trouble to get up, he remains seated and he just says : “I cannot accept it,” and that is the end of it. I also object strongly to the Minister interjecting here and saying in regard to Meiring’s case : “That is not the end of it”. Somebody remarked : “Meiring can now go and stay on his farm”. To which the Minister retorted: “We shall see”. What is the Minister going to do? We know the Minister can appeal and the Court will give its decision. The Minister says: “We shall see”. We have the strongest objection to his attitude. Now he comes here—he is responsible as a member of the Government for the internment of Mr. Meiring, and although he is responsible for the fact that Meiring could not be on his farm, he puts him off as soon as he is interned. And that is what happened here. Now we find that the Court has given judgment against the Minister, but the Minister turns round and says: “Yes, we shall see”. It is high time these excessive powers which are being abused by an excessive Minister were curtailed. We have proved that the Minister has abused his powers, as a matter of fact the Court has decided that he has done so. We have now proposed to improve the position by the amendments which we have introduced, but all the Minister says is: “I cannot accept it”. It seems to me that he wants to retain the right to continue abusing his powers just as he has done in the past. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) suggested that the period of eleven months should be amended to read a “reasonable time”. Well, that gives a reasonable discretion to a reasonable man. We hope the Minister is a reasonable man. Why does he not want to accept it? Let him get up and tell us why he will not accept this reasonable proposal, and if he is a reasonable Minister he will do so.

I am sorry the Minister has not replied. If we read the whole of this clause we see that provision is made there to this effect that land bought under Section 10 and issued to settlers must be occupied for a certain length of time. If the land is in the low veld, there is provision to the effect that the man need not occupy it for more than a certain number of months every year. Everything of course depends on climatic conditions. It is not fair to expect these people to stay there all the time—they cannot live in these fever stricken areas all the time. Now why should there be a differentiation between the man who is settled on the land under Section 10 and a man who is settled there under Section 11? A man selects his land under Section 11, he is forced by the terms of this Bill to occupy this land with his family for eleven months in the year. There are certain parts of the country which are fever stricken where a man would die if he had to stay for eleven months and the result would be that the Department would have to issue the land again next year. Why cannot the Minister accept the words “for a reasonable time”? If necessary we can add “reasonable in the opinion of the Minister.” Now it is proposed in this clause to provide that the man shall occupy the land for eleven months. I do feel the Minister should accept this amendment. This Meiring case is a very serious one. But there is only one man involved here; what may happen afterwards if the Minister has these powers? It may lead to this, that any man may be interned— somebody may have a grievance, say, against a political opponent—he can be interned although he may be quite innocent. He may not even know what he is accused of. He may be in an interment camp for a couple of months and when he leaves the internment camp the Minister can say to him: “You have not been on your land for the full eleven months out of twelve; I am going to cancel your contract.” Afterwards it may be found out that the man has been innocently interned. Surely the Committee is not going to be so ungenerous as to give the Minister that right. I was surprised to hear that the Department’s powers had been abused in the way they have been in Meiring’s case where a contract was actually cancelled and I am glad that the Judge put the Minister in his place. It is a well-known principle of law that if a man cannot carry out his contract due to an act of God, the conditions of the contract do not operate. We should bear that in mind. A man who is in an internment camp is not there of his own choice; but here we have the very same Government which has interned a man—perhaps without adequate reason cancelling the contract under which the man has the right to live on his holding—and it cancels the contract because the man has been interned. And when the man comes out of the internment camp he may find that his family has gone, he may not even know where his wife and children have got to. I say it is a reprehensible action and I feel that the House should lodge its strongest protest against this sort of thing.

I merely want to say that Meiring’s case is still sub judice. The finding of the Court was not in my favour. Judgment was given on an exception, and the case will go further. I just want to tell the hon. members this, so that they can decide for themselves whether they want to continue this discussion. In regard to the amendment I want to say this that when I introduced the Bill I made it clear that I was not altering the existing law. All I am doing is to supplement certain gaps and shortcomings in the provisions of the existing law, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in moving his amendments actually proposes to amend his own handiwork. In regard to the exemption which the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) spoke about I just want to say that sub-section (2) of Clause 28 gives the Minister the right on the recommendation of the Land Board to grant exemption from occupation.

I readily agree that where the State has spent large sums of money on settlements and irrigation works, the State should be able to exercise a reasonable amount of control over such enterprises. We do not contest that and we readily agree that it should be so, but we have been in this position lately, that we have got into the habit of following a dangerous course in accepting and passing all sorts of measures which have the effect of enslaving a large section of population, measures which deprive them of all sense of independence because they are not allowed to do this, that and the other thing, and they have to do exactly as they are told. They are tied down hand and foot. We are passing measures here which are in no way different from those of communist Russia. Instead of building up a thoroughly healthy population, we are depriving the people of their sense of independence, and we are actually undermining their feeling or responsibility. What is the coming generation going to be like if you enslave your people in that way? What sort of a nation, what sort of a race are we going to develop here, how are the people going to maintain their independence against the overwhelming numbers of the non-Europeans in this country? The white race can only maintain its independence if it is entirely sound and if it has a strongly developed sense of independence; but instead of our doing all we can to build up our people we are turning a large section of the population into slaves. That is the danger which faces us. We are passing laws which have this effect, that the settler has to get consent and approval for every little thing he wants to do with the result that in the end the man has no self-respect left. The hon. member for Wolmaranstad (Gen. Kemp) has proposed a reasonable amendment. How reasonable it is, is proved by the fact that we have a Minister today who is committing various acts of injustice against the settlers. We have referred to Meiring’s case, the Minister says that the case is still sub judice. That is not so. The Minister cannot tell us that an appeal has been noted. If no appeal has been noted, then there is no case pending before the courts.

Judgment was given on an exception.

Even if jugdment has been given on an exception, according to the report the Minister’s case is no longer on the roll—and the case is not sub judice until such time as a fresh summons is issued or an appeal is noted. The case is therefore not sub judice. That is perfectly clear. Whether it is Meiring’s case or any other case, I appeal to all hon. members opposite who have any sense of justice. We have a case here of a settler who has been interned. There is no evidence to prove that the man was guilty. He has never been before the courts. There is not the slightest evidence that the man has done any wrong, but he is interned on the instructions of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice put himself above the courts of this country. There has been no judgment given by the courts against this man. He has not had any opportunity of defending himself against any charge made against him. The charge has not been placed before him and he is powerless. He does not know who has made a charge against nor does he know what he is accused of. He has never been brought to court, and now the Minister of Lands steps in and takes action against this man because he has not been on his land for the full eleven months of the year; the man may have complied with all the provisions of his contract before that time, he may have improved his land and paid the interest and the rent—he has complied with all the requirements laid down by the Land Settlement Act, but in spite of all this his contract is now cancelled. Some people may have been carrying on a political vendetta against him and they may have made charges against him. We do not know what the circumstances are. In spite of the fact that he is probably innocent and in spite of the fact that he has never been before court his farm is cancelled and he has to lose everything he owns, and he is turned into a poor white. Is there any lawyer opposite who will say that he as a lawyer accepts the position that on the ipse dixit of the Minister of Justice we are to take it that a man is guilty and that his interment is justified? I want to ask hon. members this question—will any of them subscribe to this doctrine that the Minister of Justice has a greater authority than the courts of the land and that he can say who is guilty— and if they do subscribe to that doctrine then I want to ask them on what grounds they can be in favour of our having a high court and a magistrate’s court in this country— why should we have any courts at all in this country if on the say so of the Minister of Justice a man can be found guilty of any charge levelled against him? Are we to apply that same principle to other crimes as well? Are we to leave it to the Minister of Justice to say whether a person is guilty or not? If we are going to do so, we may just as well do away with our courts and save millions of pounds. I am quite prepared to say that no single lawyer opposite who has any sense of justice will subscribe to that doctrine. But here we find that because the Minister of Justice has said that the man is guilty and must be interned, the Minister of Lands can step in and confiscate all rights held by that particular individual. It is a most terrible thing and one of the unfairest things I have ever heard of. We are rapidly deteriorating into a slavish nation. Let me mention some instances to show how settlers have been intimidated so that they dare not even attend political meetings, I know settlers who are Nationalists and they have told me personally that they are Nationalists, but at the same time they have begged of me not to come and hold a meeting at their place, because the bloodhounds of the Minister of Lands are continually on the trail. I am not just telling idle stories, I am speaking from my own experience.

Is that in Waterberg?

No, I have no settlements in Waterberg.

Well where has this happened?

This has happened near Waterberg. It is so. The Minister can take my word for it. And these people have cause to be afraid. We heard of a man at Brits who was interned. That man does not know why he was interned—probably it was for political reasons. False charges are made against him by others because they have some political grudge against him, and when he is interned, his land is confiscated, and his wife and children are thrown on the streets like poor whites. I want to appeal to the sense of justice of the Minister of Lands himself and of hon. members behind him—I want to ask them to agree to this amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—I want to appeal to them not to allow these things to continue, things which can almost be called legalised crime. An act such as that committed by the Minister against Meiring of Brits is nothing but a legalised crime. From a moral point of view it is nothing short of a crime. The Minister knows that he is protected by the Emergency Regulations but from a moral point of view it is nothing short of theft. It is legal because the Emer gency Regulations protect the Minister. I appeal primarily to the Minister, and if he is not prepared to meet us than I appeal to hon. members opposite who still have a sense of justice.

The Minister in his reply said that on the second reading of the Bill he had stated that the only object of the measure now before the House was to fill up certain gaps which I had left in the original Act. He must have read my mind in those days to have known what I wanted to do and what I did not do. The Minister is entirely wrong. He wants to have even greater powers to deal with the settlers in the way he is doing now as we have shown by the instances quoted. As the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has said we cannot allow a civilised Government to carry on as this Government has done towards Meiring. Meiring was interned probably without any reason, or probably through slanderous talk because people hate him on account of his being a Nationalist. The fact that he has been released again shows clearly that he was unjustly interned. He has been out of the internment camp for a long time but now the Minister of Lands steps in and says: “Yes, it is true that you have been released from the internment camp and no charge can be brought against you but I am going to deal with you under the Settlement Act. You were away from your farm for more than a month.” The Minister is simply going to use his powers under the Act to push Meiring off his land and to cancel his contract. We therefore have this position, that the Government has locked up Meiring in a camp, and now that he is unable to carry out the requirements of the law in regard to occupation, the Minister of Lands takes his land away from him. He loses everything. That man has put up buildings on his land. He has cultiavted the land but he is simply thrown into the street and he is deprived of everything he has. His wife and children are thrown on the streets: and yet we dare talk about the economic uplift of our people and about our wanting to give everyone a decent living. We talk about social security, and in spite of it the Minister of Lands acts in the way he has done and robs people of everything they have. And what did the Minister tell us? The Minister had a judgment given against him in court but when we drew his attention to this he said: “We shall see.” So Meiring has not been persecuted enough yet. He has been interned and his contract has been cancelled. Then the Minister loses the court case and has to pay the costs but that is not enough yet. Meiring has to be persecuted still further.

I did not lose the case. Judgment was given on an exception.

Exactly, and now you want to persecute him still further. It was not Meiring’s fault that he could not be on his farm. Notwithstanding the fact that Meiring has won his case on an exception, and the Minister has had to pay the costs, the Minister says that he has not yet finished with Meiring. If Meiring had been a member of his party, the case would have been finished with long ago, and he and his family could have stayed on his land. But because Meiring is a Nationalist he has to be persecuted. I say it is an unheard of condition of affairs in a civilised country. If this had happened in Russia, or in one of those communistic countries, one could have understood it. The Minister of Lands talks about Hitlerism all day long but have we ever seen a worse instance of Hitlerism than in Meiring’s case? Surely the Minister ought to show his goodwill towards his fellow men and stop persecuting Meiring; yet he told us here this morning definitely that he had not finished with Meiring yet.

The Court has not finished yet.

Now the Minister says that the court has not finished yet but the question is whether the Minister should after the man has been interned and after his holding has been cancelled carry this case any further? What justification has he for doing so? He has no justification at all and he has given us no explanation or excuse why he is doing it. He has a complacent party behind him and because he has said that Meiring’s contract is to be cancelled, it is going to be cancelled, and he simply refuses to take any notice of the Opposition. If the Minister had any sense of shame left he would get up and tell the House that he would from now on take up a different attitude towards Meiring. If he is going as far as this in Meiring’s case what are we to expect from him in regard to hundreds of other settlers? What is going to happen to them? I am afraid that as far as settlers in this country are concerned, we are going to get a deplorable condition of affairs if we allow the Minister to carry on in the way he is doing. We can expect him to cancel the one plot after the other. His watchdogs are on the spot and if they find that a man is attending a meeting and is away from his farm more than a month, possibly including a holiday, the Minister can use that as a reason for cancelling his contract. The man may have been absent from his farm for a month with the Minister’s consent, but he goes to a political meeting without consent, or he goes to attend a meeting of a co-operative society or he goes to some other meeting. The Minister’s watchdogs are on the trail and the Minister turns on him and says: “You have been away from your farm more than a month and that cancels your plot.” That is why we on this side of the House feel, after what has happened that we cannot possibly agree to give the Minister these powers enumerated in the Bill. We cannot trust the Minister with these powers and we cannot allow him to carry on in the way he has been doing. I make bold to say that the settlers are not going to leave it at that. We have settlers in many of our constituencies, and we are receiving letters from all sides asking us to protest against this Bill. Those people love their land. How can they retain that love if we pass laws here treating them as tenants? The Minister can order those people at any time to leave the land, he can tell them at any time that they will not be allowed to stay there any longer. No, I hope the appeal which we on this side have made to the Minister will make the necessary impression on him and that he will agree to accept the amendment which I have proposed.

