I move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming. G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

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.

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

Noes—25.

Booysen, W. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Nel, M. D. C. de. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. J. Serfontein and P. J. van Nierop.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

This amendment which has been proposed is in my opinion an amendment of the greatest importance. The Minister of Lands has introduced a Bill in this House to expropriate people’s rights on a large scale, and he is doing so without ever having given those people the opportunity of putting their case either before him or before the Government. It has appeared from this debate that notwithstanding the fact that those people, when they had heard and kenew that the Minister of Lands was busy with this plan, appealed to him to allow them to put their case before him, he nevertheless refused to grant their request. And what was his excuse for this? It was that there was nothing as yet before this House. Have you ever in heaven’s name heard anything like it? While he is busy with this plan, and while his department is busy devising plans to expropriate those people’s rights, and while they had heard about it and wanted the opportunity of putting their case before him, he refuses to grant them a hearing. He adopts the high and mighty attitude that he does not wish to discuss the matter with them. Even when those people travelled to Cape Town and knocked at his door and asked to be afforded the opportunity of putting their case before him, he refused their request. He did not want to afford them a hearing. With a view to what is requested in this amendment, one can only label this action of the Minister of Lands as something unheard of in the history of our country and of this Parliament; where a Minister is busy depriving people of their rights, of robbing them as it were, he positively refuses to grant those people a hearing when they request an opportunity of putting their side of the matter to him. It is with a view to those things that this amendment has been proposed in order to afford those people a fair chance of submitting their case to a Select Committee. There are members who will say that in any case the Bill will go to a Select Committee after the second reading, and then those people will have their opportunity. Yes, they will then be granted an opportunity, that is true, but there are some people on the other side who have said that it is unnecessary to send the Bill to a Select Committee and to hear their side of the story, for they simply believe everything that the Minister of Lands has said here. When the Select Committee is appointed according to the regulations of the House, who is going to serve on it? There will be a majority of members of the other side on it, and the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) has already informed us that he is going to serve on it. Well, if he is an example of the sort of member, then we know what to expect. I am not concerned with his capabilities or disabilities, but with the interruptions which he has made in the course of this debate. He simply takes it for granted that he will be one of the members of the Select Committee, but without being acquainted with the facts and without knowing anything about the matter, he has already by way of his interruptions passed judgment in the matter. He has already beforehand come to his conclusions. No one who has uttered such vicious interruptions as has the hon. member for Springs, can go unbiassed to such a Select Committee. He simply takes it for granted that what the Minister of Lands has said here in this House is gospel truth. I am convinced that members of the Government party will be in the majority on that Committee. Most of them will be people with the mentality of the hon. member for Springs, who has already beforehand passed judgment in this matter. It is of the greatest importance that these people should be afforded the opportunity of putting their case before a Select Committee. I repeat that members on the other side will be in the majority on the Select Committee, and if they are not enabled to become acquainted with the actual facts, as they were told to us by the farmers concerned, then we cannot expect them to be able to pronounce a proper judgment in the matter, and by reason of their interruptions and speeches here in this House, we must take it that they simply lap up everything the Minister of Lands has told them as they would a plate of sweet cakes. Let us now confine ourselves to the allegation which the Minister of Lands made against these people. I say that they ought to have the opportunity of refuting the Minister’s allegation. The first reason which the Minister advances as to why these lands should be expropriated, is that erosion is taking place there on a large scale.

On a point of explanation. It is now the second or the third time that the member on the other sidé has said that I said that erosion is taking place there on a large scale.

But you did sav so.

What I said was that as soon as the grass there is devoured, as soon as there is no more grass to cover the earth, then erosion will take place. The land is then bare, and that leads to wind erosion on a large scale.

If I understand the Minister correctly, he is now saying that there is no erosion.

No.

But how am I to understand the Minister? If I say that he has said that erosion is taking place on a large scale, he denies it. If I say on the other hand that he said that there is no erosion, he denies that as well. I do not want to treat this matter in a frivolous fashion. It is a serious matter and I want to give it my serious attention. I want to be fair, for it is a serious matter for those people.

As an accomplice of Emery.

The hon. member says that I am an accomplice of Emery. I protest most strongly that anyone who has appeared before a court of justice and who has been found guilty of crime should utter such things against me.

I did not say that.

You said that I was the accomplice of Emery. I say that a man who has been found guilty by a court of law should not hurl such accusations at other people. I want to tell hon. members on the other side that I have never seen Mr. Emery in my life and I do not know who he is. Of the farmers who have signed this document, I have as yet only seen one of them on one occasion, and that was last year when they came here as a deputation in connection with agricultural matters. I do not know them, except Mr. Lombard. I am treating this matter on its merits. I hope that we will have no further interruptions of the kind we have had from the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). I repeat that a man who has committed a crime and who has been found guilty by a court, should not make such accusations against members. He ought to be ashamed of himself, if he possesses a sense of shame. I am coming back to the question of erosion which either does take place there or which does not take place. The Minister’s excuse is now that if the grass disappears, then erosion will take place on a large scale. Let me say to members on the other side who are unacquainted with these parts, that I know those parts. It is flat country and unlike Natal or the Eastern portion of the Free State where there are mountainous parts. There is thus much less danger of erosion. It is flat bush country with a “koppie” here and there — “hillocks”, as the English call them — and it is densely shrubbed. Even were the grass to disappear, the land is so densely shrubbed with bush and the soil so firm with the roots of trees, that erosion will not take place.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I draw your attention to the amendment which the hon. member is supposed to be discussing? He is discussing the Bill, and not the amendment.

I have followed the hon. member’s argument very closely and he is giving the reason why the parties interested should be allowed to give evidence before a Select Committee.

I would never challenge your ruling, Sir, but may I point out that the hon. member is getting very far away when he speaks about erosion.

Mr. Speaker has given his ruling.

I treat Mr. Speaker with the greatest amount of respect, but I asked Mr. Speaker whether erosion can be brought into the amendment. The hon. member is now talking about erosion.

I followed the hon. member’s argument very closely and I know that the hon. member himself knows that having spoken on this debate before he can now speak only on the amendment. His argument seems to be in the direction of the necessity of allowing the people who live there an opportunity to come down and give their evidence on the points he has referred to.

He requires a lot of watching.

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely my argument. I will provide reasons why those people should be afforded the opportunity of giving evidence in connection with the allegations which the Minister has made. I say that these people should be afforded the opportunity of giving their reasons and of refuting the allegations made against them. One of the reasons which is advanced for the expropriation, is that there is soil erosion taking place on a large scale. The people must have the chance of refuting this, for the fact is that it is flat country, which is densely shrubbed with bush. The fact that from time to time there is no grass has nothing to do with erosion. You find that in whole portions of North Transvaal that from time to time there is no grass, but this part is dense with bush, and this the people will be able to prove before the Select Committee. They will be able to indicate that there is no danger of erosion, less danger than almost in any other portion of South Africa.

Keep to the amendment.

This is the amendment. They must be afforded the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee and refuting misrepresentations in connection with soil erosion and the like. Another reason which is advanced for the expropriation, is that the ground is so bad that the people cannot eke out an existence there. The Minister said by way of interruptions that the ground is not worth a shilling per morgen. These people must have the opportunity before the Select Committee of proving that it is definitely not the case. I asked the Mininister whether he would be prepared to sell State land there to me for 1s. per morgen. Then I would immediately say “Right oh!” No, the Minister’s allegation has not been proved. The people will be able to testify to the fact that ground in this area is sold for more than £1 per. morgen. I admit that there are dry farms which perhaps in some cases go for 4s. or 5s., but there are also parts which are worth more than £1 per morgen. The Minister has given land out in other parts of the country for 3s. 6d. per morgen. Then he should also go and expropriate that land. No, that is no reason for expropriating the land. The people will be able to prove that land situated along the river is worth £1 per morgen. The Minister wants to influence the Select Committee in advance by saying that the ground is not worth 1s. per morgen. This is what the people must refute. We must obtain particulars. The Minister says that there is no opportunity for irrigation in these parts. It is a very serious matter. The piece of ground which the Minister wants to expropriate, borders on the river—it is approximately 75 miles along the river—and the Minister says that there is no opportunity for irrigation. That ground along the Limpopo is of the most fertile in South Africa. That the farmers will be able to prove when they appear before the Select Committee. There are thousands of morgen which can be irrigated. The Minister and hon. members on the other side who know nothing of the matter say that any irrigation dam there would silt up within a few years. These people will be able to prove before the Select Committee that in those parts the Limpopo River brings very little sand down with it. You have only to stand on the Messina Bridge to see that the bed of the Limpopo is as hard as stone, there is no sand in it You can look from the Beit Bridge, there are no sand banks there, the river does not bring sand down with it. I know what the position is.

What has this to do with the amendment?

Is the hon. member’s brain not capable of assimilating that one of the reasons advanced as to why the ground is worthless, is that it cannot be irrigated? The people will be able to prove before the Select Committee that it is valuable ground which can be irrigated. In other words, as was intimated as by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), it is capable of producing foodstuffs on a large scale.

What has this to do with the amendment?

The people must be afforded the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee in order to prove their case. They can prove that it is a valuable area from a farming point of view, while the Minister wants to transform that valuable area into a game reserve.

It is a pretext to hold a discussion.

I do not have to teach the hon. member how to evade an issue. But I am not trying to evade the issue. I know these parts. The Limpopo River is also fed by various other rivers which do not come from the Union, but from Rhodesia and other parts.

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment. The hon. member is now expressing his own opinion, but the amendment is only to the effect that these persons should be afforded the opportunity of appearing.

I am endeavouring to draw the attention of the House to the necessity that these people should appear and prove their viewpoint. These are facts and reason which they will be able to put before the Select Committee. The farmers concerned in the matter would like to submit their case fully, and I am certain that persons on the Select Committee who are unbiased will never approve of the Bill after they have listened to the evidence. Now it will be said that they can come to give evidence at their own expense.

What do you expect?

Not necessarily.

I expect fairness and justice.

And the State must also pay their advocates?

Naturally, and the attorneys. They will not ask you.

The State is encroaching upon rights and the people must have the chance of defending themselves.

It is a hybrid Bill, they can come.

Now the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) is making out that it is an unheard of thing that the people’s expenses should be borne of coming to the Cape to defend themselves, where private rights are being encroached upon. It is not an unheard of thing. It has already occurred in the past, only in that case the people’s skin was black, but in this case it is white. If the skin is black, the hon. member for North East Rand is prepared to allow the people to come at Government expense. When a kaffir’s rights are encroached upon, the State can pay the expenses, but when it is a white man, he has to pay his own expenses.

They are rich people.

What is being done here, the differentiation which is being made between these poor people and the natives, is a far-reaching disgrace. For these reasons I want to support the amendment. There is yet another point which I want to touch upon. The people who have to give evidence before the Select Committee to protect their rights are not only the people who live on this piece of ground, or who possess a piece of ground there, but there are also others who are affected indirectly. This must now be transformed into a nature reserve. The people will be able to prove before a Select Committee that the bigger you make it, the more farmers roundabout who will be affected. Up to this stage Dongola was only a small area, and it bordered on the river. Round about people lived. In that way the reserve was a protection against wild beasts out of Bechuanaland and Rhodesia.

The hon. member is now going too far. He must confine himself to the amendment.

My argument is that the people will be able to prove how their rights, also as far as this is concerned, are being encroached upon, as well as the rights of people who live round the reserve, hundreds of farms round the reserve, for the bigger you make the reserve, the more people whose rights are being encroached upon. They will have to prove how they will be affected as regards wild beasts, etc. The farmers on the boundary will sustain damage and it must be proved before the Select Committee. Enable them to put their case in a fair manner before the Select Committee. For that reason I support the amendment.

I just want to say that I heartily support this amendment. I want to clarify that we on this side proposed that this Bill should be rejected, but if the proposal is dismissed and the second reading goes through, then we make the second-best proposal to get out of the difficulty namely to afford the people the opportunity of coming here and giving evidence before the Select Committee. There are many important reasons why it is necessary. The first is that the people have already come to see the Minister. They went at their own expense to Pretoria, but the Minister did not receive them. The Minister is busy depriving the people of their rights, but he refuses to see them. Parliament cannot leave matters there. We must ensure that right and justice prevail. Those people endeavoured to obviate travelling the whole distance to Cape Town, and that is why they went to Pretoria, but the Minister refused to see them, and they then came to Cape Town. Now it is only right that the State should pay the costs which the people have to incur in putting their case properly before the Select Committee. But there is another point. The hon. Minister has branded as liars some of the best burghers there. The people must have the opportunity of refuting this and proving that what they have said is the truth. It does not help to go and stand on a platform and say that the Minister was wrong. Take men like Maj. Hunt and Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Lombard, who is vice-chairman of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, those people have been branded by the Minister as liars. It would injure the honour of Parliament if we were to remain silent and not make a stand against it, and give the people the chance of refuting it. Therefore if the first proposal is not accepted and the Minister puts the Bill through, then we want to give the people the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee. I endorse every word spoken by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) as regards the situation of the ground and the trees and bush there. There are parts which can be properly irrigated. The Minister knows it himself. He spends vacations there and he knows that there are parts which are capable of being irrigated. Take the Dongola Sanctuary itself. There is a borehole and a dam.

Have you already been hunting there?

Naturally, I have never denied it. That is why the Minister would like to have it on account of it being such a fine holiday resort.

I have never shot an animal there.

But the Minister has given sundowner parties. I know what. I am talking about. I know the whole district there behind the mountains at Louis Trichardt right to the Limpopo. Boreholes can be sunk everywhere.

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment.

That is exactly what I am doing. I want to indicate that boreholes can be sunk there. The Minister said that it is a dry desert, and the people must be afforded the opportunity of indicating that it is not a dry desert. That something can be done there. That an existence can be made there. The people must have the opportunity of giving evidence before the Select Committee. Why the Minister refuses this request, I cannot fathom. He refused to see them, now they must have the chance of submitting their case. The people have already incurred the costs of coming here. To expect them for a third time to pay the expenses themselves is not human, it would be one of the most unfair things in the world. That is why we have such a strong case. Right and justice must prevail. And it is not a new precedent. The natives came at Government expense and if natives are permitted to come at Government expense to give evidence before a Select Committee in connection with a matter concerning them, then I say that where it affects Europeans, we cannot refuse it to them. Their property is being expropriated, they are practically being chased from the area which they have tamed, and that is why they must be afforded the fullest opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee and before this House. In addition, as I have said, it is necessary that people who belong to the best in the country, and who have been branded here as liars by the Minister, should have the opportunity of defending themselves. We simply cannot tolerate such a state of affairs. The Acting Prime Minister is not here, but I hope that he, as Minister of Finance, will see to it that the expenses incurred by these people in coming here are borne by the State. Let them come, together with their attorneys and advocates, to give evidence. I do not know whether it will help to make an appeal to the Minister. But I want to appeal to other members on the other side who have a sense of justice. No court would pronounce a sentence before a man has had a decent chance of appearing before it and being thoroughly interrogated, and until the man has submitted his case completely. That is the rule in the Supreme Court. Are we now, as a State going to expropriate a man without enabling him to defend himself? The State is encroaching upon the rights of these people, and the State ought to bear the costs of affording them the opportunity of appearing here. I appeal to members who have a sense of justice to support us. The natives were given the chance in 1936 of giving evidence at State expense and it is only right that these less privileged Europeans should also be afforded the opportunity.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has made an appeal that an opportunity should be given to those settlers to put their case before a Select Committee. I listened yesterday afternoon to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). It would be accepted if one did not know the rules of the House and did not know that opportunity would be given to settlers to put their case to the Select Committee, one would agree with what has been said by the hon. member.

It is not a law of the Medes and the Persians.

Let us examine this position to find out how far the plea they put forward on behalf of the settlers is really entitled to the support they gave it. They made a plea on behalf of these settlers and stated that they are not financially in a position to come before this Committee to give evidence. What I would like to know is where all those funds came from which enabled the propaganda which has been created in connection with this Bill, the organising of the Opposition to this Bill, and I would like to ask the hon. members where that sum of £1,000 which was mentioned as having been collected to fight this Bill, came from?

If they took your properties away from you, would you not collect money to opposê it?

The plea put forward says that those people are too poor to put their case before this House. There is no question of these particular settlers not being permitted to come to the House.

But the Minister would not see them.

And even if that is so, they would have an opportunity of coming to a Select Committee of this House, and putting their case, and if they convinced the Select Committee that their case is sound, they could knock out this Bill. But I want to point out another thing, namely that in that area for which members opposite are pleading, there are three of the wealthiest men in the country, one living in Johannesburg, one in Pretoria and one in Messina;

And what about the rest of them?

Where you have people who have the means, the opportunities and the facilities to state their case, they will have an opportunity to state their case in the Select Committee, so how can hon. members opposite say that they will be treated unfairly? After all, I do not wish to go into the question of the merits of this particular Bill.

There are no merits in the case.