I want to say a few words to deal with the misrepresentations by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G Strydom) in regard to the attitude of members on this side. He made an appeal to our sense of justice not to take it for granted that because the Minister of Justice considered an individual guilty—that individual must be guilty. His argument was based on the fact that if the Minister of Justice interned a person, the Minister of Lands said that person was guilty. The Minister of Justice has said hundred of times, both here and outside, that if an individual is interned it does not mean that he is guilty of a crime but it does mean that he is a danger to the State.

What an admission!

That is the attitude which we on this side of the House take up. If a man is interned, it does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of a crime but that he is regarded as a danger to the State. A great fuss is made now because this particular settler, whose name has been mentioned, has been removed from his farm. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) rightly said that if a person, as a result of circumstances beyond his control cannot live on the farm, the court can rule that the break in occupation is excused. Meiring’s case therefore cannot be used as an argument, because the defence put up was that as the Minister of Justice had interned the man, the Minister of Lands could not make his absence a reason for removing him from the farm.

The argument of the other side of the House therefore falls away, because the court apparently accepted that defence.

Is the argument that just because the Minister ruled that a man must be interned he could be robbed of his land.

The court found that the Minister was at fault, and if this judgment is upheld the law will still be that the Minister of Lands will not have the right to regard the internment period as a reason for cancelling the holding. The difficulty raised by hon. members opposite on this point therefore falls away. Hon. members opposite also say that the amendment proposed by them is a fair one. I fail to see its fairness. It is an unreasonable and illogical amendment. As the section now reads it provides that a tenant must take occupation of his holding at once or within a fixed period; and the tenant under Section 11 has to take occupation of the holding within three months. The ordinary tenant has to continue in occupation, and the tenant under Section 11 has to be in occupation for not less than eleven months in every year. This amendment means that the ordinary tenant must start occupation within a period fixed in the Government Gazette, and after that he need not occupy the place at all, but a tenant in terms of Section 11 has to take occupation within three months and after that he has to occupy the place for a reasonable period. There is discrimination as between tenants under Section 11 and other tenants. The other tenants only have to establish occupation and after that they need not occupy any further, which would be illogical and unsound.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister in regard to the amendment before us and I trust he will meet this side of the House by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The Minister of Lands knows that many young people become settlers. Sometimes a settler has to go through very difficult times and if he wants to meet his commitments he has to go out to earn some extra money. If this amendment is accepted we give that man a reasonable chance of doing so. If he has to be on his farm for eleven months in the year, it means that he has only very little time to go and earn something extra. In the past the Minister has always shown his good feelings when the settlers have asked for extra time to meet their debts or for leave, to enable them to go and earn something to meet their obligations. But the present Minister will not always be in office and that is why we on this side of the House are so insistent on the amendment being accepted. If it is accepted it will give these people who want to stay on their farms a proper opportunity—it will make it possible for them to go away for a little while to earn some money to meet their commitments. I know of instances in our district, especially in the bushveld areas where people go in for cattle farming, and where they sometimes suffer such serious setbacks that a man is compelled to go out and earn money to maintain his family and to meet his commitments. Under this Bill he may find himself in the position today or tomorrow of having to go away for more than a month and he may get into very serious trouble. That is why I expect the Minister to tell us that he will accept this proposal. I do not think it is an unreasonable amendment and surely the Minister should express his willingness to let these people have these opportunities. I also want to ask the Minister a question in regard to people who may be in trouble. In Marico there are people who have asked me why they cannot get their Crown Land Titles. They have met all their commitments. They paid their last deposits as far back as 1943 and this is April, 1944, but they have not yet got their Crown Land Titles.

The hon. member cannot discuss that question now, he must confine himself to the Clause and to the amendments.

Very well, I shall get another opportunity to go into that question. I am making an appeal to the Minister and I hope he will accept the amendment so that the settlers may get a proper opportunity, as far as an occupation is concerned, so that they can go out to earn some extra money when it is necessary for them to do so in order to meet their commitments.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) on his frankness. He has let the cat out of the bag. He is not afraid while the present Minister is Minister of Lands. He is quite satisfied that the Minister of Lands is sympathetically disposed towards the settlers but he is afraid that the present Minister will not always occupy that office. We can assure him that he will stay there. I agree with him. So long as we can keep him in his position as Minister we can be sure that he will treat the settlers fairly and reasonably as circumstances require. I cannot quite understand the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp.) He wants us to insert the words “within such reasonable period.” Who is going to determine what a reasonable period is. The Minister of course will have to do so. Under Clause 28, as he explained to the House, he has the power to grant exemption.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I was pointing out that even if the Minister were to accept the amendment it would not make any real change in the law. As hon. members will see this amendment is only proposed in connection with sub-clause (1) of Clause 28 of the Principal Act. Subsection (2) of Clause 28 of the Principal Act remains, and under sub-section (2) the Minister has the discretion to grant exemption to an occupier. That discretion is repeatedly used. It is the same discretion which the hon. member for Wolmaranstad (Gen. Kemp) had when he was Minister and if the present Minister’s predecessor in title found that reasonable and fair and if he in his experience over a number of years came to the conclusion that no injustice was done as a result of that discretion, why then is he frightening us today? If in those days he found that Clause 28 (2) was unreasonable or unfair why did he not come forward with an amendment?

You have not been listening. The hon. member for Wolmaranstad admits that it is a bad provision.

I quite appreciate that the hon. member for Wolmaranstad finds himself in a most difficult position because by moving this amendment he condemns himself. He found the position reasonable and we still find it reasonable today, and the only thing this Bill is doing is to fill up gaps in the old Act. The Minister has the power today, and as the hon. member for Marico said this morning, he is satisfied that the Minister is not using his discretion unreasonably. I therefore fail to see that the adoption of the amendment would lead to any improvement.

I do not know, but it seems to me that we have now reached the stage when we do not always understand what method the Minister of Lands applies. It is not our method which he applies. We believe in the method of getting the best legislation here but that is not the method followed by the Minister. The Minister is only willing to accept amendments in Bills coming before the House when members sitting behind him discuss the amendments with him privately, but when proposals are put from this side, whether thev are good or otherwise, the Minister refuses to accept them just because they do come from this side. But the Minister goes further and he does not even deem it necessary to give reasons why our amendment is not acceptable to him. Surely that is what we should be able to expect under the system under which we are governed, viz. that if we put an amendment the Minister will get up and give us the reasons why that would not be in the interests of the country. I do not know what the Minister has in mind. He does not want to tell us. There was for instance, the case of Meiring. We know how the Ministér acted in that instance, and bearing that in mind, we do not know what we may expect from him in the future. The Minister apparently also does not know whether the case is still pending. He says one thing but then he looks at his officials because he is not sure whether an appeal has been noted or not. It appears as if the Minister who accuses us of not being prepared to acquiesce in the decision of the court, is much more afraid of the decision of the court. I am not a lawyer but as far as I understand the Bill, if the Minister should have to deal with cases similar to that of Mr. Meiring, which I do not want to discuss again, he will use the Act to deprive a man of his land. That is the conclusion we must draw from his actions in regard to Mr. Meiring. Is that fair? Does that not amount to the Minister abusing his powers? What does the Minister fear that he does not want to accept the decision of the court? If the court tells him in these circumstances he is not entitled to remove a man from his land, why does he come here today, seeing that he is a Minister and has a great following in Parliament, to force through a Bill which he himself must admit is not fair? Tomorrow or the day after other people will be in power, who differ from him politically. The Minister should be careful. I believe the time has arrived that we should put a stop to this sort of thing. This is being done under the cloak of democracy, but this is not democracy which we are dealing with. I think people like Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin will smile when they see how our Minister of Lands outshines them, how the Minister of Lands in South Africa assumes dictatorial powers. We notice that tendency also in other departments, but this Minister has not even the courage to state why he does so. He comes here with an innocent little Bill and he should not blame us when we come to the conclusion that he does so in order to safeguard himself against the decision of the court.

Recent experience has taught us to be very careful in regard to matters dealt with by this Minister, especially when he wants to assume certain powers. His actions do not inspire us with confidence. I should like to consider the matter from the following aspect : what will he do when cases similar to that of Meiring, which was mentioned here today, should occur, What else does this amount to than the confiscation of a man’s property? This person obtains certain rights given to him by the State, certain proprietary rights—under certain circumstances he will become the owner of the land. A war happens to break out and the man is detained for some reason or other, and the State comes along and cancels his contract. Surely this amounts to nothing else but confiscation of the man’s rights, rights which quite possibly he has acquired over a number of years in the expectation that he will one day own the land. Now the State comes along and confiscates his rights. That is most unfair on the part of the Minister, especially when he hides behind the law and says that the man did not occupy his farm. What will the Minister do when one of the settlers is charged with an ordinary crime and lands in gaol and is perhaps unable to obtain bail or if bail is refused; what is he going to do when that man lands in gaol for one or two months and is ultimately discharged and found not guilty? What will he do then? We should like to know. It will mean that although the man is not guilty, his property will be confiscated and he will be deprived of his rights. People are at present being interned—I shall not go into that question— but when a man is in the internment camp, the State does not interfere with his private rights and he is not deprived of his property, whether he is guilty or not. People may have been interned without being guilty, and after one or two years the Government comes along and shows mercy, as they call it, and the people are released. They remain in possession of their civil rights, there is no confiscation of their property. Quite possibly they may have been innocent. We do not know, but when they are guilty, the same argument applies. The State comes along and declares his property forfeit. Is that fair and just? A man is told that the Government suspects him of being guilty of subversive activities, and then the State comes along, as was done in the case mentioned, and confiscates his rights if he is a settler, rights which he obtained from the State. Why should there be any differentiation between a settler and another person? Why this unfair discrimination between a private man who owns his own land, and a man who has obtained land under contract from the Government in terms of the Settlement Act. Of course, I do not want to ask the Minister to treat other people in the same manner, but what right does the Government possess not to penalise a man who did not acquire his land from the Government, but in fact to penalise the man who obtained his land under contract from the Government? Our point of view in South Africa has always been that confiscation of property and deprivation of civil and property rights is one of the most extreme and last measures which the State should adopt. It is simply not done. It only happens in the most serious cases. Will one hon. member be able to get up and tell me when, since Union, property has been confiscated in South Africa. There have been difficulties before. During the last war we had a rebellion and people were lodged in gaol and fined. Although they were found guilty of high treason, they were not deprived of their civil rights. Here, however, the Minister is applying that most dangerous principle, which leads us to think that the Minister in the application of this Act, simply wants to make use of political reasons for depriving people of their rights, and no Minister, not even the Minister of Lands, will call that a good policy. Because a man differs from you politically, or because he does something against the Government, which a Minister does not like, it does not yet entitle the Government to deprive such a man of his rights of property and his rights as a citizen. This is an outrageous interference with the property rights of a person, and it has never occurred before. Under previous Governments, a man was punished when he did wrong, but there was no confiscation. This side of the House seriously objects to such a policy which amounts to nothing else but deliberate confiscation and it is done under the cloak of this Act which says that a man must live on his land for a certain number of months during any one year. I again ask the Minister to reply to my question : if some other person is charged with a common offence, and has to remain in gaol for two, three or four months and is found guilty or not guilty, what will the Minister’s attitude then be? Even if he is found guilty and is fined £5 or £10, will the Minister then consider that he has forfeited his rights under the Settlement Act or not? We should like to know what the attitude of the Minister will be. In the light of the experience we have had of him, we are afraid to leave the matter solely in his hands.

I should like to ask the Minister what policy he is following in connection with people who are lessees, for I have three cases here, viz. those of Mr. W. J. van der Berg, Mr. P. A. Koen and Mr. C. J. P. Eksteen. They were on the Vaaldam Settlement. We know that the plots were allotted on a lease basis. That was in 1940 and 1941. These men fulfilled their obligations. I have the proof of that here. I also went to the Minister with a letter from Mr. Van der Berg, and brought the position to his notice, and asked the Minister to give me the reasons why these people were put off their land.

You should discuss that on the Estimates. It does not come under this Bill.

I believe that I can discuss that here. I asked the Minister what the reasons were why Van der Berg was put off his land. He then said that there were also other applicants, but that the Land Board selected another man in the place of Van der Berg. Consequently he loses his land. The other two people were removed at the same time. Until such time as the Minister can give proper reasons, these persons and we accuse the Minister that he solely and simply refused to let the land to them because they are Nationalists. For what are the facts, as the people in Frankfort believe them to be. There was a re-interment Of burghers who fell in the Anglo-Boer War. There was considerable agitation because there was to be a burial service in the church for these men, and the persons I mentioned, because they attended this re-interment of Oudstryders were put off their land. What did that mean to those people. We know that in September the leases of land in our area lapse. I have the letters here from the persons concerned, but I do not want to take up the time of the House in reading them. The people were told by the Inspector of Lands, Mr. Wessels of Heilbron, that he was satisfied with the manner in which they occupied their holdings. They also asked to be allowed to grow wheat and oats and he approved of it. They were so certain of their case, that they risked it. What were the consequences for these people when they were put off their land. August is one of the leanest months in our district. It is the month when the supplies of hay are almost finished. If one intends moving to another farm, one must arrange beforehand for the ground you require. In this case the people got 14 days’ notice to leave their holdings. The result was that they lost many cattle. One of them wrote to me that he had to sell his cattle for next to nothing. If such things happen, does the Minister then expect that there will be satisfaction? Is it in the interests of the population that such things should happen? These people are a part of the community. They have the right to make an existence, but this is the way in which they are treated. Instead of rehabilitating them, a process of destruction is followed when you remove people from the ground at that time of the year. I asked the Minister personally whether there was no chance to rehabilitate those people by allotting to them another piece of land. The Minister said it could not be done. What is to become of those people? They are not in that position through their own fault. There is the inspector’s recommendation. These matters should be properly investigated, for who can still feel safe on this type of holding if these things happen. I certainly hope that there will be no repetition of the same occurrence. I hope the Minister will consider justice being meted out to these people and if holdings become available, that he will give these wronged people an opportunity to get holdings once more, so that they will at least be able to make good part of the loss they have sustained.