When I first read the case put forward by the representatives of these settlers, when I read the memoranda and data which were supplied to every member of this House, I felt at once that they had a case which had to be answered. One felt that there was a certain — I was going to say—injustice which was being inflicted on the settlers. But that was before we had an opportunity of hearing the other side of the case. I will say this, that I personally was quite unbiased. I have been up country, I do not know the country there in the sense that one knows one’s own property, but one does know that that particular section of the Transvaal certainly is not one of the most fertile areas and it certainly is not one where one would wish one’s friends to settle.

Some of them have to settle there.

Have you been there?

Yes, and I have walked about there which is more than most other hon. members have done.

Do you consider this Bill necessary?

But that does not give one the necessary knowledge of the area, and I do not claim, that particular knowledge. I say in respect of this Bill when it was put forward by the Minister and when the case was put forward by what I might call the opponents of the Bill, it looked as if a case had been made out. But I venture to say after the impartial and accurate information …

How do you know it is accurate?

It is accurate; we can obtain information from many sources. When that case was put forward I felt at once a very proper case had been made out for this particular Bill. But I go further. When I hear that this land is very valuable for settlers I may mention that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) did not hold that opinion when he was Minister of Lands, and when he added farms to this area that was considered a botanical reserve. He never had any settlers there. He called it a botanical reserve.

I increased it by one farm.

Yes, the hon. member tried to induce his colleague, the Minister of Lands, Mr. Grobler, to add some other farms and he would not do that. The hon. member must not talk as if he is the only one who stands up for the rights of these settlers. What was the object of establishing farms in that particular area? Was not the idea to establish shooting boxes for certain hon. members — not necessarily hon. members in this House, but persons who were interested and had the means to buy these farms; and there never was any idea put forward that as a settlement it would have any value.

It was before my time, before I was Minister.

What happened here was what happened when many other mistakes were made. The settlers were put in a hope less position. There is one area of that sort in Natal, where the position is quite hopeless.

You do not know anything about settlers; you may know something about a store.

Hon. members opposite are fighting not on behalf of a dozen poor settlers, but for the wealthy people who own farms around Pretoria.

You have not got the evidence.

When the Select Committee sits they will get the evidence, and hon. members opposite will be very sorry then.

You may be right, but how do we know?

I shall deal with the point. Hon. members claim that they have not been given the opportunity to know the facts. What is the position They know perfectly well, or they should know, what is the position in regard to a Bill of this nature. The hon. Minister has stated what the position is. If you go back into the history of hybrid Bills, there was a time when there was no opportunity for witnesses to attend and give evidence on these particular Bills. But Parliament, recognising the necessity where private interests were involved in what was a public Bill, made special provision in the rules for sending that Bill to a Select Committee and having the matter investigated; and in that Select Committee the preamble of the Bill had to be proved to the satisfaction of the Select Committee.

You have already given judgment, yet you are going to be judges. I did not know you were as stupid as that.

Hon. members are always claiming they want certain rights, and when one puts to them the ordinary Parliamentary procedure they say you are pre-judging the case. What about the attitude of hon. members opposite?

They had a caucus about it.

They have been prejudicing the case in the last two days. Have not they been supporting the people in that particular area?

You said you were against them.

I did not say I was against them. I said that the preliminary reports led one to think something ought to be done. We are rather in the position of a judge and jury. When the case for the prosecution is put forward hon. members may believe the man is guilty, but when the defence is put forward they will find he is innocent. Are you going to condemn anyone here without a full review of the circumstances which may lead to support being given to the measure? In regard to this particular Bill hon. members opposite know there will be an opportunity for these witnesses to attend; hon. members would be well advised to recommend some of these people to pay out some of the £1,000 that has been collected for fighting this Bill to assist some of the parties to come down. Apart from that aspect the position is if the Select Committee considers it necessary in the interests of the settlers themselves, the committee can subpoena witnesses to come down and pay their expenses.

Do you admit that after the second reading is passed the principle of the Bill is adopted?

Under the rules in the case of a hybrid Bill like this if the preamble is not proved before the Select Committee, the Bill can be thrown out after the second reading. The rule is 183—

Here is the opportunity if a grave injustice is being done to these settlers, to have the Bill thrown out. I submit that the opposition that has been raised to this Bill is entirely wrong. It is based on an entirely wrong perspective of what is going to be the effect of the Bill; and when I listened yesterday to the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) bringing up the question of the food position and saying the country was going to be impoverished because we will not be able to get any food grown in that area, when for the last few years we have been sending food into the area—

That is not correct.

On certain of these farms in the area they have been getting food, but in this desert part they cannot grow food. Yet it is stated in this pamphlet that on the banks of the Limpopo the land is so valuable so fertile, that you can graze some 30,000 head of cattle and that you can introduce an irrigation scheme there which will people the whole of the Northern Transvaal. Where do they support that? Does the hon. member for Walmaransstad support that?

What is that?

The hon. member is not listening. Of course he will not support it;

because he knows that in his time farming was an entirely impracticable proposition there. Hon. members opposite know that under the rules of the House every opportunity will be given to every witness that desires to give evidence, and I am perfectly certain that the interests of the settlers in this Bill will be very well looked after by the Select Committee and not by the big financial interests who are behind the Opposition in fighting this Bill.

I am not speaking because I know much about the Bill, but I only want to say that if we persevere in aiming at preserving democratic rights we should take all the steps we can to accord the persons concerned an opportunity to appear before a Select Committee, but owing to the circumstances that have now arisen from this matter it is necessary not only should they appear but that the Minister and the Government that has forced this matter on them should give them an opportunity to appear here at the expense of the State. If we fail to do this the greatest discontent must arise and the greatest discontent will remain if this is pushed through without giving these people the fullest opportunity. It does not appear to me to be an impossible matter. I think if the Minister will accept the amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee and that the persons concerned will be assisted to appear here, it will facilitate matters a great deal. I believe that up to the present they have not had the opportunity to put their case. The Minister has refused to see them. They may have furnished memoranda, but in any case we know that amongst these people themselves there is a great measure of dissatisfaction. As I have already said, I am unable to form an opinion on the merits of the case not merely because I was not there, because apparently the Minister was there and he was there together with many others who were interested.

But he did not use his eyes when he was there; he looked through the eyes of Dr. Pole Evans.

I do not know about that, but the position is that the parties whose interests are so intimately involved in this matter must be given a chance at the public expense to put their case before the Select Committee, and I fail to see how the Minister can refuse this. It appears to me to be a reasonable request in the interests of the people affected and in the interests of right and justice. Now I hope that the Minister will accept this so that these people will have that opportunity to appear here and to plead their cause. I can only say this, that the opinions that have been expressed on the two sides of the House have been very divergent, and naturally I have far more faith in the opinions that have been voiced on this side, and I think for very good reason; out I therefore ask the Minister to promise to give the aggrieved parties an opportunity to come here, and to pay their expenses so that they can appear here and so that we shall not in every subsequent year have to make an attack in the interests of these people, and have to come and beg and pray that justice should be done towards them.

The arguments of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) remind me forcibly of an argument that was frequently used at the time of the liberation of the slaves, “You are being compensated and you can come and get your money, but you must come and get it in London.” The standpoint that the Government takes up in connection with this matter this morning throws really a gloomy shadow over the fine principles of democracy. The standpoint the Government adopts in refusing to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) is nothing less than an unconscionable violation of the principles of honesty and justice, the Christian principles of justice. It is a violation of the elementary principles of the rights of the individual in the country. I make bold to say that there are few governments in the world that would have revealed this sort of spirit that this Government has revealed in connection with this matter. These are the sort of principles of justice and the sort of principles of honesty which you could only find in South Africa under two governments, and these are the governments of Chaka and Dingaan, not even in the governments of any other native chief.

And Gen. Smuts was Chaka.

The Minister has told the House how poor the people are and how they cannot even afford to pay the money, and as a matter of fact in the same breath he said that they were wealthy enough to come down here and to plead their case. What sort of logic are we getting in this debate? I have never in my life even in a debating society, heard the rules of logic being so strained as has happened with the Minister in the last few days.

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment.

I maintain that these people must bring the proofs that what they say is really justified. I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has stated here. I have been through those areas. Those people can bring the proofs here, and it is necessary that they should be accorded the opportunity to place the matter before the Select Committee at the expense of the State to show that the position is as this side of the House has described it, and not as the Minister has described it. There is the question of subterranean water. These people can bring proofs to the Committee that there are possibilities for underground water. I want first to say this, that if the State proceeded today to expropriate the water at Hutchinson in the interests of the State it would not be a greater crime than what the Government is committing in respect of this group of people.

Order, order. The hon. member is again going into the merits of the Bill. He must confine himself to the reasons for the amendment.

There is the question of underground water. These people must be given an opportunity to bring these proofs that there are possibilities in regard to underground water. There is the assertion on the part of the Minister that it is a potential area for proper plant growth. Those people must be given an opportunity at Government expense, to show that the vegetation is of such a character as not to justify the creation of a reserve. An opportunity should be given to the people affected to produce evidence before the Select Committee that in respect of the game as well, this course is not justified. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has in the course of the debate been responsible for many interruptions—he who always assumes the rôle of the champion of the underdog, as he describes it. He should be the last person to deny them the right to put their case. There is a possibility, I admit, of making a success of that reserve, but it is only a possibility and it lies in sending the hon. member for Hospital there; then there may be some prospect of making a flourishing “brommer” park there.

I am not going to talk on the merits of the Bill because I have no knowledge of this particular country. I have been there twice, but to speak on whether it is a good country for farming, one would have to be an expert.

And you know nothing about it.

I have probably produced more out of the land in my time than the majority of members on the other side, and I have been a bigger farmer than members on the other side. I probably have. If they like to discuss the matter outside I will prove it to them, but I shall not discuss it here. I would not give an opinion on this Bill; I am here as a judge, as a member of Parliament. I am not going to say the members on the other side are wrong, for one moment, because I cannot prove they are wrong. I have only been through that country twice. I know it is a good shooting box for the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who used to go with his friend Klasie Havenga. I know it is a good shooting box for others. I know that in those days they used to complain bitterly to their friends that the game was being shot down by biltong farmers. But that does not prove to me the land is valuable, because the same things that are being said today about this land was said about the Kruger Park when it was made a reserve.

I did not hold drunken parties there.

Nor sundowner parties.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has just said by way of interjection “I have never held drunken parties there”, and at the same time he speaks of sundowner parties there. He refers to me and I ask for your protection.

I do not take the slightest notice of that, and I dot not want any protection, because the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and I have known each other for 50 years and those sort of things leave me cold. Hon. members do not mean them, and so they mean nothing. I was saying that when the Kruger National Park was started we heard the same kind of talk as we are hearing now about Dongola. You will find that if you read Hamilton’s book. Yet the Kruger National Park turned out to be a success. At that time people said there would be so many lions in the park that the stock on the surrounding farms would all be destroyed. For nearly two years the “Farmers’ Weekly” used to print articles on exactly the same lines that have been followed by my hon. friend today, that if this were made a national park all these various things would happen. By the way, the Kruger National Park was not started by Mr. Grobler or by Col. Deneys Reitz. It was there before the South African War, and after that war it was a small reserve. A very strong case has been put forward by hon. members on the other side, or rather by the people who are behind them. Documentary evidence has been submitted and we cannot put it lightly to one side and say it is untrue. We have to meet it. This is a hybrid Bill. It was so ruled by Mr. Speaker. What does it set out to do—

“In the national interest” is a very wide term and it means that we in South Africa have to decide, yes or no, whether we have to give that amount of land for the purpose of a nature sanctuary. But when they bring a Bill like that before me and you, Sir, rule that it is a hybrid Bill, I as an old Parliamentarian ask why I should discuss the matter at all? I go back to our bible and I read in Clause 182—

In view of the Standing Orders why do my hon. friends take up all the time pressing this point when the fact is that this procedure they are demanding has got to be followed? It has to be done under the laws of this House. So why take up the time of the House for two days and keep on reiterating that this Bill must go to a Select Committee? The Standing Orders adds this—

We did not say it must go to a Select Committee after the second reading. You are an insulting fool.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to refer to another hon. member as an insulting fool?

The hon. member would be well advised to withdraw it.

I withdraw.

Why does the hon. member get up to protect me? What on earth does it matter if the hon. member calls me an insulting fool? What difference does it make to me or to the Bill?

The difference it makes is that it is a reflection on Parliament.

I was coming to that. It lowers the dignity of the House. It is a reflection on Parliament. I was just going to say that. The hon. member is a young member and his friends in his constituency will turn round and say: He wins his seat, he is a young man, but he has no manners.

Order, order. Will the hon. member come back to the Bill.

When this Bill has gone before the Select Committee and the Select Committee has reported on it, as my hon. friend has asked, what happens then? Well, if the Select Committee says that the preamble has not been proved, that this is in the interests of the nation, then the Select Committee by a majority of two-thirds of its members may make the Government pay full damages. That is laid down in page 69 of the Standing Orders; here it is. We have only these two books. Both of them lay down what my hon. friends are asking for. Why are they wasting the time of the nation? I will tell you why. Because none of these men who have been sitting in this House for so many years have ever taken the trouble to learn what Parliament is doing; they fritter away their time with interjections across the floor of the House and they have never learned to become Parliamentarians.

Half of them wanted to do away with Parliament a little while ago.

Let my friends go to the country and say that what I have told them is correct. Let them look up page 75 of Volume 1 of the Standing Orders and page 69 of Volume 2 dealing with private Bills, and they will find on those pages a complete answer to their amendment.

We have now wasted nearly three days on this Bill. Why has the Bill been brought before the House at all this Session. Do you not consider we are faced with more serious problems calling for a solution? We say that the war is virtually at an end. Peace may come tomorrow. There are big problems that require the sound judgment of every member in this House to ensure a success being made of the peace, and while all these things are pending, while all this urgent work awaits the House, the Minister comes with a Bill that is unwanted—that is quite clear to me. If hon. members opposite are absolutely honest they will admit that they are not in favour of the Bill and we are decidedly against it. We have argued on both sides and now we have come to the third day, and we are just where we started. What now? It costs thousands of pounds every day, and that is being wasted by this House. The hon. member who has now resumed his seat read out to us the procedure, what we may refer to a Select Committee and what we may not refer. This Bill is going before it. The argument has been adduced that the members who will serve on the Select Committee have already expressed their views in favour of the Bill, and how can they now go and function as judges and say: Look, we are now going to switch and we are no longer in favour of the Bill. My point is that this Bill has been inopportunely introduced into this. House. It was positively unnecessary to bring along such a Bill to create the muddle in which we are today. The clock does not stop; we do not know how things are going to develop, and we do not know what confusion may not accompany the peace, and it is at such a time that the Minister chooses to waste the valuable time of this House that we need in order to find a solution of all the difficult and unsolved problems which now confront ut. The people have sent us here as responsible individuals, and here we are sitting in a childish way and letting ourselves go, and is it worth while over a measure such as this? My simple view is this, that we should cherish the interests of the nation here, and that is moreover what the general public expects of us. Someone observed yesterday to me that Parliament has apparently plenty of time, because it has now been engaged three days on this Bill. It appears to the public as if we have no other work. The Minister should remember that we all make mistakes. No one is perfect, and if the Minister makes a mistake and he sees that the time of the House is being frittered away with this Bill, he should drop it because he himself knows that it is not an important matter in respect of which there is any urgency, I have felt that it was childish to come along with this Bill, and I did not want even to talk about it, but the Minister has now seen himself the extent of the opposition to it, and he also sees for himself that his own supporters are only half-heartedly in favour of the Bill. We know people and we can tell whether they are half-hearted or not. We have seen that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) was not absolutely convinced. He spoke here, but he did not carry conviction; he was not certain that the thing is right. I have spoken to a returned officer who is acquainted with that neighbourhood, and he told me that they are going to fight this Bill as long as they can and to the end.

I know his name.

The Minister may know his name but I am not going to mention his name. I have never mentioned an official’s name or the name of any person who cannot defend himself here, and I will not do it now. This officer said that to me. I do not know him, but he has taken part in the war and filled an important rôle. The Minister of Lands probably knows him better than I do. He stated that they were going to fight the Bill, “fight it to a stand-sill”. But this is a man who has taken part in the war, and he would not just talk. I do not want to detain the House longer, but I should like to say this to the Minister. He must take into account the organised farmers. We have our agricultural organisations, and I and all members are champions of them. I know that the Minister of Lands is also a champion of organisation. When we come to a Minister with a matter the first thing he asks us is who are behind us, and if we can say that the organised farmers and the Agricultural Union are behind us we have a strong case, and we are listened to. I have spoken to a member of the executive committee of the Transvaal Agricultural Union and I want to tell the Minister that he must take notice of organised farmers. I have also gone to those parts. I have also shot buck there. I have experience of Bechuanaland and Central Africa, and I know that in that flat bush counutry where there is a hillock here and there there is not such a great danger of erosion. I am in favour of combating soil erosion. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has told us what has happened in the Transkei, but conditions there are entirely different. There in the north we have a dry climate and the ground has a covering of bush and trees, and to my mind the argument about erosion falls away. I maintain further that there is also opposition by the supporters of the Government. Many of them doubt whether they want it, or they do not want it. Why then does the Minister proceed with the Bill on which so great a measure of dissatisfaction exists? I think the Minister should now realise that he has put his head into a hornet’s nest, and the best thing for him is to admit that he did not know that the Bill would evoke such strong opposition. He can rise and say that he thought that this bit of legislation would slip through quietly like a jackal through the bush. Whether it is right or whether it is wrong it has awakened strong opposition. The Minister must see with what terrible opposition he has to deal, and because his own people are not convinced that this is the right thing he ought to realise that enough time has now been wasted on this measure. He ought to let the measure stand over until after the war, and then we shall be able to consider it calmly after a thorough enquiry has been made. All the trivialties that has occupied us over this Bill are unnecessary in these times. I think the Minister of Lands must realise that he has to deal with a prodigious opposition, that he has caused bad blood, and it is time for him to say that he will not proceed further with the Bill but that he will defer it. Then he will be doing some good and we can go on smoothly with the other business of the House, business that is in the interests of the people of our country. We want to support the big demobilisation scheme, although we have not been invited to serve on the committees. We have given our word to the returned soldiers that we will treat them fairly, and we are going to do it. With these few words I hope that the Minister will give heed to our request to restore the tranquility of the House so that we can proceed with our other business. On the merits of the case it appears to me that it is a Bill that no one really wants, and the sooner we drop it, the sooner the Minister withdraws it, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

Before I turn to the Bill I hope that you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to say something to this House as a young member. I have remarked that in this House advice is given by older members particularly to the younger members in this House. One of the members who is very fond of doing this is the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and then he is the first to stand up and make observations about members on this side. He first of all tells us how long he has been in the House; out in the Lobby he tells us all that he has done for the people and how much he means to South Africa. Then he stands up here and tells us that we must follow his example and that we must not take any notice of remarks that are made in the House. If there is one person in this House who is absolutely insulting in his observations it is the hon. member for Hospital. If a member puts a decent question to him he gets in return the most offensive and insulting answer that can be used in this House.

The hon. member may not say that one hon. member uses insulting remarks towards another hon. member, because the Chair does not allow that.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you want to uphold right and justice, and perhaps I should say that the hon. member for Hospital makes very offensive observations. If he wants to be an example to the young members today then I only want to say that today there is a much better class of young member in the House than could have come into the House at that time, or that the young members of that time must have been a very sorry lot. If the hon. member wants us to respect him then he ought to respect us, as we ought to be respected as representatives of constituencies. Now I am glad that I can return to the Bill. I am very glad that I can address the Minister today and that I did not have to do it yesterday. Yesterday he was very cross. He would not listen to reason, but today I see that he is smiling, and therefore I shall try to drive home my arguments as quickly as possible— while the smile lasts.

You will have to be very quick, or he will be cross again.

I will begin by saying that personally I know nothing about that area. I have never been there; I have never hunted there, and I have never drunk a cocktail in that neighbourhood.

And you are always talking about things you know nothing about.

I shall say in a moment why I am talking about this Bill, but I only want to say this, that if I want to go hunting or if I want to enjoy a cocktail out amongst nature then I should certainly not go to a place such as that described by the Miinster of Lands. One would then go to a pleasant place, and not to such an unpleasant place. The Minister has told us that the information that has been presented to us is a misrepresentation and that it is all untrue. He has told us that these people have been guilty of falsehoods. The Minister then put his side of the case. I will not go as far as he and say that he has spoken an untruth, and that he has wrongly represented everything, but I want to tell the Minister this, that the first mistake that he made was in not giving a hearing to these people when they came to him. What was the Minister’s reply when they came to him with this request? I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong, but his reply was that they could not be given an interview because nothing had happened in connection with the case as yet.

I gave an explanation.

The Minister is now giving an evasive reply. I have before me the brochure that was published.

It is your Bible.

Let us assume that it is propaganda that has been published. Let the Minister describe it as he pleases— it is a Bible that the Minister will find it difficult to get past. This document had already been circulated when these people wanted to see the Minister, and consequently they must have heard about this plan of the Minister’s. I think the reason why the Minister would not see these people was again simply that he was rather cross. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has stated here that the Government ought to pay these people, that is that he should reimburse them their expenses should they come here to give evidence before the Select Committee. One can understand the position of these people. When they hear that the Government wants to take their farms they will collect thousands of pounds to try to retain them. But it is unfair to cause this expense to them. I shall cite instances where the costs of witnesses who have come here have been paid, witnesses that have not been invited by the Government. I want to read from Hansard, Volume 3, column 1423. I shall read out the quotation correctly, and not as the hon. member for Hospital reads out quotations.

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

I wish to continue by removing a wrong impression that many hon. members on the other side appear to have. Many hon. members do not appear to be aware of what the motion of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) really is. They mention that he wants a Select Committee to be appointed and that the people should go to it. That is not what the hon. member for Boshof has proposed. He has proposed that the expenses in connection with the evidence that will be given should be paid by the Government.

That is a matter for the Select Committee to decide.

No, we prefer this House should make certain of it. You will get more evidence if you let these people know beforehand that their expenses will be paid. I should like to ask the Minister to tell us by way of interjection whether the people are rich or poor. Yesterday he described them as poor, and today as rich. He said yesterday that they were so poor that they could not make a living, but today he says that they are rich. We want to know whether they are rich or poor.

I shall reply in my speech.

Perhaps they are both, rich and poor. In any case they are being deprived of rights, and the hon. member for Boshof asks that any expense that they are put to should be repaid. The hon. member for Waterberg referred to a previous occasion when this was done, but I should like to furnish the proof; otherwise it may be stated that we did not prove it. I want to refer to a question that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) put to the then Prime Minister in 1936. It is in Hansard of 17th March, 1936, column 1395—

The Minister of Native Affairs replied to that—

Then the hon. member for Moorreesburg asked a further question—

The answer was—

The following question was—

And the answer was—

Then there was the further question—

The answer was—

Here we have a precedent where the expenses of individuals were paid by the State. I want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment. If I know that he will accept it I shall immediately sit down. Perhaps he will indicate by nodding his head, yes or no. The Minister does not reply. Then we shall have to furnish him with further good reasons to convince him. He is rather friendly after lunch, and we shall now have to continue with our arguments. I have already said that I have never been in that vicinity, that I have never been there at all. I do not know whether the position is as the Minister states, or as the Minister stated there. But I am not the only person here in the House who knows nothing about the area. Unfortunately, however, we are the people who have to give a decision on what we have heard. We have before us the Bible, as the Minister has called it, and we haye heard what the Minister has stated, and I think any impartial person who has heard what has been stated here will be more confused even than before. We accept that the Minister has endeavoured to present his case as strongly as possible in order to get the Bill through. He would not use any poor arguments. The other side will also have presented their case as well as they could. We have heard both sides. Now hon. members say that a Select Committee should be appointed, and that evidence should be led before it. What is the procedure under the Standing Orders in connection with such a Bill? We want to escape from that difficulty so that the people will be in a position to come here. We have now to vote about a piece of land regarding which we know nothing. The two sides have been given, but we do not know where the right lies. Will you allow me to read an extract from page 7 of this document showing what the people themselves think of the land.

There are two documents—the one is the protest.

I am now reading from “Homesteads or wild animals”. I should like hon. members to listen to this—

Will you give me the name of the person? Is he by any chance one of Mr. Emery’s recruiting agents?

I do not know. I hope that the Minister will remember what he asked me here. He does not know and I do not know either. It is that I should make a proposition which will put us both in the position to find out. I shall now read out in connection with Farm X.—

Has that quotation not already been read out to the House?

No, Mr. Speaker. I have noted what has already been read out.

Give us the name.

We do not know and the Minister also does not know, consequently we want the Minister to institute a proper enquiry and presently, as I have stated, I shall propose an amendment which will put us in a position to receive an answer to all those questions that were put by us and those which were put by the Minister. We must take into consideration that these people have not communicated these things to us as so much loose talk. They are in a written document, and I do not think that any unprejudiced member of this House will say that people simply put false statements in writing and submit them to this House.

But where are those farms?

I want to know that, and the hon. member also wants to know that; and if the Minister accepts my motion that I am going to make in a moment, we shall find out where the farms are and what the truth is in this connection. I do not want to detain the House long with quotations, but I should like to read out a further quotation that appears on page 11 in connection with those parts—

The “Zoutpansberg Review” reported—

But do these products come from that area?

Reference is made here to the whole area and to the land that falls in the reserve.

As far as citrus is concerned I am not prepared to believe them.

They have not spoken about lemons. But I believe that there must be at least something in this. Now I want to bring the Minister of Lands back to his own speech. The Minister says that all these documents that have been sent to us are pure propaganda. Let us assume it is propaganda. But it is in black and white. Here we have data in connection with this agricultural show and what is to be found on these farms, and we cannot assume that these people would give a misleading misrepresentation of everything in black and white to this House. Accordingly, I shall presently move an amendment. It will now be said that the Minister is prepared to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee after the second reading. We know that once the second reading of the Bill has been passed the principle of the Bill is adopted according to the rules of this House, and neither the Select Committee nor this House may accept an alteration that affects the principle of the Bill. That principle has to stand. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) tried to side step that. He stated what a Select Committee can do and he added to that that the Minister even after the Select Committee could have abandoned the Bill. Well, we know that the Minister can drop the Bill at any time. But now I want to know from the hon. member whether it has ever happened in practice that a Bill has been dropped after it has gone before the select committee. In theory that can happen, but in practice it does not happen. I have enquired from the older members, and they have told me that it has never happened. Accordingly, I should like to move my amendment, and I honestly hope that the Minister, will not make a Party matter of this, but that he will adjudge it impartially and that he will realise that this is the only way for us to really gain complete information in connection with this matter. We should like to discover what is behind this matter and what the position is in reference to these farms. I hope that the Minister will regard the amendment in the spirit in which I am proposing it, and that he will accept it in that spirit. Today we dot not know in how far the statement of the Minister is correct, and in how far the statements of the farmers’ associations and of these people are correct, and accordingly we should like to have an investigation by an impartial commission of enquiry. I therefore move—

If we accept that motion we shall escape certain difficulties that will be created should we first pass the second reading of this Bill, and then refer it to a Select Committee. We avoid the difficulties that are necessarily created by the rules of this House as well as the difficulties connected with the expense that will be incurred by these people who come down here. The commission can go up there and make their investigation on the spot. I can give the Minister the assurance if he will accept this amendment he will also be complying with the wishes of those people. He does not know the people in that area, but it appears to me that the statement of the people in those areas cannot be so erroneous as the Minister has suggested here. What is more, their statements cannot be all wrong if they are agreeable to the appointment of a commission of enquiry to investigate the whole matter. We certainly cannot regard these documents as mendacious propaganda if those people ask that a commission of enquiry should be appointed. In this connection I should like to refer the Minister to the fact that the people themselves ask for such a commission en enquiry. I have here another document, a protest from the farmers’ association and we find that it is described as follows—

With all respect for the standing orders of this House and for the members who sit on the opposite benches, we cannot escape from the fact that members on the other side have already formed a judgment on this matter. They have already arrived at the conclusion that this Bill of the Minister’s is a good one, and if a Select Committee is appointed after the second reading it simply means that the Minister will place a majority of members on the other side on the Select Committee. That majority of the Minister’s will then report in favour of the Bill and the minority will possibly produce a minority report.

That is very unfair.

That is not unfair.

You are now already saying in anticipation what the result will be.

I want to ask the Minister to remain calm and sympathetic. He has years of experience of Parliament, and can he mention to me one instance where the government of the day has not had a majority on a Select Committee.

Has any government ever placed a minority on a Select Committee.

No, of course not, nor do we expect it. That is just my whole point, and I want to ask the Minister of Lands further, with his long experience of Parliament, whether such a government majority on a Select Committee has ever brought out a report adverse to the Government.

I cannot recall that.

Yes.

The one says he cannot remember and the other one says yes. It is a yes that means no. The Minister now agrees on the Select Committee. I do not think he can get away from my argument that the members he is going to appoint on that Select Committee are going to be prejudiced: It will be very difficult for those people to be convinced that they adjudged wrongly of the matter in this House. We know that these members opposite often agree with us, but we do not get them to the pitch of crossing the floor of the House when it comes to a vote. That is too difficult for them. But if a commission of enquiry is appointed as I have proposed here, then a thorough enquiry can be instituted on the spot. It will be an unbiassed commission and we shall then know where we stand when the findings of such a commission are published. I want to read out what this request is to which I have referred—

1. (a) Making an enquiry into his livestock, land and garden activities and the measure of his success as a farmer compared with the success of similar farmers in other parts of the Union.
2. (b) To make a return of the production of beef and mutton, dairy and other products.
3. (c) To determine the present and future value of the abovesaid, territory to the inhabitants of the Union of South Africa should such territory be retained for agriculture (including the big irrigation possibilities) and for mining, compared with the value of the territory should it be converted into a nature sanctuary whereby it would be excluded for all time from all agricultural and mining developments.

The Minister has stated that people cannot make a living there. Let us then have such a commission to see whether the people can make a living there. The Minister has used many hard words, much hard language over this area, and I think that in the circumstances we must pay heed to the request of these people that an impartial commission should be appointed. I shall not detain the House much longer as my time is almost up, but before I close I want to make another appeal to the Minister. Yesterday the air was rather clouded. The ship was on a somewhat stormy sea, and perhaps that is the reason, but I think that the Minister must admit that he was rather hard towards these people, that he was quite unfair towards these people who according to him, sent him propaganda pamphlets. He intimated here that these people were not telling the truth. I leave that there, but the Minister has wittingly or unwittingly given the impression here that these people who drew up this propaganda, as it is called, cannot really be reliable people, that they are not people who really engage in farming themselves, and that they are directly interested in the matter. I therefore consider that in the circumstances it would be advisable to communicate to this House who these people really are who signed this document. The document is subscribed that it has been published by the Dongola Committee that was appointed by the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union. Then comes the list of persons who signed it. The first is Mr. S. J. Lombard, chairman of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union; C. Chamberlain, secretary of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union; Q. D. Campbell, chairman of the Messina Farmers’ Union and representing the employers of the Messina Mine; A. B. Emery, chairman of the Messina Development Company Ltd., and B. H. Ryder, Life Vice-President of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union. I will not say much about these people, but. I think members will admit they are people of a responsible type and that they would not send in information that is simply a tissue of lies. But I shall pass on to deal with the protest of the farmers’ associations and the resolution that they adopted. I shall not go into the reasons. It states that the subjoined resolutions were unanimously adopted at a well-attended special meeting held by the Dorsland Farmers’ Association on the 29th September, 1944, at Messina. They then give no fewer than 17 reasons why the following resolution was taken. The resolution reads—

They then mention a whole series of considerations that I do not need to read out now. I finally want to make an appeal to the Minister, and I hope that he will not take it up wrongly. He may have the best intentions in taking people away from their homes. The Minister may think that it is the best for the nation and will eventually be the best for these people, but from the viewpoint of these people who are turned out of their homes it is a very serious matter. These are people who have made a living there, and now the Minister comes and with an Act passed by this House he will compel them to abandon those homes and that land. He must realise that it is a serious matter for them. I have no personal interest in them. I do not know one of the names on the list. But I want to ask the Minister for the sake of right and justice to give effect to this request that these people have sent him and to accept the amendment that I here propose. It does not signify that this Bill has come to grief. If this impartial commission reports in favour of the Minister and in favour of the Bill then I promise the Minister that I shall be man enough to admit I was wrong, and I shall be prepared to support the Bill. But should it appear that the Minister was wrong, then I hope that he also will be big enough and gentleman enough as a responsible Minister of the people of South Africa, to accept the recommendations of this impartial commission. This side of the House feels very strongly on this Bill. We think that the Minister is acting wrongly. We feel that an injustice is being perpetrated on these people, and whether they are rich or poor makes no difference. And as we feel that an injustice is being done to them, we think that before this step is taken they should be given an opportunity to submit their case before an impartial commission. I hope that I have spoken to the Minister in a nice spirit, and that he will accept my amendment in a nice spirit and that he will judge the amendment in a calm and fair manner as behoves a Minister of the Union of South Africa.

I second. I want to participate in this debate as a representative from the Free State who listened not only with interest but with anxiety to all the arguments and considerations used in connection with this Bill. I sat here as an impartial person. From the moment the Bill was introduced I listened to all the reasons mentioned for the necessity of this Bill and also to the arguments used by members on this side who were opposed to the Bill; I also paid attention to all the documents quoted here by interested parties and other persons in connection with the Bill. After all this I want to say immediately that I do not rise here to speak on behalf of the Party on this side of the House. I want to give the Minister and members opposite the assurance that the point of view adopted by members up to this stage and which I am now going to adopt is not motivated by Party considerations. I do not speak on behalf of our Party. Our Caucus did not discuss this matter. We speak in an impartial spirit, and in that spirit I also want to approach this matter this afternoon. It is necessary that we, before coming to a decision on this measure which is now being discussed for the third day in succession, should closely investigate and consider what the reasons are which drive the Minister to submit this Bill; and we can only discover the background by listening to the reasons mentioned by the Minister here as to why he considers this Bill necessary and essential. The ground has been covered over and over, but still I should like here and there to point to the basic reasons mentioned by the Minister for introducing the Bill. He says that the Bill is a measure which is in the national interest. The Minister clearly stated that he introduces the Bill in the national interest. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) also said this morning that it was in the national interest, and the Minister stated in the Bill itself that it is being submitted in the national interest.