I admit that the Act of 1925 contained more or less the same provision. I admit that. But experience has taught us that this was a wrong provision. We thought that all people would be fair, especially when they became Ministers, but in the course of time we have seen that that is not always the case. I do not want to disparage the Minister, and to maintain that he wants to abuse his powers, but this Bill will not be passed just for his period of office, but also for that of future Ministers, and they will be able to abuse such a measure. Hon. members over there säv that only one or two persons were removed and that it is not important. That makes no difference. The position is that when a man is away from the holding allotted to him for only one month, whether through illness or through his being lodged in gaol or in an internment camp, if he is only absent for one month, the Act lays down that he may be removed from the land, unless the Minister, i.e. the Minister after consultation with the Land Board, prevents it. I feel that if a man is ill and has to leave his holding, then it is not necessary that the Minister should be able to make use of it to put the man off his holding. The Minister has sufficient powers äs it is, for the Act lays down that the man must occuply his land beneficially. That is laid down in this Bill, which reads—

1. (i) the proper care and maintenance of improvements thereon;
2. (ii) the maintenance and improvement of the fertility of the soil and the taking of all measures necessary to deal effectively with existing or anticipated erosion or brackishness of the soil;
3. (iii) the extermination of vermin and the eradication of noxious and other weeds in accordance with the provisions of any law requiring such extermination or eradication.

If he does not cultivate his land and if the land deteriorates by his absence, the Minister can interfere. For that reason the stipulation that the man may not be absent for one month or longer, does not carry much weight. If a man is ill and may have to spend two or three months in hospital, he must apply to the Minister, through the Land Board, and ask for leave of absence. That should not be necessary. The Land Board has its inspectors, who go round from time to time to inspect the land, and to see whether the land is being occupied beneficially and is being cultivated properly, and whether a man is not intentionally absent and failing in his duty. Then action can be taken, quite apart from the fact whether he is absent for a month or not. We can quite well understand that there may be cases when a man has to be absent, whether through illness or for other reasons. In spite of that, the land may not necessarily deteriorate and it is not always necessary to put such a man off his holding. I want to go further: if such a rule is made in regard to ordinary settlers one can still understand it. It may be done to facilitate the administration of the Act. But here we are dealing with settlers under Section 11, people who are more or less independent, who are in a position to buy a farm, who possess farming implements and means and also the personality to carry on farming. They are people who are not absolutely dependent on the State. I know of one settler in my district who obtained land 20 years ago and who today is a very wealthy man. If he is away from his holding for one month, he has to obtain the Minister’s permission, otherwise his land can be taken away from him. Provision is also made for compensation in regard to improvements. I feel that such a provision is not necessary in regard to people under Section 11. The amendment only deals with them. Whenever a notice appears in the Government Gazette, that applications for settlement holdings can be made, one of the conditions mentioned is that they have to give information as to when they will be able to take possession and for what period during the year they will occupy their holdings. Here, however, we are dealing with settlers of the better type, people who only obtain a loan from the State in order to purchase land, as they do not themselves possess sufficient means to pay for a farm. The State is doing the same thing in the towns today. The State guarantees building societies if 10 per cent. is deposited—then they can obtain loans for building houses. No provision is made that such people have to live in that house, that they may not be absent for one month, that they have to look after the house properly. But here we have a settler who pays off one-tenth and the Government gives an advance for the remainder, but the settler is treated quite differently. Remember that a settler has to be approved of by the Land Board and has to show that he is capable of farming, but not only that; he also has to show that he possesses implements and sufficient means to carry on his farming activities. The Government grants nine-tenths of the purchase price only, and he must repay that with interest. Under that section we are, therefore, dealing with a better class of citizen. But now conditions are laid down which practically make him a minor and put him in the same position as the ordinary settlers. That does not seem to be fair. The Minister with the supporters behind him, can enforce his will, but I want to ask him to consider whether it is fair to treat a man in this manner. He pays one-tenth. I shall not discuss the feelings of those people. There is a settlement in my constituency, and my experience has been that the people are afraid to say anything or to discuss matters. They cannot call their souls their own. But these settlers under Section 11 are a better class. I once more appeal to the Minister to make a change here. In the original Act of 1912 it was laid down that a man had to live on his holding for only 8 months of the year. That is the old Section 28.

Who made it 11 months?

What has that got to do with it? [Time limit.]

I definitely think that the Minister has become tired of the settlers and that by means of this Bill and by these clauses, he wants to discourage as many people as possible from applying under Section 11. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) got up and defended the provision. What was his defence? His defence was that under Section 28 (2) the Minister is given discretion, and then the hon. member went on and attacked the hon. member for Wolmaranstad (Gen. Kemp), who is supposed to be responsible for the provision, having been the previous Minister of Lands. The position simply is that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad admitted openly that the provision was wrong. The hon. member for Ermelo, however, wants to perpetuate the evil in this Bill. It must not be put right now. If the National Party Government made a mistake, why should we rectify it? The attitude of the Minister is such that the settlers do not expect anything from him. The amendment we propose is most fair, but what does the Minister do when we come here and ask him to remove certain evils? Instead of getting up and telling us why he cannot accept the amendment, he gets up and says: “I am the Minister, and you have nothing to say and must keep quiet; I cannot accept the amendment.” If the Minister proceeds in that way against the official Opposition in this House, how is he going to proceed against the settlers themselves? We try to assist the Minister in improving the Bill, but he does not want to accept it, coming from us. I have been a settler under Section 11 for many years, and I know what I am talking about. There comes a time in a man’s life when, through illness or something else, he is forced to be absent for two or three months, perhaps to undergo an operation in a town. Should he then lose his land and everything else? Admittedly the Minister can use his discretion, but how does he do it? We had an instance here of what he does. For that reason we want to remove what is wrong in this Bill. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad admitted that it was a mistake. The Minister should be big enough and also realise the mistake.

But the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that he was right.

The difference is that he is man enough to admit it when a mistake has been made, but the present Minister does not want to admit it. He is so superior that he does not want to admit a mistake. I want to ask him to be accommodating, especially in regard to settlers under Section 11, and to accept this reasonable amendment.

I should also like to say a few words in regard to the position of the settlers. First of all the hon. member for Wolmaransstad now moves an amendment to rectify what he did himself. He now says that it was a mistake, but at the time he considered it right. I should like to make a few remarks, however, in connection with the position of certain plots of the Buchuberg Settlement, which are becoming brackish.

I regret, but the hon. member is out of order.

I also want to ask the Minister whether he thinks he is reasonable in adopting the attitude he has adopted today. Yesterday we dealt with Ministers who were reasonable, and we put a great deal of legislation through this House in record time. The Minister has been struggling the whole day to have one clause accepted.

If you go on at this rate, we shall be here a whole year.

We are going to stay here till Christmas if necessary. We want fair and reasonable legislation. We do not want to meddle with legislation the whole day; we want to pass legislation which will stand the test of years. This legislation concerns the living of poor people, and we want legislation of a positive nature. This clause, however, is of a negative nature. It only says : “You may not do this, that or the other.” It is not constructive and positive. Let us rather set an example how to set about things. We would then be taking a step in the right direction. Every reasonable person knows that it is a matter of impossibility for people to be on a holding for eleven months of the year in all circumstances. It is true that the Minister may exercise his discretion under another clause, but this Bill also protects the Minister against any legal action if he wrongly uses his discretion. The Minister or his successor may use his discretion at the expense of the supporters of this side, and he could also use his discretion in favour of his supporters. Is that reasonable? You still have the discretion in your hands. The department is doing a big job and a good job, and we would like to encourage them in this work, but we cannot approve of this clause. What are you doing in connection with the natives? You are spending thousands of pounds to buy bulls and implements for them, but you do not say that they must be on the place for so many months during the year; no, they are allowed to go about freely, as free citizens, but the European settlers must be tied down to their plots for eleven months.

If a settler is not a favourite of the Minister’s, the Minister may use his discretion against him. Then I would also like to express my opinion in regard to the case of Meiring. This man was interned and thereafter deprived of his holding. Every right-thinking person will realise that it is unfair, that it is a barbarous act.

The hon. member must not repeat the same arguments.

I do not think anyone has so far said that it is a barbarous act. That is a new thought. Then I want to ask the Minister whether this is the democracy which we have in this country, and whether this is the democracy for which we are fighting? Is this the freedom, is this the right of a citizen if he can be interned without trial and then find on his release that he has been deprived of his land? You dare not deprive the civil servant of his post. You dare not deprive the railway official of his post; you dare not deprive him of his pension rights. He is protected. The Government has so far not dared to touch the rights of those people, but here the Government comes along and deprives a poor settler, a defenceless man, of his land. I say it is a barbarous act.

That is Dr. Malan’s fault.

I ask the Minister, in all friendliness and in all civility; let us think soberly in regard to these matters, and let us treat each other humanly, and let him treat his settlers humanly. This original legislation, however good the intentions may have been, appeared to be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a man who wants to act in a reckless manner. We feel that it is no more than fair, after the experience we have gained, to remove that dangerous weapon. I make a serious appeal to the Minister to consider this matter favourably and to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

I do not intend replying to every question which is put to me, but my hon. friend on the other side and numerous other speakers have insisted that I should abandon this provision in regard to the eleven months. They say it is unfair and unreasonable.

And barbarous.

It is unreasonable and barbarous. Let me say this. This Act and these provisions were made by the hon. member on the other side when he was Minister. It is his Act. He now says it was a mistake. I say that that was the only time he was right, and I say that he passed a good Act, and I shall abide by it. It is unreasonable to come here today and to accuse me of inhumanity because I give effect to a law which was passed by that hon. member, by that side of the House.

Why do you change it then?

I have had long, close and intimate association with settlers, and no one on the settlements will accuse me of inhumanity or unfairness. I have a career behind me.

He is blowing his own trumpet.

With regard to the question of the eleven months, I may say that in the past we have given leave of absence to settlers up to three years. Hon. members on the other side speak as though the settlers are strictly limited to the eleven months.

What did they do during these three years?

They were probably ill. There is bound to be a reason for it. These cases are dealt with on their merits. As I have said, we have granted leave of absence up to three years. I do not think there is a single settler who has been absent only for one month during the course of the year. There is nothing unreasonable about this provision. Every case is dealt with on its merits. I just want to say this with regard to the case of Meiring. I have been informed by the head officials of my office that that case has not yet been decided; it is still pending. An exception on procedure which was raised was decided in Mr. Meiring’s favour. This case will still go on. I do not intend talking about it at this stage.

But you are at liberty to speak on the principle.

This case is still pending.

You need not talk about Meiring. You can talk about the principle of the matter.

But he does not want to do so.

He cannot.

I say that if a man, without obtaining leave, is absent longer than the period allowed to him, then we go into it.

Is internment a reason?

I think the Minister is being very unreasonable. He comes here and says in a condescending manner that he will not reply to our questions. We have the right to put questions to the Minister and we have the right to expect replies to our questions. Other Ministers reply for hours to questions which are put to them by hon. members of this House, and they do so in a civil manner. They do not get up and say in a rude manner that they are not going to reply to questions. Here the Minister has certain powers.

On a point of order; is the hon. member entitled to accuse the Minister of rudeness?

The hon. member may proceed.

The Minister is breaking a tradition of this House, as he so often does. Whenever a matter arises where the Minister has to use his discretion, every member in this House has the right to ask the Minister what his policy is, how he is going to interpret that discretion which he has. If a man is imprisoned for a trivial contravention, what is the Minister going to do? I put this question to him. He does not want to reply to it. He wants us to accept something without any statement on his part as to his policy. I do not want to go into the merits of this case again. If the Minister does not want to reply we cannot force him to do so. If his own sense of decency, if his own sense of fairness does not compel him to reply, when hon. members put reasonable questions to him, no power in this House can compel him to do so. But that is his concern. I want to protest against the Minister’s attitude. He comes here and says: “You can put thousands of questions to me; I shall not reply to them.” That attitude is against the best traditions of the House, and it is against the practice that Ministers reply to criticism in a reasonable and dignified manner. But the Minister refuses to do so. He simply seals his lips and he says he is not going to talk. But we have a suspicion that he contemplates certain things which he dare not reveal in this House. He does not want to bind himself. He does not want to reply to questions because he wants to be free to go on in his own way to act unfairly and unjustly, as we are accustomed to from him. I say that he cannot reply to these question, because if he did he would bind himself. He knows that if he replied frankly, things would be made very difficult for him. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs. He does not reply because he finds the questions too difficult to answer. Because he cannot reply to those questions, he remains dumb.

I had not intended taking part in this debate.

Why do you do it then?