I said that it is stated in the Bill.

If it is stated in the Bill then the Minister regards it as such, and the hon. member for Hospital supports the Government in all measures emanating from the Government. When he is outside he barks, but when he is in the House he is on a leash. I say that we should listen to the arguments of the Minister. In the first place he says that it is in the national interest. I now ask the Minister whether he will tell this House and the country that a need exists in South Africa for the further expansion of our game reserves? Is there honestly in our case a need for game reserves and for extending game reserves? We have some of the most beautiful game reserves to be seen in the world. They compare favourably with the best in the world, and if we now accept a Bill of this nature in the national interest, there must be a need for the expansion of game reserves or for the creation of new game reserves. Can the Minister honestly tell us that there is a need of this and that he regards it in the national interest, therefore, to create another game reserve? Can he tell us whether there is such a need? No, he does not say so because in his heart he knows quite well that no such need exists. He cannot bring that argument; he cannot tell us here that a Bill of this nature is introduced in the national interest. But let us now come to the further argument of the Minister as to why this Bill should be passed, without again covering the same ground which has already been covered. Inter alia he said that it is in the national interest to turn this area into a game reserve in order to prevent erosion there. That was one of his reasons. Another was to protect the flora there. Another reason mentioned by him is to protect the fauna. Those are the three reasons I noted on paper as having been mentioned by him. That is what the Minister said in one breath, but what did he also say in practically the same breath? He described that area which he wants to expropriate and turn into a reserve—I just want to mention how the Minister described it, without going into details—as a dry and arid area. He said that there was no water and that for three consecutive years it had not rained.

No, I did not say that.

The Minister did say that it had not rained for three years.

No, I said that at one place, Kremetartsfontein it had not rained for three years.

Part of the area is such a desert that it has not had rain for three years. If part of the area has received no rain for three years, I now want to ask whether it is in the national interest to introduce a Bill to protect that area against erosion, to protect the fauna and flora there? Is there still game in such an area; can there still be game if it is such an arid area? Can there be flora in such an arid desert? What does the Minister want to protect there if it is such ah arid desert of sand? He says that it is in the interests of the country to take that step. I now want to ask him further whether people still live there if that part of the world really is as he describes it. Now he wants to remove the people from there and to rob them of their rights. What will the future of those people be if they are driven off the ground? Where will those people, who have lived there for years, be given refuge by him? Evidently the people who live there—the agitation proves it—are attached to the soil and wish to stay there. The Minister says it is in order to prevent soil erosion and to stimulate the growth of plants. The Minister says the wind blows everything away there. One must come to the conclusion that the Minister blames these people for the erosion and for the wind, because he wants to chase them out as if they are the scapegoats. He makes scapegoats of them as if they are the cause of the deterioration. I want to ask the Minister whether the people there still have cattle who can tread out the ground and cause erosion? Are they the reason why the wind blows there, as stated by the Minister? These people have made many sacrifices there. Are they the cause of the wind? They say that there is a whirlwind when the Minister arrives there. Everything is always upset where he arrives, If the people are removed from there, will the erosion stop, and when the wild animals gather there will it be a paradise? I have never before heard that where people have lived, where they have settled themselves, where the country was pretty and good, that those people caused such destruction and erosion as the Minister wants to pretend was done in regard to this area. The Minister says it is in the interests of these people to remove them from there and to allow the ground to revert to its original condition. That is blaming the people who struggled and worked to create a home there. Now the reproach is made that they are the cause of the miserable condition there. These are all the reasons the Minister gave for introducing this Bill, and I am sorry to say that they do not convince me. I said that I was impartial as regards the matter. I am a Free Stater and have never been there. I do not know that country. But as a representative in Parliament I must vote in favour of or against the measure. Having listened to the arguments of the Minister in favour of the step, my honest conviction is that I must vote against the Bill, because the Minister was not convincing and the interested parties pleading on the other hand impressed me more, as also what was said by hon. members here. I do not wish to repeat everything. There is the point of view of the farmers’ associations and the point of view of the interested parties, as set out in the memorandum. Must I now believe that it is an arid desert and that those people set in motion such an agitation for the sake of such a dry desert? They only demand their rights. If we weigh their point of view against the Minister’s arguments, the doubt which one may still have had disappears. But of course, the Minister thinks he is always right and what he says is the Gospel; there is no other possible opinion. As regards the arguments of the contra party, the memorandum and all the representations, all that is stamped by him, by way of interjection, as lies. Only he is correct. All the other people who wrote and who agitated and who are trying to protect their interests, are liars. Only he speaks the truth. We must listen to him. Is it possible that those people will oppose the measure so forcibly, will adopt such measures to defend their rights, if the circumstances are as they were painted by the Minister? Will the people living there under such circumstances not father be glad to be released from the misery—according to the Minister—in which they find themselves? But they fight, and they fight for their existence. Does the Minister say that all this means nothing? If they find themselves in such misery as the Minister says, they will be thankful to the Minister for ever for releasing them from that misery. I can only come to the conclusion that that area is not so bad. But in any case vested rights are interfered with, including the rights of private owners. If that is the case, how can we simply accept the Minister’s representation? The Minister’s data have evidently been given to him by one or other departmental chief. He read it to us here. But we cannot accept it as the Gospel without proof. I do not say that all of it is untrue, but it is not right for the Minister to say that everything the other people say is untrue. I had some doubt, but I no longer have so much doubt about the matter; but there are still members who are undecided, and we then proposed our first amendment and asked that the measure should be read today six months. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) who often supports the Government, as an Independent, made his point of view clear and said that it was an unnecessary measure under existing circumstances, and that the measure in any case could be postponed for a few years. We only propose that it should be read in six months. I ask the Minister in his reply to allay our fears about the question as to what the intention of the Government is with regard to the people living there, who are as poverty-stricken as he says. Will he settle those people in a different and better part of the country? Will the Government compensate them for the improvements made by them and the other costs incurred by them in the course of all these years. Let the Minister allay our fears on this point. Amongst us there is a measure of suspicion in regard to the reasons for this measure. We know the Minister. In the past he has shown that he is an oppressor of the poor in the country. When I say that, I want to prove it by referring to the steps he has already taken. He ordered the poor settlers to take their bundles and their cattle and to march in a row, still during this year, this winter. When he does things like that we are suspicious that he will recklessly continue infringing the rights of people in the north. If he can do something like that to the settlers, taking them away, if he can oppress the poor in one portion of the country so much, we fear that he can also do it there. We fear that he will continue with it as long as the nation and the country are patient enough to allow a Minister of his calibre to serve the Government. It is evidently in his blood. He cannot act otherwise. The Minister did not even tell us whether he had personally investigated circumstances there. We know he was there on one occasion. I do not again wish to refer to cocktail parties. That has been referred to. Perhaps it was true, possibly it was not. But he did not tell us that he spoke of personal experience and that he personally investigated the situation. The people feel that it is a grave injustice towards them, and we have no data. And what hurts me is that where private rights are affected the Minister said: “I do not want to see you”, just because one of those people did not write to him in a friendly enough strain.

And now your heart is very sore?

I do not feel hurt in sympathy with the Minister. He shall have to pay for the sort of thing he does, and he will be chased into the wilderness by the nation in company with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). He refused to see those people. Then we moved the second amendment. If there is to be a Select Committee, seeing that the people have to come down from the far north, and seeing that the Minister himself stigmatised them as being poor, let the State pay their expenses so that they can appear before the Select Committee in order to defend their case. Has he said that he would do so? That assurance we have not received. The arguments used here were nothing else but glorification of the Minister himself. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) said that they were rich people who could pay their own expenses. He is a front bencher on the Government side. The Minister says the people are very poor. Who is right and who is wrong? Do you blame us when we move amendment after amendment before allowing the measure to pass? I do not want to cast a reflection on the work of a Select Committee. It must judge impartially on a measure. But seeing that this debate has now been proceeding for three days and those points of view have been expressed, even by members who do not belong to this side of the House, it is essential to give those people a chance in any case to appear before the Select Committee without involving them in costs they cannot afford to pay. For that reason I support the third amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). We should like to see justice done and to do our duty as representatives of the nation, and the right thing to do, seeing that the Minister does not want to meet us as regards these costs, is to appoint an impartial commission to investigate. The Minister can appoint it himself. Let them meet the people there; let them take the memorandum with them to see if everything in it is untrue, and let them report after thorough investigation. Then the Select Committee can consider the report and we will have no other choice. Then we cannot say that the people said so and so. Then we have an impartial judgment and we will abide by the report of the committee. Before concluding I should just like to ask the Minister what the hurry is in connection with this measure. They are in such a hurry that they even used the rules of the House today to rush through the matter. I cannot understand that haste. Will those people in the meantime perish in the drought? Will the wind blow everything away? Why is the Minister afraid? Cannot he wait until a commission is appointed? The Minister knows as well as I do that his own Party do not support him as regards this measure. We do not want to be unreasonable, but we speak in the lobby about what is felt on the other side. His own people are dissatisfied. Why then the haste? Let a commission be appointed to investigate thoroughly and to report. Then the Minister can remove the dissatisfaction and he will obtain peace and unanimity, also in his own ranks. He must not harden that old heart of his which is sometimes so full of evil. Let him act like a Christian man. If you do not want to pay the costs to allow those people to come here, appoint a commission so that they may receive an impartial report about the whole matter. Then we can see who was right and who was wrong. The Minister must not commit any further unjust acts in his heart and in his excitement and recklessness. We ask him in all justice to postpone this matter.

I propose that that Dongola reserve should be called the Andrew Conroy National Park. We should like the Minister to have a monument for the future. I differ entirely from my hon. friends here who say that the Minister has achieved nothing, especially if we think of the Hutchinson Waterworks, if we look at Kakamas ….

Order, order! That matter is not under discussion.

I am just mentioning it in passing. If we think of all those things and of how he chased young men off the ground, then he did achieve something and deserves a monument as such. I have personal knowledge of those parts. I went to hunt there now and again, and I can personally testify that it is not one of the most beautiful parts of our country, far from it, but it is still one of the beautiful parts. The banks of the Limpopo are fascinating. It is a beautiful part of our country which promises much for the future, and which is beautifully forested, a beautiful piece of ground with great possibilities for expansion. For that reason I feel that it is very unjust that the pioneers, the Voortrekkers in that area, who tamed that part of the country, should now be put off the ground without hearing their case.

Will you buy ground there?

It is more or less the same part where I bought. The growth there is beautiful and it is an exceptional area. The pioneers are now being chased off by the Minister without hearing their case and without giving them the opportunity to state their case. We deeply feel the injustice the Minister wants to commit against that section of the population. They have been there almost a quarter of a century and have endured much and sacrificed much to make the country inhabitable, just like the old Voortrekkers. And this is the thanks they receive today. The graves of many children and even of parents lie there, there is sentiment connected with the place and it is deeply rooted in the people. I cannot understand why that beautiful part of the country should be treated in this way. It is an infringement of private rights. The Minister is laying down a precedent for the future. It is a dangerous precedent. There will be a change in government. Must every Minister have the right in this way to dispossess people at will in one or other division. Where will it stop? If there is such a precedent, what prevents another party doing the same in future? Apart from this, it is undemocratic. This legislation is contrary to our democratic principles. These people have property for which they paid and for which they made sacrifices; they thought it was their ground, but suddenly the Minister comes and dispossess them at will. What feeling will that awaken in the country? What initiative remains to make sacrifices in the future, to build and to develop? I say it is very dangerous. But I wish to go further. There is today a general land hunger. There are thousands upon thousands of our young farmers who want ground. Instead of the Minister taking steps to assist young farmers to acquire ground and to create possibilities for our younger generation who long to possess a bit of ground, what does the Minister do? Instead of the Minister taking steps to build a big irrigation scheme on that great and beautiful river and to develop the possibilities for returned soldiers, what does he do? He creates a home for lions. Instead of his thinking about our returned soldiers, instead of his thinking of the young farmers who have a great hunger for land, he is creating a home for the animals. I cannot understand why the Minister does that. If there were no such thing as a national park for animals it would have been a different matter. But we have a large game reserve to protect animal life— in my opinion, too large. Personally I am not in favour of such a reserve. I am proud to go there and to look at the animals but I do not agree when I think of the slaughter and destruction which goes on there. The lions are triumphant there. They chase and slaughter the other poor animals. The poor animals find themselves in a real animal hell there, but it is not only due to the lions; there are other cruel animals there and if one thinks of how many young animals are killed by the big animals then one finds it is wicked. Every day we say: Protect the animals. That is very nice; we must do it, but we create the possibility of young animals being killed and chased away. Personally I am against such a game reserve. It is nice to visit such a game reserve, but if one thinks what the lions do there one cannot describe the conditions. Here the Minister, instead of making the game reserve smaller, extends it. I might say that that part of the country is a very fertile one. I am personally acquainted with it. I know the Minister does not like to listen to people who are acquainted with that area, and when somebody speaks who is acquainted with it he does not wish to listen. I can hold my own against the Minister; I know the place just as well as he does. I state that if that ground if put under water from the Limpopo, we know that one morgen of that ground produces no less than £500 per year. Not in the Western Province, and nowhere else in the country, can one make £500 profit on one morgen, but it can be done there. Thousands and tens of thousands of poor can make a living there, and a decent living. Those parts are suitable for any tropical fruit. Those parts, the best and the most valuable in our country, must be given as a prey to lions and other wild animals. An appeal has often been made to the Minister. Even the last speaker appealed to him in forcible terms. But when once the Minister has made up his mind about a matter one cannot divert him from that course. I think the noblest man is the one who is open to conviction. We are just trying to convince the Minister that he has taken a fatal step here, a wrong step, a step which will not create a future for the country. If the Minister tells me that he will make a profit out of this undertaking a profit of 1s. or £1, I will say that although it is very little it is at least something. But I ask in heaven’s name: Is there a profit in this undertaking in the future of our fatherland; is it an asset to the country? Is it an asset to put Voortrekkers, pioneers, on the road? Where to? We have no ground for them. The Minister says they will be paid out. They can buy ground. Where will they get that quality of ground elsewhere in the country? The best ground is already occupied. I think it is so unjust—and why? Does the country’s future lie in an additional game reserve? Is there a demand for an additional game reserve? We have one and it is enough— it is too much. It is a burden on the State. What will it cost the State to protect that additional game reserve? It is a breeding place for preying animals. The Minister wants to create it, but the farmers on the boundaries are just as opposed to it as any of the others, because they will bear burden; they will have trouble with the wild animals which cross over to destroy their animals. Once again I say that if there were any possible future for the nation in it, I would agree with the Bill. But what future is there? What reason has the Minister other than to erect a monument to himself? That is the only reason. As we know, the natives already have the pick of the country, where there is the best rainfall, and now the Minister gives the second best portion to the wild animals. Is there any reason in it; is it wise? The Minister remains deaf; he is dumb; he does not understand. We therefore do our utmost to bring the Minister to his senses and to make him understand that he is initiating an undertaking which future generations will condemn. We have a nation which is already poor, a nation which is already hungry, a country with too little ground for its population, and the Minister still expropriates part of our fatherland in order to give it to animals, and he gives it only to the animals of prey in order to kill and chase away the others, something which, in my opinion, is most un-Christian. The amendment which was laid on the Table here is a very reasonable one. We consider that the Minister ought to give those pioneers an opportunity to explain their case here. I do not know how the Minister can oppose it. It is so human; it is so just. If a future government were to decide to expropriate the Minister’s land, especially where tender sentiment is connected to it, how will he feel? If a future government in a few years’ time wants to expropriate the beautiful parts in which he lives today, and which are his property, not in order to give it to the poor and needy, but to give it to animals, which will tread on the graves of his father and of his dear ones and destroy them, will the Minister feel happy? If the Government were to give the Minister an opportunity to put his case before a Select Committee he would still have a chance and he would feel that there is a certain measure of consideration and that he has an opportunity to state his case. That will be a sweet drop in the bitter cup. I say that the Minister should put himself in the place of those pioneers and Voortrekkers. The hon. the Minister must be reasonable—he will not be unjust against himself. Well, he should also not be unjust against those Voortrekkers of our nation who sacrificed so much. But the Minister refuses to allow those pioneers to come here and to put their case before a Select Committee. I feel convinced that, if they receive an opportunity to lay their case passionately before the Select Committee, the members of the Select Committee will listen to them with tears in their eyes, and I am convinced that the Minister, if that committee recommends clemency, will not go against their recommendation. It will be a very harsh matter to pass this legislation without giving those people who are affected by it an opportunity to appear here. I appeal to the Minister. I know he is a very hard man in the House. Outside he is a friendly man, and I think also a good man. I do not want the Minister to decide here, he should go outside, where he is more friendly towards his fellow beings. I feel that if there is one man in this House who started his life on a small scale and under very difficult circumstances, then it is this Minister. I feel that there is no-one here who has had so much experience of adversity, and for that reason I think that he should be the last person to act harshly against poor people, poor people who started just as he did.

He has forgotten the difficult times he had.

No, I do not believe that.

Where does he sit now?

No, he sits in the right place. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), which proposes that a commission of enquiry should be appointed and that the matter should be thoroughly investigated by such commission of enquiry, I feel that it is a very reasonable request. If it is a good case, if it is really a case which has the approval of the nation, and if it is a case by which the people of South Africa will abide, it will be after such thorough investigation has been made. I know that hon. members opposite agree that if the matter is referred to a Select Committee and they investigate all he details, and that commission recommends it, then we have no hope and must abide by the finding of such a commission. But the country should be put in a position calmly to deal with the matter on its merits, and not just to pass the measure here. In spite of what hon. members opposite feel, we know that they must vote as the Government wants them to, and we do not blame them for it; that is Party discipline. But we cannot get away from the fact that the tendency of the future should be to investigate every matter thoroughly, especially where it affects great principles for the future and where precedents are created. Where it is a small matter we will agree, but when it affects great principles for the future we consider that it would be wise to investigate this matter, one of the most important matters—it perhaps appears small and trivial to put a few people off their ground, but important principles are affected, and therefore it is very desirable that the Minister should consider this amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay and refer the matter to a commission which will investigate all aspects of the matter and then report. Why this hurry? It does not derogate to any extent from the fame of the Minister to postpone the matter until next year and so doing create an opportunity for investigation. I know the Minister was there. I regret that he did not invite me to accompany him. I travelled in the same train but there was not one of the Opposition members in that party.

Did you see them?

Yes, I saw them personally; I was in the same train. The Minister and his friends went there. Would it not have been human to invite me also? I would have left everything and would have gone.

Was the Minister there also?

I can assure the Minister that I would have considered the matter very impartiality, because I never knew that it was a Party question. All the more I think that the Minister should accept this amendment and not be in too great a hurry. The Minister himself must know that if one does something like this too hurriedly and later one regrets it, one cannot rectify the matter. It is like a person who makes gunpowder. When he has finished making the gunpowder it is explosive material. If the measure has once been passed by the House, the Minister can do nothing, even though he regrets it deep down in his heart. But today he has an opportunity to have the matter investigated, on its merits by his own commission. If the Minister has no confidence in members on his side of the House, I hope he will invite me to sit on his commission. It is the only thing this side can do. We do not deal with this matter with an eye to Party politics, and for that reason I plead also for the returned soldiers, for the great possibilities which exist for the future of our nation. It is no Party political matter; it is a national matter; it is a matter for the country, and I cannot realise why the Minister is in such a hurry with this matter. The Minister can lose nothing if it is postponed for a while. He can suffer no damage through that. At the eleventh hour I direct an urgent appeal once again to the Minister of Lands to adopt this amendment.

A few minutes before the lunch hour adjournment, I made a side remark, at the end of the speech of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), which seems to have considerably upset that hon. member. My remark was: “Nog ’n ‘hands op’ toespraak”. I emphasised the word “toespraak’’ particularly, and I also used the words “hands op”. My hon. friend understood me to refer to him as a “hands upper”. Well, Mr. Speaker, my remarks did not contain that but if my hon. friend understood me to say that, then I will be the first man in the House to apologise to him, and of course, to apologise to the House. The circumstances under which I made that remark were these—perhaps I could have chosen a better word to express the nature of my hon. friend’s speech—the circumstances were these: previously the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) had made a speech which I regarded as a partial throwing-in of the towel on this debate. Perhaps I should have described the speech of the hon. member for Aliwal as another effort at a partial throwing-in of the towel. With that explanation I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied. I would like to add that it is not my habit to insult even my enemies, much less my friends. I regard most of the hon. gentlemen, on the opposite side, with perhaps one or two exceptions., as my friends, and I am the last person in the world to go out of my way to insult even my enemies, much less my friends.

Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to be present during this debate. I was serving on a Select Committee and was only able to attend this afternoon and a short while yesterday afternoon. But one thing is very clear to me, namely that we are faced here with an important principle. The hon. the Minister, and also I, are people who still have respect for private rights. We live in a period where all kinds of attacks are made on private rights and I really feel that we are going too far with that idea of attaching little value to the private property of people; and the saddest of all to me is that the very people who should have the utmost respect for private rights to property and should protect such rights, are busy helping to interfere with such rights in every possible manner and for any trivial purpose and to deprive people of their property. I cannot help but object to that. I honestly feel this matter is taken much too far, and here the Minister introduces a Bill which aims at doing the same thing. In the little while during which I was in the House it was very clear to me that the arguments in favour of the introduction of the Bill were stated to be to create a game reserve there, but the whole idea is that the ground is so totally inferior that it should lie vacant so that in time there should be more plants and trees, and just for that reason this inferior ground should be expropriated. But is the ground really so inferior? On the one hand we hear people describing the ground as totally inferior and worth practically nothing, and on the other hand the people who live there and who are more interested in the matter tell us that the ground is not inferior; it is reasonably good and they want to remain there. We know from history that years ago the then Minister of Lands, Colonel Mentz, attempted to obtain that ground. We know that it was proposed that a gigantic irrigation scheme should be built, and one of our biggest engineers was busy drawing up plans for a very large irrigation scheme, and it was alleged that that soil would be eminently suitable for the production of sugar. These cattle farmers who now live there do not want to leave and I really feel that the Government has not made out a case to prove that this ground is absolutely inferior. The Minister did refer to the fact that there were a certain amount of settlers and that their numbers have now decreased from 60 to 20, or something like that, but that does not prove anything. What did the Minister himself say in connection with another scheme, the Kaffer River scheme? He said—

The Minister surely will not state that the Kaffer River should therefore be created into a game reserve. For the same reason there was expansion up there and larger farms were allotted to the people, and there are now fewer settlers. We take it that through experience they learnt that larger farms should be allotted, but there are also people with private farms. The Minister alleged here that that ground was worth only 1s. 11d. per morgen. A person told me yesterday in the streets of Cape Town that he has a piece of ground there and has been offered £1 10s. a morgen for it. This man is not opposed to the Bill. On the contrary he argued that the Bill should be passed. But if he was offered £1 10s. per morgen for that ground then there must be people who think that the ground is worth that price.

It is for the purposes of a shooting box. It is in order to obtain a hunting place.

The Minister says it is in order to obtain a hunting ground but there are farmers there who make quite a reasonable living. Now, what are the disadvantages connected with such a scheme? The disadvantages connected with such a scheme are simply these. We know that we live in times when many people must be placed upon the land. After this war we will be stranded—I use the word in this sense that we shall have to find work for them—with tens of thousands of people, and the Minister is now systematically engaged in putting first this group of people off the land, and then that group and then the other, but these people also must find a home and even they must be considered after the war when homes must be found for thousands of people. There is another matter about which I am deeply concerned. If a game reserve is created here, what will it mean to the farmers living on the outskirts of it? We now know that not only the farmers inside the proposed reserve are affected, but every practical farmer knows that the other farmers in that vicinity will be affected if a game reserve is created. We know that it happened on the boundaries of the Kruger National Park. A well-to-do farmer from Zastron went there and bought ground at Zoutpansberg.

Who?

The Minister knows who it is.

I just want to know whether it is in the reserve or just behind the mountain.

The position is that that farmer told me that if a reserve is formed there it will become very difficult for him and for other farmers in the vicinity because it will be to their serious disadvantage. I, as a sheep farmer, earn my living solely through the exportation of my product. All the sheep farmers in the country are in the same position. Fortunately foot-and-mouth disease is not as dangerous here as in other countries, due to the fact that we have a dry climate, but if the people who buy our wool begin to believe that in South Africa insufficient measures are adopted to counteract foot-and-mouth disease, there will be no future for the sheep farmers, because then those people truly will not buy our wool. It cannot be argued away that to create a game reserve there will bring with it a potential danger of foot-and-mouth disease in the Union. A large area of ground will lie vacant there for the benefit of wild animals. It has not yet been proved that wild animals are not carriers of foot-and-mouth disease, and I say that such a game reserve creates a potential danger to the Union. The Minister now comes here as a practical sheep farmer and puts the whole sheep farming industry of South Africa into the greatest danger. We know that a sword is hanging over the sheep farmers of the Union. There is the danger of artificial wool, and the sheep farmers always live under that sword hanging above them. Now the Minister still creates this potential danger for us. As a sheep farmer I want to register my protest against it and I wish to ask the Minister—even if all these things mentioned by the Minister here are true, even if the ground is inferior—not to create this great potential danger for the sheep farmers of South Africa by forming a game reserve there from which foot-and-mouth disease may spread to the Union. If foot-and-mouth disease once takes a hold in our country it will mean the ruination of our sheep farmers and nothing less. I do not think anyone can accuse me of being guilty of exaggeration when I say that if foot-and-mouth disease takes a hold in our country it will mean the ruination of wool-farming. Once more I want to emphasise that, even if every word spoken here by the Minister is the truth, he must not create this potential danger for our sheep farmers. I should now like to deal with something else. We proposed an amendment to the effect that, if the Minister decides to proceed with this Bill, he should at least pay the costs of those people who come here to submit their case before the Select Committee. I think that should be the general sentiment in this House, that where the State feels itself obliged to confiscate the private property of people, it should be the duty of the State to bear the cost of those people when they come to defend their private property before a Select Committee of this House. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) this morning spoke lightly about that matter and said that the Select Committee itself should decide whether the costs of the people should be compensated or not. When we refer to the Standing Rules and Orders, it is evident that it is not such an easy matter, and the hon. member for Hospital tried to bring the House under a totally wrong impression. We know that in the case of a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill it is not so easy to award costs. In the first place it must be proved that the Government acted unreasonably and wrongfully, and if two-thirds of the Select Committee are in favour, costs can be awarded. As practical people we know that when we have discussed the matter in this House we go to the Select Committee with a certain idea in our minds, although I will not say that we go there prejudiced. I do not for a single moment wish to state that a person on a Select Committee will vote in a certain direction just because he belongs to the Government Party. I do not think that any decent member will vote like that on a Select Committee. But when he has listened to all the arguments in the House, it is psychologically understandable that certain convictions have been arrived at by him, although he does not wish consciously to be prejudiced. He goes to the Select Committee with a certain conviction in his mind and is inclined there to act according to that conviction. For that reason I say that it will be very difficult to find a Select Committee a two-thirds majority of which decides that the Government has acted unreasonably and wrongfully. Therefore I say that it will be a very difficult procedure for a Select Committee to award costs in this case, and for that reason it is an exceptionally reasonable proposal which was put forward here, that seeing that these people are coming here to protect their own private property against expropriation by the State, their costs should be made good to them. I want to appeal to the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment. Is it worth so much to South Africa and the national interest that the Minister should introduce a Bill like this at a time like the present? If he thinks so, I am of opinion that he should be still more prepared to bear the costs of those people who want to come and put their own case before us. I say again that I feel that the disadvantages in connection with this Bill are very serious, but if the Minister with his majority wants to force through the Bill, I do not see how he can reasonably refuse the amendment that the costs of those people who come here to plead their case should be made good to them.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate in connection with this Bill, and I will say that I maintain that the Minister has made out his case as far as the Bill is concerned and in so far as he has proved to the House that no-one who was living there was able to pay his dues, and consequently we must come to the conclusion that what the Minister has put to the House is perfectly correct, and therefore I want to assure the Minister of our full support in this connection to see the Bill through, irrespective of what the Opposition has said here, that we are divided and are not supporting the Minister. I want to assure the Minister that we are more united in this matter than they are in their attempts to move amendments, because they have moved no less than three amendments and we are unanimously supporting the Minister.

I might almost say, after the three days of protests which we have had from the Opposition in connection with the proposed Bill, that it is with a sigh of relief that I rise to reply. I also feel that after what I saw in the Press, and after all the statements which we have heard in this House, to the effect that Conroy is the persecutor of the Afrikaners, the persecutor of everything that is Afrikaans, of the Broederbond and Kakamas and that type of thing, that it was only to be expected that the Opposition would come forward with such an attack. That is the réal reason behind the Opposition. Let me just say that in this debate and also previously I was described as Lord Conroy of Kakamas. I regard that as a compliment. I hope they will not abandon that title but always refer to me as Lord Conroy of Kakamas. It reminds me of the Dutch adage: “Wormen knagen niet aan slechte perzeken” (Worms do not eat bad peaches). If they want to treat me in that way, they can do so with the greatest pleasure. I only hope that some of the speakers on the other side who have levelled charges against me will not run away when I reply to those charges.

Where are they?

There are very few of them here.

Where are your own people?

I hope they will not run away when I reply. Before dealing with the question at issue, I want to refer to one case, and that is the case of Dr. Pole Evans and the reprehensible charges which were made against him. I say they are reprehensible; they were indecent and improper. It does not become the dignity of this House to make such an attack upon a person who has rendered such great services to the country, an expert and a scientist who has rendered great services to South Africa in the sphere of science. There are other colonies in the north, up to the Equator, which have on previous occasions asked, and are again asking for the services of this scientist, because they know what his value is. I say it is a disgrace to make such charges against him in this House wheré he cannot defend himself. He has been loyal towards all governments in South Africa, and he has rendered excellent services to all of them. I say that it is undignified of this House and of any person in this House to level criticism of such a nature against a person who has rendered such great services and shown so much loyalty towards the country. We have officials in this country who have become members of subversive bodies, of an underhanded body, of a Fascistic body. The position became so serious that the Government had to ban those bodies as far as the Civil Service was concerned, and the names of those persons have not once been mentioned on this side of the House. They are officials, and we therefore suppress their names; we are seeing whether we cannot restore the position as far as those people are concerned, but our friends on the other side avail themselves of methods of this kind to make attacks of this nature. For three days we have listened to the protests and arguments of members on the other side in connection with this Bill. They got hold of a brochure together with other documents, containing the resolutions which were passed by the Dorsland Farmers’ Association. Those were the two main documents which they relied on. For three whole days they regaled us with quotations from those documents. I described it as their Bible, and it was pathetic to see how they believed in that Bible. I shall return to that in a moment and at the same time address a few words to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan). I had hoped that he would know better than to believe everything which appeared in that Bible as Gospel. I have said previously and I repeat it now, that the author of that document is Mr. Emery, even though it is issued on behalf of the Dorsland Farmers’ Association.

Is he a farmer?

The Dorsland Farmers’ Association is Mr. Emery, and Mr. Emery is the Dorsland Farmers’ Association. He is the author and the source of all this propaganda which they compiled and he was the author from the beginning. He is the man who is paying for everything. I repeat that that document contains nothing but a succession of inaccuracies and untruths. Mr. Emery will have to prove the contents of that document and his allegations before the Select Committee and I hope he will do so. For my part I say that he can no more prove that what is contained in that document is the truth than he can touch the moon. I say that 99 per cent. of everything contained in that document represents statements which cannot be proved. They are not correct.

But we ask you to prove that they are wrong.

I shall come back to those documents in a moment, and I shall deal with the one document clause by clause. My hon. friend must exercise a little patience. I shall deal with every point. It has been asked here, and that is all that came out in the debate, with what object that piece of land has to be converted into a game reserve. One hon. member on the other side said that the people were able to make a living there and that I am now trying to drive them off their farms. It was said that I had been asked in writing what it was proposed to do with those parts along the Limpopo. I replied that since the Government had undertaken that when the war was over, and especially when we embark on new undertakings, we would insist on placing every citizen of the country, whether black, brown or white, in a better position, that he must have a better means of livelihood and be able to make a better living than he has been able to do in the past. I wrote that it was not the intention to try and place settlers on that land, especially where experience has taught us that it was a great mistake to place settlers there. I said that that was a dry area. My hon. friends then looked at the map, and when I said that it was a tropical area they pointed out that it was not a tropical area and that the tropical area began further to the north. Well, call it a sub-tropical area if you like. The fact remains that it is a desert area. It is part of the Kalahari which borders on that area. I showed how small the rainfall was, and the best proof which can be adduced in that regard is this; I said that a Bantu race lived there 200 years ago, and all that remains of that race are the places where their kraals stood and nothing has since grown around those kraals. As soon as that area is occupied, it is converted into a desert where no grass grows. The land is bare; the soil has no natural strength, and if the land is occupied and grazing takes place, it is ruined. The grass is devoured; the growing season is comparatively short, from four to six weeks, and if the grass is devoured, it cannot run to seed. As soon as the grass disappears, wind erosion starts. I said it was sandy, shallow soil; and I described the erosion which takes place there, namely, wind erosion. The rainfall is a summer rainfall. You get a few inches of rain all at once, and that is followed by erosion. The result is that we then get a piece of land which is devoid of vegetation, and we then get the erosion I have described. I have said that experience there has proved that that area cannot stand up to occupation and that it is not suitable for human occupation. I can advance no better proof that the speech of Mr. Booth which I quoted to the House. He said that that land was never intended by Providence to be used for production. He said that we wanted to write off debt over and over again, but that that would not make the grass grow, and that grass would never grow there. That was what Mr. Booth told this House. But in 1918, in spite of the signs which we could read in those parts, the Government of the day made the fatal mistake of granting that land to settlers. Today we see what happens. There were less than 40 settlers in that area, and we spent more than £100,000 on it. Subsequently a further £184,000 was spent to remove the people from those parts, including 26 settlers of Dongola, and to place them at a point this side of the mountain at the Levubu settlement. That was the only hope, to put the people behind the mountain to the south, where the rainfall varies from 30 to 33 inches, and to establish a settlement there. They were brought there at a cost of £184,000 and 26 of those settlers came from Dongola.