It seems to me that the whole difficulty arises as a result of the question of the eleven months, and it has been said by members on that side that the Minister is unreasonable. But I would like the House to remember that the settlers are not the owners of the land. They are on the land more or less as lessees, and I want to ask those hon. members under what conditions they usually let their farms or houses. There are many of them who have at some time or other let their farms. When they have the contract of lease drawn up, what conditions are laid down in that contract? It is laid down that the lessee must cultivate the land properly, that he must not neglect it, that he must occupy the place.

What are you discussing now?

A few members on that side of the House have pointed out that the settler may become ill and that he may have to undergo lengthy medical treatment elsewhere. But there is nothing in this Bill which prevents that. All it says here is that he must occupy the place, and when anyone goes away on sick leave or to transact important business, he still continues to occupy the place. He may go away, but he still occupies the place. I should like to put this question to hon. members of the Opposition. Many of them live in the Free State and in the Transvaal. What happens when they come to Cape Town for the Session? Do they give up the occupation of their farms while they are away? With regard to the case of Meiring, I just want to say this. When an exception is taken and the case continues, that case has not been disposed of, and as the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Henny) correctly said, if the court were to give judgment that the Minister was wrong, Meiring’s rights would be restored. The State must protect its property. The State gives a great deal of assistance to the settlers, but it must see to it that the settlers do not destroy the land. They must see to it that that land is not neglected. We know that there have been cases in the past where people have hired land and where they have not occupied the place. They live there for a month or two and the land is neglected. Steps must therefore be taken to prevent that. I am convinced that if the Minister terminates a contract when a man has been absent for two months during the year, and such a person goes to court and is able to show good cause why he had to leave the holding, the court would protect him.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I just want to put a few questions to the Minister.

First ask him whether he will reply.

I think he must still have a certain amount of love for his parents. I think he also believes that there is a certain amount of love amongst the Afrikaners between father and son. I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is fair to drive a major son away from the farm. I am sorry that the Minister stated that he would not reply to further questions. I want to give him the assurance that the people who bought land and farms under the Land Settlement Act are very dissatisfied in regard to this Bill which the Minister is now piloting through the House. They are dissatisfied because their rights are being meddled with.

The whole world is dissatisfied.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) says the whole world is dissatisfied. I take it that is true, but now the Minister is engaged in making a number of people who are already dissatified even more dissatisfied.

You cannot make them more dissatisfied.

The Minister stated he would not reply to any further questions and now I want to put this question to the Minister. Is it because he does not represent a constituency that he dares to say that? Is it because he need not give account to his electors that he adopts this attitude? Is that why he treats the people with contempt? It seems to me that the hon. Minister feels that he need not come into contact with the electors. He makes laws here because he need not report to the electorate.

I think the hon. member is straying from the clause.

I want to give the Minister the assurance that the public outside, the people who bought land under this Act are very dissatisfied, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister once again to accept this amendment.

The hon. Minister has now told us that there have been cases where leave of absence was granted to settlers up to three years. We accept that. We take it that those are people who went to the war, and also other cases. We approve of it. It is quite right that the people who enlisted for military service and who are settlers, should be given leave of absence. We accept that and we do not criticise it.

But there are also other cases.

But that is where our difficulty arises. We now have his assurance that the case of Meiring is still pending. I do not want to discuss Meiring’s case at the moment; I want to discuss the policy of the Minister. A man who goes up North is given leave of absence. But a man who differs from the Minister’s politics and who is interned as a result of that, is not granted leave of absence. When he leaves the camp he finds that his land has been taken away from him. One can have no confidence in a Minister who tells one that he will use his dicretion and who then does these things. I am referring now to people who are interned when no charge has been brought against them, people who are interned without having been found guilty by a court of law. Those person are interned and when they are released they find that their holdings have been cancelled. The hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Henny) stated that the Minister of Justice had said that the fact that people were interned must not be regarded as proof that they are guilty. That, in fact, is our law. A man is innocent until he has been proved guilty. These people are therefore still innocent. No court of law has found them guilty. Assuming those innocent people find themselves in the internment camps. The Minister of Justice stated that they must not be regarded as guilty. But then the Minister of Lands comes along and says that internment is not sufficient justification for absence, and he is therefore going to cancel the holding. That is why we urge this matter so strongly. It has been stated here that that was the law in the past. But all these amendments which are proposed in this Bill are improvements, or, at any rate, the Minister regards them as improvements on the previous Acts. When we find that an Act is being applied wrongly, as is being done by the Minister, it is our duty to see that the Act is amended, and that is why we so strongly object to the Minister’s policy, more particularly the policy of the present Minister, because we have never had this position in the past. The Minister says that the fact that a man is interned, is not sufficient reason for not occupying his holding, that he can therefore cancel the man’s holding. I think that is extremely unreasonable.

If the Minister replies to these objections at this stage, if he can— and if he cannot let him tell the House that he cannot reply—he will shorten this debate considerably. Í think the questions which have been put to the Minister are very clear, and he simply gets up and says that he will not reply to the questions. In effect he says : “I shall reply to those questions to which I want to reply, and those to which I do not want to reply, I shall ignore.” I want to put this question to him very clearly and in a very polite way : What is his policy? I put this question to him : If a man is interned— it does not matter what the reason is and it does not matter whether he was tried—do you regard internment as justification for absence from the farm or have you got the right to deprive the man of his holding for that reason? The question is very fair. It is based on an incident which has already taken place, and it is therefore a very fair question. The whole debate in this House concerns this question. If the Minister rises and says that he does not regard internment as sufficient justification for absence, the whole problem will be solved. But he refuses to reply, and if he refuses to reply, we can take it for granted that there is an agitation to abuse the machinery of the Department of Lands and to deprive the people of their property. I think the Minister must rise. The position is just this. If he tells us that that is his policy, we would know what he contemplates in asking for these powers in the Bill. But if he says that it is not his policy, then the position is as the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said, that we must take it for granted that there is something sinister behind this whole thing and that he dare not reply because of that. We have tried today and we also tried yesterday to save as much time as possible and to be as helpful as possible, and in this case too, we want to be helpful, if the Minister will only get up and reply to these fair questions. I just want to make this reference to the speech of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). I do not know what type of contract the hon. member for Paarl usually draws up. He is a lawyer. He is an estate agent with many years’ experience.

It is said that he is a lawyer who works for nothing.

When he draws up a contract of lease, where a farm is leased or where a house is let, he always inserts a clause to the following effect: “You must occupy the place for eleven months.” That is what we inferred from his speech.

He did not say that.

It does not matter whether it is eleven days or eleven months. The whole point is whether or not the rights of the person concerned are encroached upon. I again want to ask the Minister to rise and to tell us what his opinion is. What is his policy? Does he regard internment as sufficient cause to deprive people of their lawful rights and to deprive people of what is theirs by law?

Question put: That all the words after “allotment” in line 18 down to and including “specified” in line 22, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the paragraph.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—66 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—34 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment negatived.

Question put: That the words “not less than eleven months,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the paragraph.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—65 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—34 :.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the second amendment dropped.

Paragraph (1) (a), as printed, was then put and agreed to.

Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 1 (a) put and agreed to.

On sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (1) (a).

I move—

I move these amendments because as will be noticed later on in the Bill the settler gets practically no assistance. He is there with his family, his wife and minor children, and he has to look after the proper cultivation of the land, he has to prevent soil erosion, he has to take steps against the soil turning brackish, but he has no assistants to help him, so what is the result? The settler cannot keep going. Now that man belongs to the poorer section of the population. The settler who buys land under Section 11 must be able to put down a certain amount of money, he has to own cattle and so on. Under Section 10 we get the poorest settlers, and yet they are expected to do all these things enumerated in the Clause. These people cannot do it because they have no money and if they do attend to all these things it means that they have to lose their crops. If the settler does not look after these things his contract can be cancelled immediately. I fail to see how we can expect these people to do all the things mentioned in this paragraph and I think it is unfair on the part of the Minister to expect it. These men have not got the means to combat soil erosion, they have not got the means to prevent the land from getting brackish and they cannot do these things. Of course they can help. An irrigation scheme is a national enterprise, and the Government should see to it that the furrows are constructed in such a manner that there is no possibility of their leaking with the result that the ground goes brackish. I remember that at Pongola which is a scheme I know well, the furrows leaked, so that the soil became brackish and afterwards became useless. At Buchuberg we had the same thing and I think it is only with State aid that people can keep the land in proper condition there. We cannot expect a settler under Section 10 to do all these things. He has not got the labour, he has not got the implements, he has not got the necessary money or means of transport to do all these things. And now we are going to apply all these stipulations to him, we hold him responsible for the soil truning brackish, we hold him responsible for soil erosion, without the State having to move a finger. In addition to that the State can cancel his holding at any time, which I consider unfair. These poorer people cannot get along without State aid, and I am making an appeal to the Minister. He said that he was sympathetically disposed towards the settlers just as we are, and I want to appeal to him, if he really feels for these people, to amend the Bill in such fashion that these people will have to do the work with the assistance of the State. The settlers cannot do it without State aid and that is why I have moved my amendment.

It is ironical to find the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) should be the man to move these amendments to his own Act. It is ironical to find that he wants to break down what he himself has done. The hon. member knows that what he has just said is not correct. The question of brackishness on the various settlements, Olifants River and especially at Hartebeestpoort, is engaging our attention. If a holding turns brackish, we exchange it and we put the settlers somewhere else. We are spending large sums of money every year to keep the soil in good order.

If that is so why not put it in the Bill?

Why did not the hon. member! put it in his Bill?

Surely we are amending the Act now.

We are not amending the whole of it. We are only taking it over as it stands. This provision is word for word in the Act as passed by him.

But is it not just a question whether! a provision is sound and right?

I cannot accept these amendments, and what the hon. member has said is not correct. The State spends large sums of money on combating brackisness, especially at Hartebeestpoort. We are clearing the furrows there at the moment to stop the soil from getting brackish and we do not say that the settlers are to bear the responsibility.

I fail to follow the Minister’s arguments. He tells us that he has word for word taken over the provision in the existing law as originally introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). That is not so, because the hon. member for Wolmaransstad did not introduce that. It was in the Act before he introduced it. But what is the Minister’s object with his Bill? His object is to amend the existing Act. The question is not what appeared in the original Act but what is necessary now. We have proposed a reasonable amendment in the light of our experiences and that is the question which this Committee has to decide upon. The amendment aims at this. Where soil erosion and silting up have to be combated the State has to render assistance because it is not fair to expect the settler to do everything himself. The word “tenant” is used here; in other words the settler on his own has to take all these steps to prevent soil erosion, to prevent the land from becoming brackish, he has to do everything mentioned in this particular paragraph. Is it reasonable to provide that the settler must take all those steps and that if he does not take those steps his holding may be cancelled? We say that the State must help him because without State aid it is simply impossible for him to do so. The policy which the Government pursued before the war was to regard soil erosion as a national matter. We hope that after the war the Government will pursue the same policy. The farmers are subsidised in respect of cement dams to the extent of one-third; in regard to big dams the subsidy goes up to seven-eighths. The main object is to prevent soil erosion. As the Government tells the ordinary farmer that it is willing to go to that extent in paying a subsidy to prevent soil erosion, the question arises whether it is not fair and reasonable to expect the Government to encourage and support the settlers in the same way? The settler should be able to expect support from the State on the same basis. The Minister now says that is being done. Well, if that is the position why cannot it be put in the Bill? The settlers will continue their share to assist the State. It is perfectly simple but as soon as we draw the Minister’s attention to things, he does not consider them on their merits; he simply tells us what was the position in the past. We do not understand that type of argument. We want the settler to do his duty but he can only do his duty if the State helps him and that is why the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has moved this amendment.

I have been listening here all day to this extraordinary battle which has been going on. We are grown-up men ahd we should not try to score off each other—we should not mind giving in if we find that we are wrong. This amendment is so reasonable that even if the Minister’s anger had been justifiably roused earlier on today, he should still concde the point raised in this amendment. Surely our object in moving amendments must be to improve the Bill. The fact that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) introduced a Bill in this House in the past—a Bill which is law today, should not affect the position. We are considering amending legislation at the moment, and we must amend wherever it is considered necessary to amend in the light of our experience. We cannot just say that because an Act was placed on the Statute Book in the past, it cannot be amended. We know that it is our duty to prevent people being unfairly oppressed and unjustly treated in their daily life—it is our duty to prevent opportunities being created for such unjust treatment, and now that we have introduced a clause here which says that the settlers are responsible for protecting their holdings against erosion, brackishness, etc., we know that a provision of that kind is going to land these people in a most difficult position. Look at the abnormal conditions which may arise. You may have a terrible flood. How can we expect those people to do the work: themselves? Let us assume that in most cases the Government does assist these people. As the Act now reads an impossible and unhealthy pressure may be exercised on the settlers. Being practical men we know that soil often turns brackish from natural processes and that it is not necessarily caused by a settler applying wrong methods in working this holding. The situation of the land and other circumstances may cause it. We assume that the State will assist such cases but I do contend that opportunity is created here for serious injustice being done. Say somebody has a personal grudge—say bad feelings exist between the officials and the settlers—say the feelings which have disclosed themselves in the House today were to prevail between the settlers and the officials—these things may lead to unreasonable pressure being exercised on these people with the result that the settler may be removed from his land solely and simply as a result of these bad feelings. Our proposal is that this work should be done with State aid. Our request is a most reasonable one; we want the individual to take reasonable precautions. I do not think we could have moved a more reasonable amendment and I ask the Minister to show his good will and accept it.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment and in doing so will facilitate the passage of his Bill. Surely he should make a concession here and there, but it seems the Minister believes that if anyone has done anything one should not try and improve on it. Has he never improved on his own work in the light of his experience? Every reasonable man does so. Say I write something today, in a few weeks time I improve on it. Anyone tries to improve on his own work. And as experience has taught us in this case that it is essential for us to improve on the existing law, it would be very small on our part if we refused to effect the improvements. The Minister tries to push everything on to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp).