Who removed them?

It was the Government of which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was a member. Whenever he thought I had been administered a knock-out blow in this debate, that hon. member grunted with pain for my part. I wish he would come into the House, because I shall still make him grunt with pain before I have finished.

Under which Government was that?

That was the Government of which he was a member.

Was that in 1918?

No, I said that in 1918 the fatal mistake was made of granting that land to settlers. I think it was in 1923 that the Government of the day came to the conclusion that those parts were not suitable for land settlement and that the people ought to be removed. They were then brought to the south, this side of the mountain.

But then it was under the S.A.P. Government.

I do not know the exact date, but I say that a few years after the land in that area had been handed out and after all that money had been spent, the Government of the day came to the conclusion that that area became a desert as soon as it was occupied, and the Levubu settlement was established at a cost of £184,000. The people endured all this hardship; they made all these secrifices, and as I said in my opening speech, today there are only thirteen of them left. Up to the present those people have not repaid any of their capital debt. Since the introduction of this Bill, I have made investigations. They paid their interest, but they have not paid any portion of the capital debt. They simply adopt the attitude that they were given 65 years to pay it and that they are going to take advantage of that full period before they pay.

Naturally they will not pay if they get the money at 1 per cent.

I say that our experience is that that land deteriorates as soon as it is occupied, and not only does the land deteriorate, but the people in the area find themselves in a critical position and they too retrogress. On the other hand we have this development that where we put settlers on that land, they lost a great deal of it. I stated here that there are 75 farms which belong to other owners, and some owners have two or three farms. In some cases those farms belong to millionaires who live in palatial places in Johannesburg. I shall deal with the history of Mr. Emery in a moment. Before I proceed, I just want to correct a date which I mentioned a moment ago. I have now been informed that it was in 1935 that these people were brought south to a point on this side of the mountain. I shall point out in a moment that Mr. Emery got one of the best farms, namely Skutwater, and I shall go into the history of his farming operations and show what he did there, how he ruined the land and allowed it to deteriorate, more than all the settlers we had there. I shall prove that not only did he ruin and destroy his land, but he also destroyed and ruined thousands and thousands of morgen of land surrounding his farms. I shall show that unknown to us he allowed six thousand or seven thousand head of cattle to graze on land belonging to the Government. Eventually the undertaking became bankrupt. I say that there is no one who is more responsible for the fact that that land deteriorated than he, and we cannot allow that destruction and havoc to continue.

Did you say that Mr. Emery became insolvent?

The company of which he was chairman.

Why did the Department not sue him?

We had to deal with these people who were placed in that miserable position. The policy of the Government is to conserve soil and to combat erosion, and I just want to mention one example to show what is happening to our land. In Cradock there is an area of approximately 80,000 morgen where erosion is causing great damage, and the Government had to take over that land from the various farmers at a high price in an attempt to restore it. It will cost the Government a few hundred thousand pounds to do so. I mention this to show that South Africa has never been land conscious. We never recognised the national value of our land. We have never been land conscious and the result is that it is almost too late to stop erosion and to oppose this type of farming, in order that we may leave something for posterity, and the Government decided to spend large sums of money when the war is over—and to make a start with that now— in order to save the vegetable earth and to combat soil erosion.

That is excellent.

And since the Government has come to the conclusion that the Dongola area is not fit for habitation, and that we must remove the people from that area before it becomes a howling desert, we are doing it in the national interest and the interest of the people of South Africa. The Government wants to prevent the occupation of land in such a manner that it will become a desert, and if the Government failed to do that, if it did not take steps to prevent the land from becoming a desert, it would not deserve to be in power. It is now asked whether we propose to put settlers there again after the land has been restored. Of course not. I hope we have now learnt our lesson. We know that the land cannot stand up to it. Hon. members ask whether the wild animals will not tread out the land. No, we have learned that nature always maintains the balance between the grass and the trees on the one hand and the animals on the other hand. Hon. members may laugh, but it is not my fault that they do not know that. That is the reason why this Bill was introduced. We will save the land. I am only concerned about thirteen people in that part. The other people who have land in that area are very rich; they only go there for shooting and to exterminate the game in a manner that is a crying shame. The game reserve starts six miles east of Messina, where the copper mines are situated and where Mr. Emery lives, and from Saturday afternoon until Monday morning at dawn, numbers of people from Messina shoot in the reserves and recklessly destroy the animals.

Do they shoot in the reserve?

Yes, in the reserve; it is only six miles from the mine. That goes on throughout the whole of Sunday. I have been asked whether I have been in that area; how many times I personally have been there, and whether I know what I am talking about, whether I personally witnessed this state of affairs. Yes, I have been there. All the game reserves fall under my Department and it is my duty to see what goes on there. I traversed this game reserve from one end to the other, and on my last visit I met an official there. He lives on the extremity of the game reserve, next to Messina. I asked him whether game was still being shot on a large scale and he informed me that the people were shooting every weekend, from Saturday until Monday. He said: “I am doing my best to catch them, and, moreover, I have caught some of them. During the winter I went out on a certain Monday morning and I found four Kudu bulls which had been shot dead within a distance of 600 yards, with the buttocks cut out and the spinal biltong removed.” That was done by Mr. Emery’s people from the copper mines. Now you can appreciate why he is moving heaven and earth and why he is making this propaganda. He is paying for everything. He wants to retain the rights which he has had all these years; he wants the unrestricted right to trek about in that whole area with thousands of head of cattle, without having to pay anything for it.

With thousands of head of cattle in the desert?

Now I come to the deputation which, it is alleged, I refused to see. I want to emphasise here that there is no one who is more accessible than I am. Believe me, I have never refused to meet a deputation without good reason. I refused to meet one deputation, and it is said that I refused to meet another deputation, a statement which is untrue, which is an entirely false representation. There was certain correspondence with the Dorsland Farmers’ Association, and the secretary of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Association is Mr. Chamberlain.

Mr. Campbell?

No, I am now speaking of Mr. Chamberlain. He is one of Mr. Emery’s people. Chamberlain is secretary of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Association—at any rate he was at that time. He conducted certain correspondence with my Department in connection with the establishment of the association.

Are you sure it is Chamberlain?

Yes, Chamberlain. He wrote letters on behalf of the organisation, and I said yesterday that he was insolent and insulting, so much so, that eventually I wrote to him and informed him that I would not longer reply to his letters and that I would exchange no further correspondence with him. This man Chamberlain is a native recruiting agent, not a farmer. He is also an estate agent who sells and buys land. No wonder I got these two terrible protests from the land owners’ associations of the Transvaal against the Dongola proposition. They say that they own something like 3,000,000 morgen in the area. These are the people for whom the Opposition has been pleading for three days. We shall remember that. The land owners’ association ….

We did not plead for them at all; we never mentioned their name.

They own 3,000,000 morgen of land in that area, and the idea is this. They own the mineral rights and the Government is now expected to buy land and spend large sums of money, and Chamberlain is to be the broker. I now come to Campbell. He is an electrician on the mine. He is not a farmer. I say from this place where I stand, that he is nothing but a lackey of Emery’s. I know him well. Let me say that in order to make this propaganda Campbell recently was sent right throughout the Transvaal with a motor car, in spite of all the restrictions on petrol, and he must have travelled 1,000 miles. What did he have to do? He had to visit every Transvaal member of Parliament and obtain their assistance to protest against this measure. I do not want to go into the methods he adopted.

Which members do you say he visited?

Look here, if you think that with all your wisdom, you will get me to mention names, you are mistaken. There are members in this House who know that what I am saying is true.

Let any man who was visited by Campbell get up.

I say that this brochure which was issued made such an impression that many people accepted it as Gospel, including the hon. member for Durban (Berea), as well as various farmers’ associations. They all fell for it, except the farmers’ association of Louis Trichardt, which voted unanimously in favour of this measure, and they are farmers. I got letters from another organisation which is very big, and which is interested in land settlement. This organisation also wrote to say that we were going to uproot 15,000 Europeans there, that we were going to uproot 250,000 natives, and that that was not the right thing to do at this time when food is so necessary and when the Government is looking for land for soldiers.

Will you tell us which association that was?

I shall make my speech as I want to, and not as you want me to make it. I say that it is one of the biggest organisations.

What is its name?

This organisation wrote to me and it referred to this brochure.

Which organisation is it? I should like to know?

I shall be glad if you will protect me, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, is a member not entitled to ask a speaker civilly merely to give the name of an organisation to which he refers?

The Minister must be allowed to make his own speech. He must not be disturbed.

I should like to ask on a point of information whether it is not permissible, not to kick up a row, but to put a civil question to a speaker by way of an interjection? Not a distasteful remark, but merely a question?

Yes, but the Minister is at liberty to reply or he can refuse to reply.

I have already said that I refuse to give names.

Then we do not believe your information.

Do as you please. When I was interrupted, I was speaking of the deputation. It was Ryder, Lombard and Emery. At a certain stage they asked to come and see me. I know these persons and I knew what propaganda they had been making, and I had already had the unpleasant experience of exchanging correspondence with them, so I refused to see them. But on the same day they sent a telegram to the hon. member for Zoupansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers), asking him, in spite of my refusal, to make an appointment for them with the Minister for Monday morning at 10 o’clock. They gave the day and the time. The hon. member then came to me and told me about it. But at the same time I was notified that they were coming to Cape Town. Emery remained here. I believe Lombard came to attend a farmers’ congress. I think Ryder was also a member of the deputation and he came here as a member of a dairy congress. They had to come to Cape Town for these purposes, and they wanted to compel me at the same time to meet them as a deputation, and if hon. members on the other side want us to pay the expenses of these people ….

That is very poor.

†I shall give further proof in a moment that that land is totally unsuited for human occupation or for settlement. I have shown the experiences of the past. I have shown the experiences we have had with the 13 settlers who are there today who are living practically under the bread line. And let me tell you this, that the living that they are making, and they are not paying even 10s. a month for their farms, is most precarious, and the biggest revenue they have is from biltong. It is hardly conceivable, but one man was offered by a certain person there 14,000 lbs. of biltong at 9d. a lb.—7 tons of biltong. In my travels through there I passed several settlers’ homes, and at one in particular I saw rows of biltong as long as this Chamber hanging amongst the trees behind the house. These are the conditions I ask you to bear in mind. I do say you should not run away with the brochure as my hon. friend the member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has done, because even he has quoted from the brochure, when he told us of the 30,000 morgen of wonderful fertile soil along the Limpopo river. The hon. member got that from the brochure.

I have not read the brochure.

You got it from there. It is from there where this statement came that there are 30,000 morgen of wonderful soil. I say from where I stand now, there is not an acre of soil along the Limpopo that can be irrigated from a conservation dam. I say, and let me repeat, that as far as the banks of the Limpopo in that area are concerned, the scenery is most picturesque. The scenic beauties there are indescribable, with gigantic trees and a wonderful plant growth. But it is a very narrow strip which is submerged every time the river is in flood. There is no question, and if my hon. friends opposite knew about it, and even if my hon. friend over there knew about it, they would never have mentioned that they were in favour of a settlement there, of our taking away those trees and trying to irrigate there. It would be the greatest crime any government in South Africa has ever contemplated. No government would allow it. The hon. member for Berea remarked that when we want land for soldiers we do this sort of thing; in other words, that we are depriving the soldiers by taking them away from there.

On a point of explanation the hon. Minister has not given the House a correct impression of what 1 said; and may I with your permission, just read two sentences of the verbatim report of what I said—

That is exactly what the Minister said.

My point of explanation is that the Minister in an interjection yesterday and in the course of his statement now, indicates that I said or implied that the land to be taken away for a game sanctuary could be used for returned soldier settlement. That is not what I said or implied.

I do not contest that, but let me read a little further what he said. He said the country was faced with a possibility of a food famine, that meat was being imported from overseas, and that there must be astonishment over the proposal to put those farms out of production. He said—

The hon. member only read the first part. I tried to explain that that country was not productive of anything. It does not produce anything which is a contribution to the food resources of South Africa. On the contrary, the people there are being fed today, and they have been fed for many years. There are only 13 of them, and I say they are living below the bread line, and unless the Government takes compassion on those 13 there is a sorry outlook for them and for the country as well. But my hon. friend went further. He said that there was abundant proof that the settlers themselves had not been properly consulted, and that the House was therefore considering a Bill very far removed from the traditions of a freedom-loving South Africa. Every man who lives in that sanctuary has, under the rules of this House, been properly notified of the Select Committee. Every one of them was consulted and we got their signature that they had been consulted. I read out to the House yesterday the opinion of one settler’s wife, who said this country was not fit for human habitation, that it was only fit for wild animals. The hon. member went further. He said—

Fascism!

Quite right.

The hon. member for Berea won his seat and came into this House simply because he came forward as an apostle of social security, standing for better homes, better living, better social conditions for everybody in this country. He was coming to teach the Government how to do these things, he and he alone. For that reason he does not sit amongst the members of this party, but he is on a pedestal by himself. Where we want to save the country, where we want to save the people and create better living conditions for the men and women who have suffered all these years, he talks to us in this way, he says we are on the way to Fascism. I challenge him, when the decision of the House is taken, that he takes his seat amongst the fascists. There they are opposite. I challenge him. I had a great deal of regard for the hon. member and for his views. When he got up in this House and made his speech it was well thought out; sentences were read out; there were wonderful thoughts and wonderful ideas; but when he comes here to help the Government in the national interest, in the interests of the people, when he comes for better living conditions and when the Government takes this course in the interests of these people, he accuses us of Fascism. When the division comes I expect to see him among the fascists over there. It is there the fascists sit. One hon. member has repeated here a figure that was also obtained from this brochure regarding the number of cattle in that area. I think it was the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), who quoted a figure of 68,000 cattle.

Yes, from a report of that case, I quoted 68,000.

When I interjected: “Are you alluding to this particular area”, he said: “Yes, that is the area we are talking about, the Dongola.” I said, using the Afrikaans word, that it was a “leuen”. I said there were only 7,000. I have a letter in my hand from the Agricultural Department which I am going to read to the House—

I had already asked for it and I only got it today.

There is something wrong there.

Yes, there is something wrong.

The Minister of Agriculture should be consulted.

The letter reads—

On a point of explanation; I have here a copy of my speech as reported by Hansard, and I quote from it—

I quoted from the evidence of a court case.

The evidence given in a court case? Just imagine!

The hon. Minister must accept the explanation and the word of the hon. member.

I accept it. He says it was taken in court. Just imagine, evidence in a court. What do the people know about it? This case had nothing to do with Dongola. It was a case dealing with the shooting of Royal game. Now I come to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He said this in his speech—

That was in connection with the establishment of the reserve. That was also quoted today by another hon. member. The knowledge gained by experts, as well as practice, taught us that the best method of combating foot-and-mouth disease is to remove the domestic animals from the area, and in that way the whole area was cleared of cattle in 1931 when the Union was threatened near the Limpopo for a distance of seven miles or more.

For fifteen miles.

The hon. member says for fifteen miles. It was cleared of animals.

I personally had that done.

But it has never been proved that wild animals transmit foot-and-mouth disease.

Why then do you shoot the wild animals in Zululand?

The domestic animals were removed from that area. By removing the animals from such an area you set up a barrier to keep out foot-and-mouth disease.

What about the rest of the boundaries?

Let me read to the House the opinion of an expert, of a veterinary surgeon, namely Mr. Curzon. He was a member of the faculty of veterary science at the University of Pretoria from 1922 to 1936, and he expressed the following opinions—

He is not a land agent. He is not one of the people who wants to force up the price of land, and that is his opinion. Members on the other side often ask me whether Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Ryder are not members of this Party. They may belong to my Party over and over again, but if I had to choose between the national interest and the support of those members of my party, I would choose the national interest and I would not overlook the national interest in order to retain the support of those members of my party. That is my duty and I would a thousand times sooner choose the interest of my country rather than their support for my party. I come to (b)—

If hon. members on the other side are still not satisfied with this opinion, then I come to the opinion of someone with whose views they will no doubt agree. That is the opinion of Colonel Stevenson Hamilton. He is in charge of the Kruger Game Reserve. He is a man with extensive experience, and with all his experience he came to the conclusion that wild animals do not transmit foot-and-mouth disease. I do not think anyone in this House will be prepared to cast any doubt on his experience, because he has great experience of animal life, and his opinion is of the greatest value to us. I spoke of the worthlessness of the land for the purpose of occupation by settlers. Time and again I was contradicted by members on the other side, supported by quotations from Mr. Emery’s Bible in which they believe. They rely entirely on this document entitled “Homesteads or Wild Animals”. They quoted it to the House from beginning to end. Now I should like to come to the opinion of one of their own members on the other side.

Who is it?

I refer to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. I think he was Minister of Agriculture at the time, and I have here a letter which was addressed on the 26th September, 1929, to the Department of Lands by the Department of Agriculture. That is approximately 10 years after the establishment of the Dongola Settlement. Even at that time the position there was such that they had come to the conclusion that it was a failure. This letter was sent by the office of the Minister of Agriculture to the Secretary for Lands in Pretoria, and I should like to read that letter to the House.

†Now, let me explain. He proposed to add a certain number of farms to the Botanical Reserve, but Mr. Grobler said he was afraid of agitation. Well I am not afraid. He was afraid of agitation, and therefore he writes and says—

The letter continues—

In other words then, even 20,000 morgen are not enough and they live on biltong, and only as long as the biltong lasts will they remain there. I continue to read—

As I may have said before, this is a letter dated September, 1929, by the Secretary for Agriculture to the Secretary for Lands. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, for the benefit of the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) does he accept this testimony that the land is worthless for human occupation? I ask you whether there is anyone who has the temerity and the audacity to get up, in the face of this testimony, and say that there is such a wonderful land as is described in the brochure, Homesteads or Wild Animals, that wonderful land, with fat cattle and food for the people. Is there anyone who can have the courage to get up in this House and try to prove that it is a wonderful land, where we should put returned soldiers? Let me say here at once—I said it before and I repeat it—that the Government has decided that it will never allow a returned soldier to be allotted on behalf of the Government, behind the Zoutpansberg, because it is not a place to put a returned soldier. It would be a breach of the pledges which we have given to the returned soldiers. It would be a breach of the pledges we have given to the country and to the nation, that we will see that not only the soldiers but all our people will have a better life after the war. Those better conditions are not to be found behind the Zoutpansberg, much less in the Dongola area.

No-one pleaded for that.

But here we have 240,000 morgen of land, and in the opinion of my friend there, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) according to that letter I read, if you give them less than 20,000 morgen each it is hopeless. Do you know what he proposed to do if he acted as he stated here? There would have been twelve settlers. 12 settlers each getting 20,000 morgen accounts for the 240,000 morgen. The ground is worth £1—or £1 10s. —and the land agents and the large land owners have been trying to force up the price against the poor people because they own the land there. The hon. member over there should also apologise to the House for the speeches he has made during the last three days. But that is traditional with him. He cannot help it. He always forgets his promises and there is no-one in the public life of this country who can more easily swallow down solemn pledges and undertakings and forget about them than he does.

Which ones?

He did the same thing about his 1937 Settlement Bill, when he did the same thing which I re-introduced.

You know that is not so.

I can prove to you that it is not so.

I promised the House two things. The one is that I would deal with what is contained in “Home steads or Wild Animals”, and the other that I would give them an account of Mr. Emery’s activities in that area ever since he has been there.

The Copper King!

Yes. I have already said that contrary to the laws of the land Mr. Emery was allotted a farm called “Skutwater”. “Skutwater” is at present right inside the proposed Dongola Reserve and it borders on the river. It has a river frontage of something like eight miles. He started ranching operations. I have made extracts from various letters and correspondence and I put them together because I cannot read it all to the House. He started ranching operations in 1920. The size of the farm was 4,387 morgen.

Under which Government was that?

Either the Botha or the Smuts Government.

So your own Prime Minister was in power.

Yes, it was a mistake, a colossal mistake, just as the Dongola Reserve is a mistake.

Hear, hear!

I mean the settlement in the Dongola Reserve was a mistake. Now to come back to Mr. Emery, in a year’s time there were 100 head of mixed cattle on the ranch. One and a half years later the Department of Lands was informed by this rancher that all his cattle were still grazing off his farms as he had no grazing on them. So there was no grazing after a year. A year later he had 500 head of cattle and he was grazing all over the place. Application was then made by him for six additional holdings, viz the farms Amersham, Chatsworth, Haddon, De Klunderdt, Matolege and Ostroloena. He then described the situation as critical. This was his statement—

He was an optimist in this estimate—

Five months later, in April, 1924, Mr. Emery wrote to the Department saying that the area on Skutwater Ranch was insufficient to support the 700 head of cattle which he then had and that in a few months it would be necessary for him to move the cattle. He had been grazing all over the place. He had then been ranching not quite four years and was running one beast to six morgen. He had stated in December, 1922, that he used other grazing. In February, 1925, he reported that he had about 900 head of cattle now grazing on his ranch and six other farms round about, and he stated—

He was just a freebooter. He continued—

I will now give you the improvements he made. The improvements on the ranch at that date consisted of one wood and iron room, ten by twenty feet, on poles with an iron roof, which was of no value except the roof. It was not permanently built, so that it could be removed and it was valued at £60. Then there was a dip valued at £100 and a few citrus trees of no value. Later he added to his improvements by putting up a spring dancing floor In September, 1925, Mr. Emery, in referring to the subject of the six farms which he had applied for to be added to his present holding and which was not agreed to by the Department of Lands, wrote to say—

He was despoiling the country, going from one place to another. He continued—

That is the usual thing.

Yes, it is the usual thing. He continued—

A few months later, in October, 1925, in referring to the refusal of the Department to grant him grazing rights to the six farms previously referred to, he stated his position as follows—

He could not buy any more. I suppose he could buy at about 1s. 6d. but he says that is not a reasonable price. He was always looking round for grazing. He wants to apply for farms. Nearly a year later, in September, 1926, he enquired of the Department as to whether there were any farms near Skutwater being gazetted for which he could apply. The Department then replied that it refrained from sending him a list of other farms as he had little hope of getting additional land. At this time he had 1,200 head on his ranch. He was still looking for grazing. Six months later, in March, 1927, applications were invited in the Government Gazette for nine holdings in this area, and application was made on behalf of this rancher for the three farms Amersham, Chatsworth and Breslau. The application stated that the heavy annual losses of the last five or six years incurred by him had given convincing proof that ranching cannot be conducted at a profit on his present small holding.

Yes, on small holdings.

The holding was then 4,387 morgen. The application was not successful. Nevertheless, in August of the following year, 1928, the Department received the following communication from this rancher—

But they did not die.

16 months later, in January, 1930, the cattle population had dropped considerably on Skutwater ranch, and sheep were now taking their place, for the stock population at this time consisted only of some 600 head of cattle and some 300 sheep. In April, 1931, foot-and-mouth disease broke out in Southern Rhodesia and as a precautionary measure the five mile belt along the Limpopo was cleared of all cattle and small stock. Consequently the rancher had to move his stock from Skutwater. Without asking the permission of those in charge of the Dongola Reserve, he moved 500 head of cattle and 300 head of small stock to the well-known spring at Kremetartsfontein on the southern portion of the Dongola Reserve. He stayed there for nearly three months before he found grazing elsewhere for his stock and only moved undér the strongest pressure from the Department of Agriculture. The Dongola Reserve saved him for three months. A couple of months ago—and I think they have increased and not decreased—he has had 80 head of cattle on Skutwater, and he has had no more than 80 for a long time.

He may have sold when there were good prices.

Now, he went further afield. He had now destroyed and despoiled all this area in the Dongola, so now he went east.

With 80 head of cattle?

That is a stupid interjection.

You made a stupid statement which emanates from a stupid mind.

In 1922 he started what was known as the Zoutpansberg Ranching Company, Ltd., the directors of which were Colonel Grenfell of London and Mr. A. B. Emery of Messina. Mr. Emery, in a letter to the Minister of Lands dated 7th July, 1922, described himself as the acting chairman and managing the business. The company operated from 1922 to 1940 on a block of land known as Ranch H in the Limpopo Valley about 30 miles east of Messina. They purchased over 31,000 morgen from the Department of Lands at an average price of 2s. 6d. per morgen.

That was under Colonel Mentz. I just wanted to be sure of that.

They also leased another 20,000 morgen from the Department at an annual rental of £77 16s. 6d. They had some 20 miles of river frontage on the Limpopo and watering facilities on the Njelele and Ngwanedzi rivers. In addition they availed themselves for at least eight years of unauthorised grazing on a large tract of land stretching eastwards to the Mótale River on unoccupied native territory. They started with a capital of £70,000 and at one time had as many as 7,000 head of cattle on the ranch In spite of every consideration shown them by the Department of Lands, the business was run at a loss from the start, and when their unauthorised grazing, miles away from the ranch, was discovered and a claim of £300 preferred against them in 1936 for grazing fees, the chairman of the company stated that it was quite impossible to pay as they had no funds. Neither could they borrow money as all their assets were mortgaged and if the company were placed in liquidation, the assets would not be sufficient to satisfy the mortgagees. As a result of their operations, the veld and land were severely damaged and when some of it, the portion of 20,000 morgen that was leased to them by the Department was inspected in 1944 by prospective ténants sent there by the Department, it was rejected and described by them as unfit even to support a baboon. That was Mr. Emery’s operations. I say without fear and I say without fear of contradiction that there is no man who has wrought more havoc and devastation with his grazing and ranching operations in that area, not only around the proposed reserve, but in the Northern Transvaal, than Mr. Emery. He has wrought more havoc than all the settlers put together. And he is out to continue that devastation and the spending of money on propaganda. I say again that Mr. Emery is the author, the person who is responsible for all this, and when hon. members opposite come along with tears in their eyes and say we must pay for these people to come and give evidence here, I say that there are only 13 settlers in whom I am interested. I am not interested in Mr. Amery, nor am I interested in the Land Owners’ Association, and I am much less interested in all the millionaires who go there only for shooting purposes.

What about the ordinary farmers there?

And as far as these people are concerned, I want to say to the House that if they look at the Bill, they will see that I am taking power to exchange land. I am taking that power and in doing so I have in mind the 13 settlers for whom the Government is responsible. We are prepared to give them land, and better land, land where they will be able to make a decent living and live above the bread-line. What is more, hon. members opposite talk about democracy, about taking away people’s rights. I am supposed to be committing such a sacrilege. There is no man in this country who has ever before taken away people’s land; there is no man who has ever before robbed them of their property in such a ruthless way as I am supposed to be doing. Mr. Speaker, ever since this democratic Government has been in existence, we have had to expropriate land. In the case of every settlement we have had to expropriate land. I am thinking of Loskop; I am thinking of Vaal-Hartz, and of all the big settlements. There were families on that land—some of it first class land—who had been there for generations and generations. From generation to generation they went down. These people’s roots were deep down in the land. I was bom and bred on the land, and I own land, and if the Government wanted to expropriate that land, it would break my heart.

Don’t say that.

The hon. member does not know the value of land. I say we have had to uproot those people in order to make room for these settlers. Did we then say that it was not a democratic Government? No, we shall always have to expropriate land, and I should not be blamed but blessed for expropriating land from these thirteen people, land which the Government has given to them, and for placing them under better conditions. They ought to thank me for that step, and I know that future generations will thank me for looking after the poor and creating better conditions for them. I have never done anything but act and work, even at the expense of being shouted down and howled down and jeered at by the Opposition, in the interests of the poor; I have always been on the side of the under-dog. Look at the propaganda hon. members opposite are making about Kakamas.

Order, order! The hon. Minister must not refer to that.

No, I must not go into that.

You could have given evidence, but you preferred not to do so.

I just want to deal with the few clauses. I said that this was nothing else but an outburst. What was the term that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) used? He said it was a monstrosity. I want to deal with this monstrosity of mis-statements and distortions. I cannot believe that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) will sacrifice his principles and the national interests for personal reasons. I do not accept it. In sending out this document, the writer, Mr. Campbell, says—

That is in line 1.

Which paragraph?

This is in the letter which accompanied this document. The hon. member for Gordónia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) with his 68,000 head of cattle, read this paragraph to the House. He did not read the whole paragraph. I am going to read the whole paragraph to hon. members.

What page?

Page 4. Here it says—

He only read one passage of it. He did not tell the House that Waterpoort lies miles away, that he was reading a passage concerning an area which is miles away. Oh, no it does not suit his book. But he goes further, he read this —

He read that and then he skipped the next paragraph and he read the portion about the buses. He read this—

This paragraph has been put in by Mr. Emery and his people.

How do you know that?

It was put in by the authors. They put it in in inverted commas. Let hon. members look for themselves. This is what they took out of the Year Book. The hon. member put it as though it was in Dongola.

On a point of explanation; I challenge the Minister to prove that. Here is my speech. I challenge him to show that I quoted that passage. I ask him to get up and to quote that from my speech. The time has come when the Minister should confine himself more to the truth.

Order, order.

I call the House to witness whether the hon. member did not stress this. He said: “You talk about this land being worthless and here we see that the motor buses are running to full capacity.”

I said that, but I did not read the previous paragraph.

My point is that he was trying to mislead the House by making that statement ….

On a point of order ….

The hon. Minister must not accuse an hon. member of trying to mislead the House.

Well, he certainly did not convey the true position.

On a point of order, the hon. Minister first stated in this House that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) had quoted a certain paragraph. After it had been proved that the hon. member for Gordonia had not quoted that passage, the Minister, instead of having the decency to withdraw that remark, accused the hon. member for Gordonia of deliberately misleading the House. The hon. Minister ought to withdraw that.

The truth is hurting now.

I am quite willing to withdraw the remark that the hon. member tried to mislead the House.

May I just say something?

Order, order!

On a point of order, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) yesterday read this paragraph to the House—

The hon. member admitted having read that.

He misled the House.

I am sorry, I should not have said he misled the House, but I say he tried to mislead the House.

I hope the hon. Minister will accept my ruling.

I withdraw it. My point is this, that the hon. member read out that passage with the full intention of making the House and the country believe that the buses which were operating at full capacity got that produce out of the reserve. I put this question to him: “Are you referring to the area under discussion, namely the proposed Dongola Reserve?” His reply was in the affirmative.

That is not in this speech.

On the same page of this document I come to this passage. They give the returns of the population figures for the Zoutpansberg district, those figures being according to the census returns. That in itself is right. They give figures for the whole area, and let me explain to the House that in doing this, in this propaganda bible of theirs, they are now saying that the proposed reserve is supposed to rob the people and all that sort of thing. But in giving the figures they give it for the whole Zoutpansberg area, and that area is almost as big as the Orange Free State. Just see how misleading it is. They say that there are 15,000 whites and 250,000 natives. Why do they give the figures for an area which is practically a whole colony? To prove how misleading it is, and how, in fact, it did mislead many people, let me say that I had letters from organisations in which they stated that they protested against the reserve because it meant removing 15,000 Europeans and 250,000 natives at a time like this when there is a shortage of land, when the soldiers are coming back. It was said that at this time we proposed to perpetrate this tremendous injustice and they based their opposition to the Bill on these figures—and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) read out those figures. I am just dealing with a paragraph here and there to show that 99 per cent. of what is said in this document is a distortion and mis-statement.

It clearly says here that this is for the whole district.

But they go further. They say—

In other words, they tell the people that it is an area of 503,000 acres, but that ultimately a further 925,000 acres of land would be added. They now have to come before the Select Committee and there they will have to prove all those statements and they will have to satisfy the committee that this propaganda which they spread all over the country is true. They will have to reply to these questions: “What did you mean when you spoke about 925,000 acres, the equivalent of approximately 400,000 morgen? Did you intend to mislead the people?” And a number of people have been misled: They say—

I have given hon. members the number. It is 13; but they include all the farmers.

I suppose including those at Louis Trichardt.

They now come to this case; they give a record of a case which has nothing to do with the matter. I do not know whether hon. members notice that they quote “Goebbels” here? Look at page 11 at the bottom. Here it is said—

Is it your people who do those things?

They had to communicate with Hitler when they wanted him to say whether they wanted National Socialism in South Africa, and here these red-hot Imperialists if I may so call them, quote “Goebbels” as their authority, and this is what Goebbels said—

It is too funny for words. Then we read this on page 13—

We have had Mr. Emery’s testimony about the value; we have had the testimony of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad about the value, and we have had the evidence of Mr. Eddie Rooth about the value. It is further stated—

I did not know that these reports were all available to them—

Now listen to Mr. Emery’s opinion on this, which he gave like my hon. friend at an earlier stage—

The manager of a copper mine ought to know about these things—

There again, we have the old biltong-idea. I say it is a distortion, a monstrosity, but before the Select Committee, they will have to prove their case. Here we have Mr. Emery’s own testimony on his own document.

He will have to face it.

No, I am afraid he will not face it. I cannot refrain from referring to another document, to the resolutions which they passed at the Dorsland Farmers’ Assosiation. Here is a document which is headed—

In another document they say that they gave notice to every person in Messina to come to this meeting, and in a letter which was sent out, again signed by Mr. Campbell, it was stated that at this meeting this resolution was unanimously passed. The chairman of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union, Mr. Lombard, was at this meeting and he fully agreed on behalf of his Association, and he signed the document. Democracy! Here he signs on behalf of his Union. Now I come to the document containing all the “whereases”—

I have said repeatedly that it is only 65—

That is about the only thing that is correct.

That is lie number two. Then I come to the next paragraph but one—

See how the number of farms go up every time. This is a deliberate mis-statement, because they knew the area—

I think I have said enough to show that not only are there no fat cattle coming out of it, but no food.

Why don’t you read Paragraph 4?

I can read Paragraph 4. I am merely quoting a few of these paragraphs. Let me take number 4—

Where are these farms? That is not true.

Those are adjoining farms.