It already is in the 1912 Act and I did not introduce that.

Yes, and even if it were a law introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad he would be big enough to agree to his own law being improved upon. I hope the Minister will be big enough to improve on his own law and even on a law passed by the Prime Minister. Experience teaches us what is necessary in life, if we know what is wanted in life and what is best for the building up and development of the settlements, we must be big enough to amend the existing Acts, no matter by whom these Acts were passed. We have proposed a reasonable amendment and we trust the Minister will be prepared to make a contribution to the successful continuation of the work which we are engaged on, and we hope he will accept the amendment.

The hon. the Minister of Lands said that it was ironical that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) should have proposed this amendment because he (Gen. Kemp) had introduced a Bill containing identical provisions. I have looked it up, and if the Minister would read the clause in his own Bill, he would see that it refers to the 1912 Act, and that Act was not introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. I have looked up Clause 28 of the Principal Act and I find that the particular part which is at issue reads as follows—

1. (a) The proper care and maintenance of improvements thereon.
2. (b) The maintenance and improvement of the fertility of the soil and the prevention of soil erosion.
3. (c) The extermination of noxious and other weeds in accordance with the provisions of any law requiring such eradication.

It is practically word for word identical to the provisions of this Bill but it is no argument to say that that provision already is in the law. I hope the Minister will agree now to accept this amendment. The Principal Act has been in force since 1912 and as it is the Government’s policy to combat soil erosion I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

I hope that the Minister will realise that since 1912 when the Act was first passed, there has been much sinning in regard to soil erosion. The greatest sinner of all is the Railway line. The line passes the settlements and the public roads also pass the settlements—they are the cause of soil erosion, because no proper drains have been constructed and that is the cause of much of the evil. I now come to the Minister, who has said that everything was contained in the old Act. That is so, that is an Act which was made by the late Mr. Abraham Fischer in the old days shortly after Union … and now the settlers have to accept responsibility in spite of the circumstances created by the State itself. The Minister now comes along here and says: “Yes, I am doing it, I grant government assistance at Hartebeestpoort and at Buchuberg—I give Government assistance everywhere”. Well, if he does so, why is he afraid to put it in the Act?

Because it is unnecessary.

Is it perhaps that a certain section is nationally minded and the Minister wants to take steps against them— is that the reason? There must be something—the Minister must have something in mind, for he admits that he does all these things but that he does not want to incorporate it in the Act. If he does that, as he says, is there the slightest reason why he cannot put it in writing. We want a reply from the Minister.

It seems to me Wakkerstroom is behind these amendments.

I just want to say that if the Bill is delayed, then it is only due to the obstinacy of the Minister. I can only tell the Minister that we are just as determined in connection with this Bill and these amendments as the Minister is himself, and we shall muster our best forces to fight the Bill. I hope that in view of the few points I have raised—now that I have demonstrated that the State itself is the biggest cause of soil erosion—the Minister will accept the amendments. The State is the cause of soil erosion and of the land becoming brackish, because the drains have not been constructed properly and because they leak.

A holding can also become brackish as a result of too much irrigation.

Yes, we know that, and that is so much more reason for the amendments we have proposed.

Too much irrigation can be one of the principal causes.

Yes, but the Minister possesses all the powers he needs, and if the Minister reckons that the settler is the culprit, why does he not take measures against him. How can a measure of this kind lead to an improvement of the position unless the Minister accepts our amendments?

I have already said that the State is doing all these things.

Now, the Minister wants to force through the Bill as it is without making the slightest concession. Well, if that is the attitude of the Minister, we shall do every-

Will you put the two amendments separately?

Yes, I shall put them separately.

First amendment put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—33 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Dohne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D.C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—71 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A.

Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived. Remaining amendment put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—33 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Dohne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—72 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen. W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys. Amendment accordingly negatived.

Sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (1) (a), as printed, put and agreed to.

On sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (1)(a),

I move—

I am glad the Minister is back in his seat. As was the case in the previous clause, I again move that State assistance be given in connection with the eradication of “boetebossie” and other weeds. As the hon. Minister knows, cancer bush and other noxious weeds are increasing, especially along the rivers where irrigation takes place. The seed is brought down by the rivers. The beds of the rivers are choked with it and the seed is brought down. On some farms, the position is so serious that the people no longer are able to keep their fields clean. It is now laid down here that the settler, who is one of the poorest people in the country, must eradicate the weeds and keep the holding clean. That is impossible if the Government does not clean the beds of the rivers alongside which the settlements are situated. As the Minister knows, the seed of the cockleburr can be dormant for two, three or four years before it germinates. Therefore a longterm policy is required to eradicate the noxious weeds and it is not fair to put the burden on the settlers without State assistance. In connection with another clause, the Minister said that the Government had to assist in certain cases. Why is he not prepared to accept such an amendment? Moreover I want to point out that weeds are imported from abroad. It is often necessary to import seed, seed potatoes and other seed, from abroad, and weeds enter the country together with the seed. It is only fair that the people should be assisted in the eradication of weeds in such circumstances. We do not propose that the people themselves should do nothing at all about it. We say that the settlers should eradicate as much as they can on their holdings, but it is an impossible task without the assistance of the State. The Minister prohibits settlers from keeping persons on their holding except minor children. The settler cannot keep people there to assist him. He will not hire labour for this purpose because he is too poor. We therefore ask the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment.

Weed is now becoming a very serious problem, and I feel that it is impossible to put the obligation on the settlers to eradicate weeds without State assistance. Moreover, it does not help the people to eradicate if the Government itself allows weeds to spread to an alarming extent. In other parts of the world weeds have already increased to such an extent that large tracts of the land have become uninhabitable. I feel that the Minister should deal with the eradication of weeds as a national problem. It does not help us to expect the lower riparian owners to eradicate when weeds are not eradicated higher up, at the source of the river. I knew the case of one man who employed ten people for a whole year to eradicate weeds, but every time the floodwaters come down, the soil is again infested to the same extent. There is often negligence on the part of the Government, and the Minister now wants to make the poor settlers responsible. I think the Minister should devise an effective national plan in regard to this matter.

If the amendment had only been in connection with holdings situated on river banks and where erosion takes place …

The furrows also bring down the seed.

… then there could still be something to be said for it, but to ask the Government to assist in the cleaning of all holdings, is going too far. I have noticed under an irrigation scheme, that a man kept his land clean but the headlands were full of cockleburr. Must we new use the taxpayers’ money to encourage such negligence.

Why don’t you move such an amendment?

What will then prevent the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) to say that he must also be assisted in regard to weed eradication?

This is a national problem.

Everything becomes a national problem if there is negligence. If I ruin my ground by some means or other, and my neighbour also does so, it too becomes a national problem afterwards. I think the amendment is childish.

Is the Minister going to accept the amendment? In that case it will not be necessary to discuss the matter any further. In reply to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) I want to say that we are prepared to accept his amendment to our amendment.

I have moved nothing at all.

He is now running away from it. They realise the unfairness of the Bill, but although they agree with us, they fall into line with the Minister as soon as the whip is cracked. The hon. member, as a practical farmer, realises the difficulties. The problem of the settler often is not so much the weeds on his holding but the weeds which come down from a hundred miles away. Cockleburr, for instance, has increased tremendously. Everybody knows that cockleburr grows twice from the same seed. This is the great problem. People never knew that.

Of course, if you do not hoe your lands, it will grow there.

But it is washed down from a hundred miles away. One does not know from where it comes. The Government farms themselves are full of noxious weeds. We are not asking for the impossible; the Minister’s own side realises the fairness of it. During the war, new weeds have been imported. Only recently a new weed was imported which will give us still many a headache. I do not know what the scientific name is, but we call it “donkey burr.” Every 10 or 15 or 20 years a new weed is added which we have not known before, and this Bill will be in force for many years. We therefore ask the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment.

One need not be surprised that there is donkey burr in the Free State and also not that a new weed comes in every 20 years, if one listens to some of the members on the Opposition side. When a few moments ago I made a friendly interjection I was called a parrot. We can see where the parrots are sitting. We understand their technique which they are applying all day already. The parrots are sitting on the side of the Opposition where they echo everything Zeesen says. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) is still thinking of the time when he sat on the Voortrekkerwagon and dreamt dreams of the presidency of South Africa.

The hon. member should confine himself to the Clause.

I shall do so. I just want to say that the dream-president of the South African republic then lost everything except his coat. Very much opposition is raised against the clause, but that is not being done in order to protect the settlers; one of the reasons is that they are very antagonistic against the Minister. I am not allowed to say that here, but outside I would declare that their arguments are hypocritical.

The hon. member should confine himself to the Clause.

I maintain that their criticism is not justified and is not honest. It is not meant to help the settlers, but only to make propaganda for the pending by election. Most of the hon. members over there are farmers. I want to put a few questions to them. The first is: Who brought in the legislation that the lucerne farmers have to eradicate at their own expense, and that they will be subject to a fine if they do not do so. In the second place I want to know who introduced the Bill that even the ordinary city dweller has to eradicate weeds on his plot, also at the risk of being fined if he does not do so? Was it the present Minister of Lands or the previous Minister of Lands? Let us be honest about this. The hon. members know, but do not want to admit, that it is in the interest of the occupiers of the holdings to eradicate the weeds. Will any occupant of a holding allow weeds to overrun his holding? If a farmer has any sense of tidiness, he will not allow that to happen. He does not expect State assistance, but he will eradicate it. The members of the Opposition are insulting the occupiers of the holdings. If a jackal runs across a holding, must the State come along to exterminate it. That is their attitude. The man living on the holding will do everything in his power to keep his holding fertile and to eradicate weeds. These arguments are nothing but a smokescreen to make propaganda. The sooner hon. members admit this and stop keeping back this Bill, the more respect the country will have for them. There are two reasons for their attitude. They just cannot stand the Minister of Lands and want to attack him, but every time they get the mitten. They will still lose Wakkerstroom on the back of the present Minister of Lands.

If one listens to the hon. member who has spoken just now, one inevitably receives the impression that there is still something of the slums of Johannesburg sticking to him.

The hon. member must not become personal.

I am only stating what the position is. He made accusations against this side which make us feel that there is still something sticking to him. The amendment we proposed, we proposed in the interests of the settlers. Hon. members have shown that the “boetebossie” is spreading very fast in our country and the State is to a large extent responsible for it. Large tracts of land have been purchased by the State and are being kept for water conservation and there the noxious weeds flourish. Furthermore, weeds are also being imported from other countries. Now, if the Government is responsible for the weeds spreading, is it then fair that the settler should be compelled to eradicate them at his own expense? But the Bill does not only mention noxious weeds but also other weeds. I do not know what the Minister exactly means by that. If a man does not keep his land clean, I suppose the Minister can come along and take it away from him. If, as a result of abundant rains, the man cannot hoe, the Minister will be able to say that in his opinion the man does not keep his land clean and then the holding is subject to cancellation. The hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Tighy) spoke about noxious weeds. He ought to know that there are people who are unable to keep abreast with the weed without the assistance of the Government. The Minister is sitting here as if he has been nailed down in a coffin. He does not reply to the reasonable proposals we make. He is stuck to his seat, simply because he knows that he has that large number of members behind him. He does not reply to reasonable questions. I hope that he will still follow the example of the Minister of Finance, who is courteous when questions are put to him. We, the Opposition, are here to guard against wrong measures and he should acknowledge us as an Opposition in that sense. The Minister is, however, adopting a discourteous attitude.

I cannot understand the arguments put forward by the other side of the House. The eradication of weeds and the cleaning of lands is a matter of responsibility and is in the interests of the farmers themselves. By means of this Bill, the Minister wants to impart a sense of responsibility to irresponsible people. If they are placed on holdings and want to get on, they must learn that they have to eradicate weeds in their own interests. The Minister wants to teach them responsibility and to make them independent. They should not look to the Government for everything, they must stand on their own feet. Most members of the Opposition are farmers or argue in the manner of farmers. We are busy here to make poor people independent and for that reason it is laid down in their own interests that they must keep their land clean. We want to give those people a sense of responsibility and an opportunity to become independent. It has been said that the cockleburr is spreading; that is true, but if we all act according to the law, weeds will disappear from South Africa. The Government is already granting a subsidy for the eradication of weeds.

Where?

There is a subsidy for the eradication of weeds, and that is quite sufficient. It is not necessary to assist people who only have a small piece of land, to keep it clean. If they work their holdings, they will remain clean. I myself am a farmer on a small farm under irrigation and know that holdings under irrigation can be kept clean. Their land will remain clean if they do not themselves sow weeds together with the seed. No cockleburr or other weeds would grow there and become a menace. The hon. members do not speak in the interests of the settlers, but in the interests of politics. Hon. members on the other side are farmers just as I am, and I believe that they also realise that this attitude of theirs is not in the interests of the people.

Which clause are you discussing?

I am discussing the eradication of weeds. A man who is worth being a settler and being placed on the land, will see to it that the weeds are eradicated without assistance or compulsion. I am not discussing maize farming now, and I am not discussing irrigation lands. No, Sir, the Minister wants to teach the people responsibility and that is necessary. It should be the man’s pride to keep his lands clean and to be independent

That old Mend has now altogether missed the point. He does not even know what we are discussing. Nobody has said that weeds should not be eradicated, but we do ask why special legislation should be passed for the settlers. Surely they come under the general law. The Minister does not only confine it to weeds but also mentions “other weeds.” The hon. member talks about khaki bush. As far as I know that does not come under the Act as it stands today. The hon. member apparently did not read the amendment. We say that everybody must do his best to eradicate weeds, but we ask why one section should be burdened more than another section. The Union Government has now taken over the eradication of weeds from the provincial councils. This is a hopeless failure. Why cannot we get proper legislation which would be applicable to the settlers as well as to us. Why should special legislation be introduced to make this impossible for those people. That is the question. The question is not whether it is good or bad. Õf course it is bad to have weeds on your farm. We all realise that, but here we do not have uniform legislation. We want a general Act and not a sectional Act, and for that reason we ask the Minister, who is a practical man, not to penalise one section only. The law should be applied in a better manner, then we shall be satisfied, but not as the clause reads now.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—29.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobier, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—69.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosnian, J. C.

Bosnian, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (1) (a), as printed, put and agreed to.

On paragraph (1) (b) of sub-section (1) (a),

The hon. Minister has told us time and again that this is an Act which was passed by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I have gone through the whole Act and every amendment, but nowhere I do I find the provision which is incorporated in this clause, namely, that minor sons shall not live with their parents. In recent years the Minister, by means of regulations, has given people notice ….

You are wrong. Minor sons are allowed to live with their parents. It excludes major sons.

I now want to move that the word “minor” be deleted.

Must they not be allowed to live there?

I want them all to be able to live with their parents—major sons as well as minor sons.

Now he understands it.

I have never found a provision of this nature in the Act. Just imagine; if a parent has any time for his child he wants to have him with him, but the parent is now expected to order the child off the farm when he reaches the age of 21, or he must ask the Minister for leave for the child to remain. I was in my constituency the other day and a man who is 77 years old approaches me and said: “If this section goes through it will mean that I will be alone on my farm, while my son will have to leave the farm.”

And you said “yes”?

Yes.

And you know that that is not the case.

My hon. friend says that that is not the case. If he thinks that that is not the case, I hope he will have the courage to vote for this amendment. The Minister, by means of regulations, has given notice to people that their major sons must leave the farm. In my constituency several people have received such a notice. Before this Session of Parliament a man approached me in connection with his son. He has only one son. He bought land under Section 11, and the son contributed some of his money to help his father to pay his share of the purchase price, but he received notice that his son must leave the farm. He applied for permission for his son to remain and the reply of the Minister’s Department was that if he could get a medical certificate to say that he was sickly, the Minister would consider his application. This is his only child. But he is now required to go to a doctor and to ask for a medical certificate to show that he is sickly so that he may be allowed to keep his only son on the farm. I say again that a more cruel provision I have never seen in any Act, and I want to ask the Minister to put himself in the place of these unfortunate people. He should try to picture to himself the position in which these people find themselves. Here we have an educated man, a man who is respected throughout his district, a man who serves on his church council. This man is now expected practically to go on his knees and to beg the Minister to allow him to keep his son on the farm in order to assist him to cultivate the farm. But this clause goes further.

What is the name of the man concerned?

The Minister may have thought that I was inventing this case. I shall give him the name. It is Mr. M. van Schalkwyk, of Williston. I shall find out later what the name of his farm is. I personally saw the letter which the department wrote to him. This Bill provides that he will not be allowed to keep any Europeans except his wife and daughters and minor sons on the farm. If the Minister is acquainted with the labour question, especially on the platteland, he will realise that he is placing this man in an impossible position. He is left on the farm without any assistance to cultivate the land. He is not allowed to have any Europeans with him on the farm except his minor sons, his wife and daughters. It seems to me the Minister wants to deny that such notices have been issued. I know of another case in the same district where the man received notice that his son must leave the place on a certain date. The Minister apparently wants to make us believe that he does not cause these notices to be sent out. But he does intend doing so under this Bill, and that is why he wants to prevent the man from keeping his major sons with him on the farm. The Minister cannot deny that that is his intention, because during the second reading debate he made a great case of the man who wanted to keep too many sons with him on the farm. I want to ask the Minister how these people are expected to retain their feeling of independence; how can they be expected to retain their self-respect if he introduces this type of legislation and prevents people who are respectable people, but who have the misfortunte of being dependent on the State in this sense that they receive assistance from the State, from keeping their major sons with them? Where will it lead to if this type of legislation is passed? I move—

I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig), but before I say anything on that, I have an amendment which I want to move in connection with this clause. I move—

It will then mean that the parents of the settler will be entitled to live with their child. I just want to say this. The Minister will reply that he has a discretion in this matter; that is quite true. If they apply to him he can exercise his discretion and allow it or refuse it. I just want to tell this Committee my experience in this connection. In my constituency in the district of Swellendam there is a settler who bought land under Section 11. His name is Piet Marais. He lives on the farm Doornkloof. He is old and sickly. His wife spends the greater part of her time in bed. He has a daughter who is married. She lives in the house with them. She takes care of her old mother and father. Her husband also lives there. He has a son who carries on the farming. This son will eventually inherit the farm. He has four other sons who are in employment. One is employed in the Railway service, one in the Police service and the other two are employed elsewhere. There is only the one son who carries on the farming operations. This man has met all his obligations. He paid all his interest. He paid his water taxes. He has a fairly large piece of land. I think it is 30 or 50 morgen; I am not certain. At any rate, it is a fairly large piece of land. He has now been notified that his son must leave the farm. Where is he going to find labourers? His son has been doing all the work on this fruit farm. He goes in for mixed farming. He also sowed barley and wheat. This son, as I have said, will eventually inherit the farm. Now the Department has given the son notice to leave. We applied to the Government and explained the matter, but they still refused. The son’s wife inherited £1,500 and he was prepared to buy the farm for his father, but they would not give him transfer. He wanted to pay the balance and take transfer, but they would not accept the money. Eventually it was suggested that the father should sell the farm to his son, and that he would then live in an out-house. He would then retain a life usufruct. But we could not do that either. We thought that the regulation under which these instructions were issued was ultra vires, that they could not take steps under this regulation, and the man was advised to remain on the land. If this Bill goes through, we can take it for granted that the son will be put off the farm. The daughter will be allowed to stay on but not the son-in-law. They are taking care of the old woman. She is sickly. And who is going to assist this old man? I assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister and the Committee that I know the circumstances of those people. I obtained the land for them. This man was a lessee and he saved a few hundred pounds. He saved £400 or £500 and with that money he bought this land and paid his deposit of one-tenth of the purchase price. He will now be on the farm without any assistance at all. He is still fortunate; he can still do a little work, but he cannot manage the farm; the farm is too big for him. As I have said, he is sickly and old. All we ask the Minister is to allow the son to remain there. I can assure him there will be no over-crowding. A man who has any sense at all will not divide his farm into five or ten pieces and overcrowd it. This man will eventually bequeath the farm to his son. The Minister says that he will not make poor whites of these people by allowing over-crowding. I am quite satisfied that there may be such a case here and there, but in the majority of cases where the land is bought under Section 11 that will not happen. The people who bought under that section would have got as far as they did if they had not been sensible. They will see to it that there is no over-crowding. But the Minister now prohibits them from keeping their major sons with them. One of these days he will come along and say that the daughters too, must leave the farm. I assure the Minister that he is looking for trouble in connection with this matter. He is looking for trouble and he will find it, because they will have to issue summons against these people in order to get the children away from their parents, and then there will be trouble. The whole land settlement policy will be in bad odour. I want to ask the Minister this. If a settler has a piece of land and his mother is old and sickly, his father is old and sickly, will he prohibit the son from keeping his parents with him? These people may be in receipt of old age pensions, but they do not get the old age pension merely to buy food and clothing. They are usually sickly. They must have someone to take care of them. Why cannot the settler be allowed to keep his parents on the farm? Surely it is un-Afrikaans to do anything of that kind. I am certain that the Minister himself would not have done this. He cannot expect a man to drive his parents away from the farm. A parent who has a son of 30 or 40 years is usually an elderly person. These people are now expected to push aside their parents, and in the majority of cases these old people are sickly. Their children have to take care of them, but now the children are expected to put their parents off the farm. It is surely inhuman to do anything of the kind. The Minister will say that application can be made in such cases and that the Department may allow parents to remain on the farm if they think fit. But the Minister must remember that this law was not made only for this Minister to administer. Another Minister may be appointed who might refuse that permission. The Government has the right to expropriate land. The Minister has the Expropriation Act at his disposal. There is therefore no danger that there will be over-crowding. I do think the Minister should allow the parents of the settler to live on the farm. I feel therefore that it is my duty to move this amendment. I feel that Ï have the right to expect the Minister to meet me in this connection. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to think of his own parents. If he were in a position to give his parents a home on his farm, he would surely not push them aside. He cannot expect me to believe that he will push his parents aside. He would not do so. I cannot understand why he has hardened his heart in this case. I do not expect it of a Minister who has any feelings for his own parents.

It can be allowed.

I just want to say this in connection with the interjection which came from that side. The present Minister may not refuse to grant the necessary permission, but we do not know what his successor will do. He does not always remain Minister. In certain cases he has already refused permission.

Surely you do not mean that there is a possibility that there may be a worse Minister than he?

When I said a few words about the Bill just now, the Chairman asked me—just when I was discussing such a case— not to stray too far from the point, and I should like to make a few remarks now in connection with this clause. I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) wholeheartedly, and to express the hope that the Minister will accept it. In my constituency, we have had a similar case, and I shall give the man’s name to the Minister. Mr. A. Beyers purchased a farm under the Settlement Act. He has two sons who work on the farm with him, because he is old and feeble. He is an honourable and exemplary Afrikaner. Under the old system, if he had had a Crown Grant, he would have been allowed to keep his major sons on the farm. He applied and made the necessary payments for obtaining his Crown Grant. The responsible official of the Department replied that he could not get his Crown Grant because legislation was pending, and if that legislation were passed, he would, even if he had received his Crown Grant, not be entitled to keep his major sons on his farm. I read through the correspondence myself. I went to see Mr. De Wet, the official concerned, and he told me that the man could not get his Crown Grant. The old father then received a letter from the Department that the major sons had to leave the farm immediately. Is that fair and just?

Both sons?

Yes. As the hon. member for Swellendam pointed out, we still find amongst Afrikaners that the son loves his father and the father loves his son. Is it just to compel such an old father to send his sons away from the farm? Surely that is not reasonable. This amendment is so just and fair that I hope that the Minister will still accept it. I can see no necessity for the sons having to leave the farm in these circumstances. If the settler has a large farm which he has bought under the Land Board, he needs his sons in order to make a decent living and to work the farm properly. And what is wrong with that, and why is the Minister unable to give his consent for them to do that? I want to support this amendment wholeheartedly and to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to accept it.

I wish to associate myself with the reasonable request to the Minister. I am convinced that if the Minister considers the matter carefully, he will not deem this request to be unreasonable. In my constituency, there is a large number of farmers who have bought land under Section 11, and sometimes a father has one or two sons to assist him in his work. They bought the farm with nothing on it; they had to build sheds and kraals and develop the farm. The sons were always assisting the father and were his right hand. When a father is old, he may be able to assist in the farming operations, but he can no longer do all the work that is necessary and then the sons have to assist him. Those people have been assisted with the purpose that they and their children should not be walking the streets. The sons remain with their father and afterwards they will inherit the land. Sometimes the father has only one son and cannot get any labourers. The son has to do the ploughing, the milking of the cows and everything else, and if that son has to leave the farm, it will simply mean that the father cannot carry on with the farm any longer. He will have to sell the farm and to go and live in the town. There are furthermore cases where a son stays with his father. He is employed somewhere else but in the morninig and the evening he assists his father on the farm and the son’s earnings enable the father to fulfil his obligations. The son does so because he knows that in the end he will inherit the land. I hope that the Minister will delete this clause, so that the people will retain the rights which they possess today. We are not thinking only of irrigation settlements. There the plots may be rather small. In my constituency there are people who have as much as 400 morgen and if we remove those sons and ultimately also the son-in-law, it will mean that we will do farming an ill turn. The father cannot go on with the farm and the end is that all of them again become poverty stricken. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider this matter.

I should like to know from the Minister with what authority he has so far refused all applications for Crown Grants, when people have applied for their Crown Grants in ordinary circumstances, and where the law specifically provides that the balance of the purchase price may, in certain circumstances, be obtained from the Department by means of a bond. In the last-mentioned cases, the Minister has consistently refused. Only in cases where the matter could be taken to court, did he agree to issue the Crown Grants. This refers to cases wherle persons have been on their holdings for ten years or more. Even in those cases the Minister wanted to refuse, but when he was threatened with a court case, and when the people produced the cash, he did not dare to refuse it. If it had depended on the Minister, every Crown Grant would have been refused, for he said that this legislation was pending. What right has he got to anticipate legislation by the House? He does not know whether the House is going to pass his legislation, and he should not presume that we will swallow everything he proposes. His attitude was that he was not going to issue any Crown Grants to these people. I want to say at once what the position is of those who apply for a bond simultaneously with the application for a Crown Grant. The law specifically provides for assistance to poor settlers, and when a man fulfils his obligations, pays his debt, develops the holding, etc. he can obtain a bond from the Department together with the Crown Grant, and in that case quite a number of the onerous conditions fall away. The Minister has consistently refused to grant such applications, and to give the people their bonds in those circumstances. I want to mention the name of one person, viz. Mr. Brits of Pietersburg. He had to produce the cash and they told him when he wanted to pass a bond, that he could not obtain a Crown Grant because legislation was pending. Why was he compelled to make an application? He had two sons on the holding and he made application that these two sons should be allowed to stay on the farm. The reply was that one son could stay but the second one had to leave. This person was thereafter obliged to get a Crown Grant. That happened after he had been on his land for ten years. When he applied, a bond was refused by the Department. That is why I say that it is unfair and unreasonable on the part of the Minister to adopt this attitude towards the settlers. Provision is made in the law to meet these people, but the Minister refuses to make use of it. Then there is another provision in this Bill, which is unreasonable and humiliating for the settlers. It is subclause (b), which reads as follows—

What is the effect going to be? The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has already quoted instances of children living with their parents. Those parents will have to receive notice that the children are no longer allowed to stay there. Then there is the question of major sons. The settlers mostly are people who have no money to employ natives. They are not allowed to employ Europeans. The settler has to depend on the co-operation of his whole household. They all have to stand together and every one of them has to contribute a share to the making of a living. I know of cases where two sons are living together with the father in the house. Each of them has a small number of trek cattle and in that way they are in a position to work the farm. One of them will now have to go and the one who remains behind will not have sufficient to work the holding properly. What is going to happen in such a case? It will simply mean that the man is bound to make a failure of his undertaking, whereas if the family could have remained together, they might have made a success of it. Then I want to point out that the effect of this section goes further than the Committee may realise. It says here—

It clearly says here that they cannot live with him on the holding. Now, what is a “holding.” We have to look that up in the definitions in the original Act of 1912. In Section 2 of the Principal Act, we find the interpretation of terms and there the word “holding” is defined as follows—

This means that the property remains a holding even when a person obtain his Crown Grant. Such a person will therefore not be allowed to keep a son on his farm or the son to keep his parents on the farm, even if he obtains a Crown Grant, when this Bill is passed. The clause proposed by the Minister mentions a holding, and here in the Act of 1912 we see what a holding is. That Act stipulates that a holding remains a holding even after a Crown Grant has been issued. I, therefore, maintain that the meaning of this provision will be that, if we adopt it, even if the person has a Crown Grant, he will still not be allowed to keep a parent or a major son on the farm. Furthermore, in the clause proposed by the Minister, the word “lessee” is used. In the Act of 1912, we find the following definition of “lessee”—

I think that in this case, we should ref eh to the English text of the Act, for I take it that the Act of 1912 was signed in English, with the result that the English text is decisive. There we find the following—

Therefore even if the person concerned has his Crown Grant, he still remains a lessee. It boils down to this, that the provision which the Minister is now inserting, means that any person who buys land under Section 11, or who obtains it under Section 10, will never have the right to allow his son or his parent to stay on the farm, even if he has his Crown Grant. This is a rank breach of faith. When the people made application for the holdings, their ideal was to obtain their Crown Grants so that one day they would be in full possession of the land. But now a provision is being inserted which lays down that even if they have their Crown Grant they will never have full title to their ground, for they will not be allowed, inter alia, in the case of a parent to keep his major son there, or in the case of a son, to keep his parents there. This in a way is amusing, but still it is serious when one considers the position that once a person has obtained his Crown Grant, he can allow an Indian to open a shop there and if he has water, he can make a garden there, but he will not be allowed to have his own son or his father there. After he has received his Crown Grant, he can admit an Indian, but not a European. I maintain that this clause has far-reaching effects, and one realises that only after looking up the meaning of the words “holding” and “lessee.” I want to say that I fully accept the amendement of the hon. member for Swellendam, viz., that provision should be made for parents to be entitled to stay with their children on the holdings. It should not even be necessary to make application for that. I hope that that amendment will be accepted, but if that amendment should not be accepted, then we want at least to see that provision is made for parents who are in straitened circumstances and who cannot look after themselves, should be allowed to remain on the holdings with their children. For that reason I wish to move the following amendment—

In that case we will not be dealing with well-to-do people, but with people who are receiving the old age pension or the Oudstryders’ pension. If the Minister refuses this amendment, it will mean people who need assistance are simply left to their own devices. A person does not receive the old age pension unless he is indigent. When he received an Oudstryders’ pension, he also needs it. I should like to see the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam accepted, but if that should not be accepted, then we should like to see this amendment accepted. The argument may be raised that some of the parents may be well-to-do people, and for that reason I want to make specific provision for indigent parents.

I am only taking part in this debate in connection with this clause to be able to understand the viewpoint of the Opposition a little better. The clause is quite clear to me and personally I can find nothing wrong with it as it stands. As far as I have listened to the debate on the part of the Opposition I still cannot understand what they are pleading for. Is it a matter of a certain number of sons which the father must be allowed to keep on the holding ….

He must be allowed to keep major sons there as well.

I want to put the position as follows: Is it a case of a father keeping one or two sons on the holding; three sons or ten sons or twelve sons, sons who marry and who then again have sons?

Where do you find such cases?

Do you mean to say that there are no parents who have ten sons?

Well, I consider that there may be such cases. Exceptions have been made where the Minister has acted in connection with certain sons. Instances have been mentioned here where there were two sons with the father. I now mention other instances where there are 8, 10 or 12 sons on a holding together with their father. Furthermore, some years ago we passed legislation in this House which was introduced by the then Minister of Lands, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), whereby he expropriated land of people who obtained that ground on their own initiative and where we had instances where the ground was so closely populated that the people could not make a decent living on those farms. We felt constrained to pass legislation to remove those people from the land and to give them another means of making a living, and to expropriate the ground. I supported the hon. member for Wolmaransstad.

That was a case of over-population.

Yes. That was a desirable and sound measure because you find consistently not only in cases as mentioned here, but generally in the course of events today that a father has two, three, four or more sons and the father feels that the extent of the land is not sufficient to enable all the children to make a living thereon. He knows how many would be able to make a living on the ground. He has the other sons educated or he buys additional ground. He endeavours in one way or another to look after the children who cannot make a living on the farm, as well as possible. If it is so sound and so necessary that we should accept that principle, as appreciated by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who passed that legislation, then it undoubtedly also applies in this case. I therefore hail that principle. It is a sound principle. We find over-population. We find people who do not know when they are crowded out, and who perhaps for sentimental reasons feel that they do not want to leave the land or that they want to remain with their own flesh and blood. They crowd each other out; there is over-population, and the Minister has no power to act if we do not accept this clause. If it is requested that one or two sons must be allowed, then I can understand it. But if we accept the principle that conditions must develop in a laissez-faire manner, we will create conditions which will again be just as unsound and which will make it just as necessary to introduce legislation to obviate those conditions, as was the case recently when the Hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister of Lands and when he introduced that legislation. That will come, and while we are making this change, why not do it in such a manner that the necessary provision is made in the Bill? It is a principle which we should all welcome and accept; it is a principle which aims at the best interests of the settlers and if we do not accept it we shall create poor colonies and the Minister will be powerless and will not be able to act when we find conditions where people are busy crowding each other out, and where as a result of over-population they will be in a condition of misery and poverty. We cannot accuse the Minister, as has been said, that he wants to act in an inhuman manner. Anybody who has done as much for settlement and who has put himself out to try and acquire land and irrigation and establish holdings, will not be so unreasonable towards these people; he is not a person who will act unreasonably towards those people. Do we honestly expect the Minister to act so unreasonably? If it is a personal matter against the Minister of Lands, we can understand the attitude of the hon. members opposite, but when we accept the point of view of sound principle as contained in this clause, then I have every reason to doubt the honesty of members on the opposite side. It is not only a matter of this Minister, but of future Ministers and of general interest. It is also going to be a matter for future Ministers. As far as my personal practical experience goes I can see nothing wrong in this, and it is a matter of utmost importance that this clause be accepted. I accept in all seriousness that when there is a real need, when somebody is old and feeble, the Minister will not be so inhuman as to refuse written applications. If he were to do that, he would lose my sympathy and favour and that of the whole country.

We have mentioned cases that were refused.

We cannot possibly expect that conditions will develop, as could easily be the case, without giving the Minister the power to act when an unhealthy position develops. For that reason I can see no objection against this clause in the Bill. If permission is asked for one son, I can understand it.

Why not two?

But simply to leave the matter open so that there can be as many as they wish, that the people there can marry and crowd each other out, that I cannot understand. I hope that the Opposition will now realise the necessity for this clause. If they can prove to me that the Minister has refused deserving cases where a parent or an aged father needed assistance on a farm, that the Minister refused to give that assistance, then I will agree with them that it was wrong. But what would be the Minister’s object to refuse cases of that kind? It is not in the interest of the settler nor is it in the interest of the whole country. For that reason I wholeheartedly support this clause.

In reply to the hon. member for Pietersburg, I want to say under what circumstances Crown Grants were refused. It will not be necessary for me to reply to the question of sons or parents on holdings. I have discussed this matter more than fully in this House. It would only mean a repetition of the same arguments. My hon. friend over there did the same thing as I did when he was the Minister.

Where?

When I took over the department, they were busy investigating this matter.

That is not contained in the Act.

I do not think it will be necessary to repeat the same arguments. I only want to say that practically every day parents or sons receive permissions to stay on the holdings. There are hundreds of such cases. Each case is dealt with on its merits. Of course, there are cases where permission is not granted to parents. I want to repeat that parents do not only get a pension, but that the Department of Social Welfare is also looking after them. There is no parent who need be without a roof over his head. The hon. member for Pietersburg said that settlers cannot obtain Crown Grants, that we refuse to issue the Crown Grants. That is not the case. Lessees or settlers are entitled to receive Crown Grants after they have been living on the holding for ten years. When a person comes along and asks for it before the ten years have elapsed, then we tell him that we cannot grant it to him.

But you are entitled to give it to him.

We tell him that he has to wait until the ten years are up, even if he wants to pay, but there is not a single instance, when the ten years have elapsed, where we have refused when a person has complied with the conditions. We have no right to do it.

But you waited until you were threatened with court cases.

There is not one single case where we waited for a court case, when the person concerned applied after ten years. If he applies after ten years, he receives his Crown Grant without a word. If there have been cases when we were threatened with a court case, or when we waited until we were threatened with a court case, where a person applied after ten years, I should like to have the names.

I shall supply you with a name.

If we accept this clause, we come to sub-clause (2), and the effect of that clause is that the Government is going to put a servitude on the owner of the land for ever, if I may use that expression, under which he will not be allowed to have his major son stay there except with the consent of the Minister. The following clause stipulates that the provisions of the clause which is now being amended by these clauses in the Bill, will be applicable even if the land is transferred. Sub-clause (2) lays down that in regard to paragraph (b) which we are now dealing with—

Therefore if the land has been acquired by the original lessee and he has his Crown Grant and sells the ground, the same servitude is being applied to the person who has bought the ground and to his children after him. If his children want to sell the land again, the same servitude remains in force. The hon. member for Caledon should listen better. He said that it would be a good thing to impose this restriction. In future we shall, therefore, have two kinds of farmers in this country. We shall have people who possess land which was given out originally under the Settlement Acts and you will have people who have unencumbered land. The land originally given out under the Settlement Acts, will always remain under a restriction, but the other land will not be subject to restrictions. The children and grandchildren of the man who originally obtained the land under the Settlement Acts, will not be allowed to part with the land without the consent of the Minister.

Why should the Minister refuse to give his consent.

One class of farm will be subject to these restrictions, and the other type will not be subject to these restrictions, but the hon. member for Caledon says that he can see no objection against a restriction of that nature. He believes it to be in the interests of the country. If he means that genuinely, I ask him and any land owner on the other side: Make application that your farms should also be put under that restriction. The only thing that the previous Minister of Lands did, was to lay down that if a farm has been so sub-divided as to make it impossible for the people to make an existence on the small part thereof, then the Government will have the right to expropriate the farm. I now come to the argument of the hon. member for Caledon—the imposition of this restriction is a sound measure. It apparently is a good thing when it is imposed on farm A, which has been given out under the Land Settlement Act, but it is not a good thing when it applies to the farm of the hon. member for Caledon.

There is a mighty big difference.

There is ho difference. If a restriction is good in the case of the land of one man, then it must also be good in the case of the land of another man.

The Government did not assist me.

And neither the man who is going to buy the land in fifty years’ time. He buys it with his own money. Only the original owner was assisted by the Government. The restriction is, however, being imposed for ever, also on the man who purchases with his own money. What sense is there in that, what has happened to the common sense in our country. Then they come here and tell us that after all we have a reasonable Minister, a sensible man who does not treat anybody unfairly. The Minister challenged us to quote one instance of a case where he acted unfairly. I readily accept that challenge. Take only my constituency. There you find a farm called “Pretoria”: the owner, Mr. P. E. Erasmus obtained two farms from the department. I am not quite sure what the total extent is, but I think it must be between 4,000 and 5,000 morgen. He made very good progress in his farming operations. He has only one son. The son grew up on the farm: and assisted his father to develop it, and they farm together. He is Mr. Erasmus’ successor. If I am not mistaken Mr. Erasmus is now over 60 years’ old and he has only one son who is to succeed him. The Minister refuses to allow that son to stay on the farm with his father. And then the Minister maintains that he is reasonable. This is the only son. Erasmus and his son then sold some of their cattle and paid off the debt. Now the son can stay there. But if this measure is to be applied, they may find themselves once more in the same difficulty. This is devil’s work.

Or his agent?

The Minister refused to allow Mr. Erasmus’ son to stay there. He is 60 years old and they together looked after the farm. What would have become of the son if they had not had something? The son has to leave. The father is not wealthy enough to buy another farm, and so the son has to go to the town. Supposing he is successful there, then most likely after ten or fifteen years, when his father dies or becomes quite incapable of work, he most likely will not return to the farm. Then it will pass into strange hands and the industrious young farmer who should have succeeded his father and who had developed the farm, will have to find a living elsewhere. I ask hon. members whether a father should not strive to develop his farm in order to leave it to his son. I want the hon. member for Caledon to listen. The hon. Minister challenged us to mention one case where he acted unfairly. There are numbers of such cases. I hope the hon. member for Caledon is the proud father of a son. If he is, I presume that if there is one thing that gives him pleasure, then it is that he can leave his beautiful farm and his beautiful homestead, which I have seen, to his son. It will give him pleasure to keep his farm in good order so that his son may one day succeed him. That is one of the great incentives a farmer has to work and struggle to develop his farm so that ultimately he may hand it over to his son. This Minister is an obstacle to this noble Afrikaner tradition. The hon. member for Caledon says that it is a good thing that the son cannot succeed the father, but as far as he himself is concerned, he considers it to be a high ideal to leave his farm to his son.

You know that I did not say so. It is not true.

But the hon. member did say that it was a good thing that this restriction would be imposed, and the Minister challenged us to mention one instance where he had acted unreasonably. In this connection I want to appeal to the Minister very earnestly. [Time limit.]

I hope that the Opposition will now desist from opposing this measure.

We do not run after the Government.

It is just because you do not want to be guided that you are continually straying. What would be the good of having settlement schemes in this country and allowing that land which has been developed and to become valuable at the expense of the Government—and that is the difference between land allotted by the State and private land—to be lost to the State for settlement. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said that the servitude would be applicable to the land for ever, and thereafter he drew a comparison between a private farm and a settlement farm, and he said that the State is not interfering with private farms, and he asked what would happen in 50 years’ time to the land which was obtained with Government aid. In 50 years’ time it still remains the original Government land which obtained its value by the actions of the State. The settlement seheme has been brought into being by the action of the State. The State started the undertaking and allotted the land.

All land originates from the State.

We cannot compare the two. In the one case the land was originally allotted by the State and became valuable as a result of State action. If we do not take this step, we can write “finis” to the settlement undertakings in South Africa. If the State does not in all circumstances retain supervision of settlement land, in whose hands will the land afterwards fall? What is then the good of settlement schemes. Enormous amounts are being spent in regard to settlement, and if such a settlement proves to be a success, and you do not have this restriction, then a millionaire can buy up the whole scheme. That is what the hon. members there want. The other day I quoted some figures in regard to the expenditure so far incurred on the large settlement schemes in South Africa, and if we were to allow settlements gradually falling into the hands of speculators, it would have been in vain. The land which has become valuable as a result of State action, should in future remain for the purpose of settlement.

The farmer himself has developed the farm.

If a man purchases land, even under Section 11, does he not purchase that with Government assistance?

What about factories which are established with Government assistance?

The farmer has developed his plot but he could only do so with Government assistance. The State enabled him to erect a house there and to plant trees and to develop the farm. If the father should become too old to farm, and should die, the fact still remains that he created that value there with Government assistance. Hon. members refuse to admit the fact. I shall be the last man in this House to undermine settlement undertakings in this manner and to allow that land which has been obtained with Government assistance afterwards to fall again into the hands of speculators and millionaires, who can buy it up. If we allow that, the public will say that we can no longer go on with settlements. I do not understand what the hon. members hope to achieve. If it were necessary for the hon. member for Wolmaransstand (Gen. Kemp) when he was Minister to pass a law in order to expropriate land when plots became too small and were subdivided too often, how can they object to this step of the present Minister. If that was reasonable, what was the object of it. Because we found that there was overcrowding and that many people could not make a living on the land. Now hon. members again want to create the same conditions. If we accede to their request, where will we land? And what applies to farms, applies also to settlements, to holdings allotted to settlers. The experts tell us that a piece of land is just large enough to secure a decent living to a man, his wife and their minor children. But as soon as you allow more people to come on that land, you jeopardise the whole object and you make it uneconomical for all to find a living there. What is their slogan? You will again have the position that in a number of years the old people are there and perhaps five grown up sons with their families and, if you look again, there are a hundred people there and then you expect them to make a living there. Then the self-same hon. members will come with the outcry that the farm is uneconomical for all the people to live there and that it should be expropriated. We cannot follow one policy today and the opposite one tomorrow, which will nullify the first policy. The Minister is following a sound policy and I hope that the Government will be adamant, that once the land has been issued for settlement purposes, it will remain available for that purpose, so that it will not once again fall into the hands of speculators.

I cannot blame the hon. member too much. There is an old proverb which says that when you have nothing yourself, then you begrudge anybody else having something. The hon. member wants land which has been purchased with Government assistance to be subject to the servitude even in 50 or 100 years’ time, when it comes into other hands. The hon. member wants to perpetuate slavery in South Africa. He wants to see that in a hundred years’ time the owner of the land will still have to approach the Government with his hat in his hand, if he wants to sell his land or wants his children there. If the hon. member had advocated that land should not be sold to large companies, he would have had our support. But we have put forward three very reasonable suggestions. The Minister does not even deign to reply a single word to it. We made a proposal here to allow a parent or parents to live with their children who are on a settlement. The argument is now being used that the, parent receives old age pension and that another department assists them. Allow me to say that amongst our Afrikaners there is still a love for what is one’s own, but the Minister wants to destroy that. He does not want to allow a son to have his old father or mother of 70 or 80 years to stay with him. He refuses that.

That was also laid down in the Act of 1937.

If the Minister possesses that right, why is he proposing this amendment then? The Minister refers every time to the Act of 1937, but he wants to hide behind something that does not exist. If he has that power, this provision is unnecessary. The amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) provides for enabling a son to allow his old mother and father to stay with him. The Afrikaner still has a feelings for his parents. It is regrettable that the Minister does not have that feeling. We do not want to destroy that love. It is a good thing when children want to assist their parents and to provide a roof over their heads when necessary. Then we have a second amendment. The Minister said that he would only repeat what he had said before if he were to reply to the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). The hon. member proposed to delete the word “minor” so that the parents can keep a son there after he reaches the age of 21 years.

Son or sons?

The Minister lays down in the Bill that the son will not be allowed to live there in a house or otherwise. The son may not even live in another house there in order to assist his father on the farm and to help him to gather the harvest, and to assist him to make a living on the farm. The son must go. The, Minister said that every case is dealt with on its merits. I believe we have shown what that means. It means that it is practically automatically refused except perhaps where favourites of the Minister are concerned. They are talking now of overcrowding. If the policy were that the State would interfere when the land becomes so overcroweded that people could no longer make a living, then the Minister would have our support. We are just as much against overcrowding. But a father may be ailing, and how can overcrowding be caused if in such a case one or two sons stay with their parents in order to assist them. This amendment is very reasonable, but now we come to our third amendment. I have already told the Minister that he should take a leaf from the book of the Minister of Finance as far as courtesy is concerned. The Minister of Finance is courteous when he replies to questions of the Opposition, but the Minister of Lands is too superior to reply to our questions. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) proposed an amendment which says that in the case of Oudstryders or people drawing old age pensions—they must be poor if they want to get assistance from the State—they be allowed to live with their children. They cannot exist or rent a house out of their old age pension. Under present day conditions I cannot understand how a person drawing the old age pension can live on it, except if he gets free housing with his children. They can hardly buy clothing out of their pensions. The Minister has no time for our old people. Even though they have done their duty towards the country, they are to be put on the streets. If ever there was a shameful attitude on the part of a Minister, then it is the attitude of the Minister of Lands, who treats old people in this manner. I again wish to express the hope that the Minister will change, his attitude towards the reasonable amendments which we have proposed. If that happens, we shall make very quick progress with this Bill, but every time the Minister gets up, he takes up an acrimonious attitude towards this side of the House. We shall make use of all available means to say our say in regard to this Bill. I hope that the Minister will come to his senses.

Before discussing the clause, I should like to put a question to hon. members on the other side of the House, and especially to those who are farmers. Can they tell me whether they are still able today to cut up their farms as they like and to divide it amongst their children as they think fit?

We have that right.

I maintain that they cannot do so. But alright. We now come to the settlers. The Settlement Act was brought into being in order to prevent poor whiteism and not to cause it, and this clause is one of the most efficient which we can find in the relative legislation. It is a great pity that it was not there 25 years ago. Then we would certainly have had fewer poor whites today.

Can you show me one poor white who has become a poor white because this Bill was not in existence?

I can. I shall prove how the attorneys had the farmers sold out.

I am convinced that I know as much if not more, about the position of the poor whites than most hon. members on the other side. I know that if the discretion is not placed in the hands of the Minister, the tendency will be to create more poor whites. Most settlers are already poor and we want to prevent these conditions. The Minister is specially given this power, because he wants to make the children who have to leave, independent. If the Minister refuses major children to stay on a holding, he will do so simply because he knows that it is economically unsound to keep them there. If the Minister does not have that power it will happen in many cases that the holdings will be overcrowded with poor people and in that way we shall never come near a solution of the poorwhite problem in rural districts. Some people love to live together too long, and should be stopped.

I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. He said that there was a big difference where a man had been assisted financially by the State in order to obtain a plot and for that reason the State should for all eternity have the right of disposal over the farm. I want to ask the hon. member whether when new industries are established with the assistance of the Industrial Corporation for the establishment of which we passed a law, if an industry is assisted in that manner with State funds and the industry is a success, will the hon. member then propose that it should not be sold to a millionaire?

I advocated that the other day.

The settler takes an option, goes to the Land Board, and they approve of the farm.

I replied to the question. I said that I was in favour of it.

The hon. member will say anything. The settler takes his option and pays one-tenth of the purchase price. He has to repay everything with interest. The State received a higher interest than it pays itself. It is a good investment. Thereafter the man obtains title and then he is just as much entitled to sell as any other person.

In many cases the Government issued the land at a lower price than it paid for it.

The man pays every penny and interest. I am not talking about settlers. The position is that the man refunds every penny he has borrowed from the Government. He pays interest and if a man buys a farm and borrows the money from a Board, should the Board then still have a say after he has paid for the house or the farm? Will anybody propose such a nonsensical thing?

That can be found in your 1937 Act.

Where do you find that in the Act?

Let him read it out if it is there.

But it is not there, I know what I am talking about.

But he will read it out even if it is not there.

A person who purchases his farm under Section 11 is just as much entitled to his land as any other farmer in the country. Once he has paid his bond and interest, and has obtained title, it is his land. We have told the Minister that long ago. He now says that when a son is 21 years and one day old he has to leave the farm. If the parents of a settler lives with him, they must now leave. Hon. members on the other side now get up here and say that this is a good provision.

Nobody said that.

That shows you what political prejudice can do. That hon. member who says that it is in the Act, also says that it is a good Act.

No.

It looks to me the man cannot read. If he had taken the trouble to read the Act, he would have noticed that this is the position. This Minister will not always remain our Minister of Lands. Supposing you get a Minister such as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). Where will you be then? That is the position. Hon. members on the other side do not realise that this Act will not be administered by the present Minister only. He may die tomorrow and who knows, the hon. members for Krugersdorp might take his place.

Are you scared of me?

I am always scared of a baboon.

The hon. member must not be so personal.

I did not say that he is a baboon, I said I am scared of a baboon. The position is that political prejudice can lead a man to vote for this Bill. They know it. If they were to speak from the depth of their hearts, they would agree with us. I am convinced of that. I am, however, going to give the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) an opportunity to vote in favour of the amendment. He spoke of a father with ten sons. Well, the ordinary settler cannot have so many sons for he simply cannot afford it.

Who is going to restrict him?

I now want to move—

Does that come on top of the other amendment?

I can make it two sons if you want to. We propose to leave them all there, but the hon. member for Caledon now comes along and say that the man may have ten sons.

Are you now withdrawing the other amendment?

If you move so, I shall be satisfied, but if you do not move it, then I am going to move it. I am now going to test the sincerity of hon. members on the other side. I want the settler to be entitled to keep at least one major son with him on the farm; only one. Of course, he can have more there if he has the Minister’s consent, but he must have the right to keep one major son there. If he wants to keep more than one, he can make application for it. If hon. members on the other side are sincere in their wish that the Minister should allow one son to stay, then they cannot vote against this amendment. I now want to test their sincerity.

We are sincere but we refuse to be an instrument in your hands.

Do not try to run away now, I do not know you like that. I only want to say this in regard to settlers who are on the settlement. I am very sorry for these people for at all the settlements I have visited, the people are today in the position in which people were years ago at Kimberley. If at that time one spoke about the people of Kimberley, you were told : “Sht, whisper it”. Today the settlers are in the same position. If they say anything, they are victimised one way or the other. One of the members on the other side said that one of the causes of poor whiteism was that this legislation which compels parents to send their children away, was not passed 25 years years ago. He cannot show me one settler who has become a poor white on the settlement. If there is a poor white on the settlement, then he was a poor white at the time he bought the land under Section 11. I do not know one and I know the country pretty well. If the other motion I propose is not accepted, I shall move this amendment.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) is not in his seat. I have here in front of me a draft contract issued during his period of office as Minister of Lands and in this contract I noticed that in one clause it is laid down that the settler on the holding may not keep any cattle there belonging to somebody else. Another clause reads: “The lessee shall occupy and work this holding exclusively for his own use.”

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 27th April.

Agreed to.