Why did they not say there are 500 farms; why not cross the whole of Zoutpansberg. Here we have another gross mis-statement. I am glad the hon. member has drawn my attention to this paragraph.

You are Omitting these things and then you call these people liars.

It is another mis-statement. They took farms outside the reserve. Why did they not double it; why not treble it? I did not miss Paragraph 4 intentionally.

In any case, it was very convenient to leave it out.

Well, I have now read it and it has not been to your advantage. Then I read the next paragraph.

I need not discuss that any more. That must be lie number five or lie number six by now. Let us take a few more—

This is solemn information which is given to hon. members opposite. It is their bible.

Which paragraph are you reading?

Number 13—

No, one head of cattle per 11.7 morgen.

I am reading the document and hot my hon. friend.

Then you must read correctly.

I ask hon. members to look it up. It is on page 2 of the “whereas” document—

There it is repeated for the second time.

They will say it is a misprint.

—

Now do you see?

The whole thing is a misprint.

Don’t you be simple too. One at a time is quite enough.

You are all simple.

I do not think I have to repeat this 11.7 stunt.

No, it is too stupid.

But supposing it is what hon. members opposite would like it to be, surely when a propaganda document of this kind is put out as fact and everyone on that side believes what is stated in this paragraph ….

In my document it is stated one head of cattle per 11.7 morgen. Every baboon would have seen that it is a misprint. I am also quoting from page 2.

They are all baboons, not only the one who is reading.

Mr. Speaker, this document was sent out solemnly to make the people believe that that was the position. Mr. Emery is the author of this and the people were asked to believe it and hon. members opposite have said they believed it until it was disproved.

On a point of order; I would now like the Minister to listen. He says that we received the same document that he received and that we too read that it was 11.7 head of cattle per morgen, and he went on to say that that was how we quoted it on this side. The point of order is this, that not one of us did anything of the kind. The document which we have clearly states “11.7 morgen per head of cattle”, just the opposite of what the Minister is now putting into our mouths.

This document was sent out for propaganda purposes. It was sent to members of Parliament and they got it. How can they expect that the ordinary man in the street, how can they expect that the hon. member for Berea did not believe them; what does he know about whether it is 11.7 morgen per beast or ….

Even in your document ….

Now I am proving these distortions they do not accept it. I come now to another point. Take No.

My hon. friend must have got that too. And they repeat it—

They repeat that twice, the suitability of the Government-owned farms for the settlement of returned soldiers. People believe it because it comes from this document. I think I have said enough, and hon. members opposite will be glad if I stop. I am convinced that I have proved to the House that it is one of the most unfortunate mistakes that the Government of the day made when they turned that area which it is now proposed to include in the game reserve, into an area for the settlement of people, for human occupation. I repeat that we have had plenty of evidence that the former Bantu race that occupied that area found they were not able to make a living there as a result of the land on which their cattle grazed having deteriorated and having gone back to desert. I say it was sufficient proof that the land could not bear human habitation. Since then we have had the experience, and my hon. friend over there, when he still had a sense of responsibility also realised it when he made that statement that the land was not suitable for human habitation; and in the interests of the land which this Government is bound to protect and preserve, when we see it deteriorating and being overtaken by desert conditions we are compelled in the interests of the people, in the national interest, to take these steps and to preserve the land for posterity; and lastly, to create better conditions not only for the returned soldiers but for every man, woman and child, whatever their race or colour may be, when this war is over, and to provide them with better living, with better health conditions and more security for the future. Then the House must adopt this Bill and strengthen and support the hands of the Government in carrying out these solemn pledges.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—69:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander. M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

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.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sturrock, F. C.

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.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—33:

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

I e Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, Á. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Serfontein and Dr. Van Nierop dropped.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—69:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toït, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sturrock. F. C.

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.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—32:

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig P. J. H.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein. J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Nierop.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—68:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander. M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

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.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sturrock, F. C.

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.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—32:

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig P. J. H.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

That is very unreasonable. These people live 1,300 miles away. It is the furthest point of the whole Union, and I hope the Minister will give them longer time.

No.

Then I must object, and I want to give my reasons for doing so. My first objection is that these people live in the most distant part of the Union. It is a very sparsely populated area. The people do not get post every day. In the circumstances it is impossible for them to prepare their petitions in this short time. It is very clear that there is a very great deal of opposition to this Bill. The rights of these people are being taken away, and in the circumstances we must give them a reasonable opportunity to submit their petitions and to acquaint themselves with what happened here. It is necessary for them to obtain legal advice and to frame their petitions in the proper form so that their objections can be submitted to the Select Committee. They may only hear after a week what happened here and then it will be practically impossibe for them to obtain legal advice in time and to draw up their defence properly in order to submit it to the Select Committee. I therefore move the following amendment—

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that all that is intended here is that these petitions must be submitted within 10 sitting days. I know from personal knowledge that these petitions have already been drawn up.

You have spoken enough nonsense today as it is; stop talking further nonsense.

Please be civil. This matter has been pending for more than a year, and there is not the slightest reason why the petitions should not be submitted within that period.

I second the amendment. I want to make an appeal to the sense of justice of the Acting Prime Minister. We have had a debate here for three days and now the Minister of Lands demands that the petition be submitted within 10 sitting days, and he says he is doing this because he knows that the petitions have already been drawn up. Is he a prophet or is he omnipotent; how does he know that those people have already consulted their attorneys and drawn up the petitions? I think it is nothing less than a disgrace for a Minister to make such a demand. It is no use making an appeal to the Minister of Lands, and for that reason I make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister. He differs from us but he has got a sense of justice. He knows that it is impossible for those people to submit their case properly within such a short space of time, and I think it is only right and fair to give them proper time. There is no haste in connection with this matter.

The monkeys will not run away.

As the hon. member says, the monkeys and wild animals will not run away. We must treat those people fairly and we must give them a proper chance. The Minister of Lands should not be afraid to give these people a reasonable chance to draw up their petitions properly. I hope the Acting Prime Minister will agree to this, because in dealing with the rights of people, we must give them a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Minister of Lands made the peculiar statement that these people have been busy drawing up their case for a year. Did I understand him correctly when he said in the debate that in September he refused to see these people because at that time there was nothing yet?

You may take it as you like.

We now see what the mentality of the Minister of Lands is. I put a friendly and civil question to him as to whether I understood him correctly, because much depends on it, and he simply tells me that I can take it as I like. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister to take note of the position we have now reached in this House. The Minister of Lands further says that he was in contact with those people. The only person whom he mentioned in this discussion was Mr. Emery. Apart from Mr. Emery and settlers there are private owners farming on their own farms. How does the Minister know that those people cannot throw an entirely different light on the matter? They may perhaps have a different case from that of Mr. Emery. When the Minister adopts this attitude I can only come to the conclusion that he is imbued with hatred towards these people and that he under no circumstances wants to give them the opportunity to submit their case properly. And then he still says that the fascists sit on this side of the House. I think that Hitler and Josef Stalin will blush when they enter the presence of the Minister of Lands. We have never in this House seen such contempt of what we regard as the rights of the nation and of democracy as what is being exhibited opposite. I also want to appeal to the Acting Prime Minister. He has a feeling of independence in this House. He is not under the thumb of the Minister of Lands. It seems to me as if the Minister of Lands is imbued with a mania for forcing and oppressing people. I do not think that the Acting Prime Minister is under the thumb of the Minister of Lands and I direct an appeal to him to see to it that right and justice be done to these people.

I do not want to waste the valuable time of the House by appealing to the Minister of Lands. I just want to tell the Minister of Lands this, that right through this debate and now again he showed that he is afraid of the other side of the matter. He is afraid tö give those people a chance of stating their case properly. He is now imposing limits here which will prevent those people from submitting their case to the Select Committee properly. He is just as afraid of this investigation by the Select Committee as he was of the Kakamas Commission which he himself appointed.

Order, order!

I want to put a reasonable and straight question to the Minister of Lands. Does he know whether the settlers there have drawn up their case; does he know whether the private owners have stated their case already by way of petition? No, if these things are to proceed in this manner, it is a discredit to any member of the Cabinet. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is prepared to put the stamp of his approval on this action by the Minister of Lands in simply wiping aside the rights of people? The Minister knows that these people must make arrangements for laying their case before the Select Committee. Not only must they make arrangements after they have received notice, but they must come here. They must book seats on the train, and very often people have to wait for days and days before they get a seat on the train. They cannot travel by aeroplane like the Minister sometimes travels through the country. Neither can they come by motor car because they have no petrol. The Minister knows all this, but notwithstanding that he imposes this time limit. I want to protest against this action of the Minister, and I base my protest on the fact that an injustice is done to these people, and the Minister of Lands is proposing this time limit simply because he is afraid to hear the other side of the case.

I would very much like to approach this matter from the right angle and I want to say this to the Minister, that when we approach this matter from the right angle he simply fails to understand it. The whole of his speech today was an indication that he does not understand this. When an application comes before the courts in connection with water rights, or anything of that sort, the court issues a decree nisi and when that decree is issued all the circumstances are taken into consideration, and one of the circumstances is the distance. It is taken into consideration in fixing the return day of the decree nisi. Here we are dealing with people who are living 1,300 miles away. In relation to this affair the House is in the position of a court, and now the Minister proposes to give the people concerned ten sitting days. We are dealing with the rights of other people, and the Minister does not even follow the rules of the court. I make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister. We ought in connection with these matters at least to follow the procedure of the Supreme Court. I assert that the Minister is here violating all orthodox procedure. There are jurists on the other side, and I ask whether they can identify themselves with something where people’s rights are being affected and they are only given fourteen days to put their case. Here we have had a debate that has gone on three days and during which important things have come to light to which a reply must be given. Points have been mentioned on this side and points have been mentioned on the other side, and those points must be met. I am certain as I know the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) that he will not be in agreement with this course. The Minister of Lands takes a light-hearted view of this matter. If he wants to tamper with the sacred rights of individuals in this way it shows that he is not fit to be a Minister. The Acting Prime Minister has now suddenly disappeared, and I would like to have made an appeal to him. This matter has been mentioned in the House; the House is in a sense a court, and I maintain that a court would have issued a decree nisi in which the return day would have taken all the circumstances into consideration. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) is one of the members on the opposite side who has so much to say about British fair play. I am convinced that no right-minded and right-thinking Englishman would permit anything of this sort. The position is that people’s rights are being affected, and only fourteen days are being given to them although they are 1,300 miles away. That is a legal point. I maintain that no court would permit this. I leave it to the conscience of hon. members, to the conscience of members who have a sense of justice, to exercise their own judgment over the action of the Minister. I say that it is more than reprehensible.

Quite a few appeals have been made to the sense of justice of the Minister of Lands. I am not going to do so, because I must say in all honesty that my faith in the sense of justice of the Minister has been so shocked that I regard such an appeal as futile. But I think it is just as well that the country should know that the fact that this Bill is being referred to a Select Committee after the second reading, was not left to the decision of the Minister. It must not be regarded as a concession on the part of the Minister. The people in the country should know that. The Standing Rules and Orders say that the Minister has no choice. A Bill of this kind must be sent to a Select Committee, and I just want to refer to the relevant clauses in the Standing Rules and Orders.

Who doubts that?

The country should know that the Minister has no choice in the matter. Clause 161 lays down what a dualpurpose Bill is. This Bill falls under that clause, and as soon as a Bill is a dualpurpose Bill, it must go to a Select Committee after the second reading. What do we find now? The Minister of Lands is simply trying to frustrate the object of that rule in the Standing Rules and Orders.

How?

Because he is giving the people no time to submit their case to Parliament. He is not giving them proper time.

Nothing is said in that Bill about time.

Of course not, because distances have to be taken into account. It is left to the discretion and the sense of justice of the Minister. People living in Cape Town do not require the same time as people living in the extremities of South Africa. The country should know two things, firstly, that the Minister had no choice in the matter. This Bill must go to a Select Committee. The second is that the Minister of Lands went out of his way to frustrate the object of the Select Committee by making it impossible for those people to submit their case to the Select Committee. I am sorry that this House is apparently going to lend itself to this step which the Minister proposes to take. We dare not accept the Minister’s statement that these people have already drawn up their petitions. How can we accept it? Reference has been made here to Mr. Emery. That is only one man. How dare we assume that all the other people, the settlers and the private people, have already prepared their case? If we accept that then we frustrate the object of this Rule in the Standing Rules and Orders. If we accept this proposal of the Minister we prevent those people from submitting their case to Parliament. We have heard that those people have tried to submit then case to the Government and the Minister, but that they were not given an opportunity to do so. In heaven’s name, see to it then that they get a chance to submit their case to Parliament. Is this House going to make itself a party to depriving these people of the opportunity to submit their case to Parliament, since they were not given an opportunity to submit their case to the Government? This matter is now in the hands of Parliament. Are we going to refuse them the opportunity which the Government refused them? I must say in all honesty that that clashes with every feeling of right and justice which I possess. Every instinct of chivalry revolts against this type of action. I should be very sorry if this Parliament in whose hands the matter now rests, especially since the Minister refused to hear these people, does not afford them an opportunity of properly submitting their case. Every feeling of justice and every instinct of fairness revolts against it.

Every fibre of your being.

I am sorry the hon. Minister is not prepared to show just a little of that on this occasion.

According to the procedure of this House, there are two types of Select Committees. One type deals with the ordinary national interests and the other deals with private interests or with private interests and national interests. A Select Committee which deals with private interests or with dual-purpose interests, is in the same position as an ordinary court. It is acknowledged that when a Select Committee is appointed to go into a private Bill or a dual-purpose Bill, it is in the same position as an ordinary court. Counsel has the right to appear before the Committee. The parties have the right to present their case and the practice in this House is that when a Select Committee is appointed to go into a matter which affects private rights, that Select Committee acts as an ordinary court of law. There are strict rules governing that. A member of such a Select Committee may not be absent without the permission of the Speaker, or without sound reason. The Select Committee deals with the matter in the same way as an ordinary court, and it is called upon to decide the matter. A Select Committee is called upon to summon the parties whose interests are affected and to hear evidence and then to give a decision. They must be able to bring all possible evidence. In this case we are dealing with the most distant part of South Africa, with people who live in the most distant parts of the country. When will they receive notification that a Select Committee has been appointed to hear their case? Does the House know how long it takes for the post to reach them? In these distant parts it often happens that the people only get post once a week. When will they receive notification that such a committee has been appointed? Will all the people receive timeous notification of this? It is of no avail for the Minister to say that this matter has been before the country for a long time. The people do not know about this step; they know nothing about the procedure of the House; they do not know what the position is. When will they receive notification that they will be able to come and give evidence? Can the Minister give me the assurance that they will receive it within ten days? When will the notice be sent out? Tomorrow it will be Saturday, a half day. It may not go out tomorrow—probably not. The Select Committee has not yet been appointed. It is practically impossible for the people to receive notification within the next week that they will be permitted to come and give evidence. And how will they be able to come from these distant parts to give evidence? By train? Has provision been made to enable them to get accommodation? Will the Minister, be able to give the assurance that these people can get here in time to give evidence?

They must not give evidence within ten days. All they are required to do is to hand in their petitions within that period.

Very well, I accept that point. They may receive notification of this in a week’s time. Then they have to get hold of an attorney or someone else to draw up the petition. Then they have to post it. Will it be possible to get the petition down here within ten days? I wonder what the hon. member who interrupted me would say if a court of this country were to act in this way? If he brought a case before the court in Cape Town and a rule nisi had to be served on people behind the Zoutpansberg range, and the court allowed fourteen days for that purpose, what would the hon. member say?

They have their attorneys in Cape Town.

If it were the hon. member’s client, what argument would he advance in the court against such treatment? He would enlarge on the unfairness of it for hours.

Only three days after the first reading are allowed for a private Bill.

Of course the hon. member does not want to reply to my question. He would not regard such action on the part of the court as being reasonable. These people should at least be given an opportunity to receive timeous notification and they should have sufficient time to submit their petitions. There is not a single member in this House who would say that he is honestly convinced that two weeks are sufficient in this case. I had not intended taking part in the debate; I listened to it, but at this stage I feel that something absolutely unfair is being done towards the people whose interests are affected, and it is an unfair act which this House as the highest tribunal of the country cannot tolerate. I am surprised that hon. members on the other side who are always so fond of speaking of right and justice, are now silent. Do they only speak of right and justice when it affects their own interests? I wonder whether the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) thinks it is right and fair that these people should not be given proper time? I should like him to get up and say that in his opinion fourteen days are sufficient, firstly, to receive notification and then to draw up a petition and, finally, to submit it to Cape Town to reach the House in time? Does he think it is fair? I am sorry this has been moved. This side of the House, rightly or wrongly, opposed this measure; the brochure, rightly or wrongly, opposes the plan, and after all these representations and all this opposition, this House cannot take such an unfair step as not to give the people sufficient time to submit their case. This unfair time restriction against them is far-reaching in the circumstances. I am sorry the Acting Prime Minister is not here. It seems to me that he left the House deliberately.

That is not the case. He has an appointment at Malmesbury at 8 o’clock.

I think if he had been here, he would have been ashamed. This act will testify against the Minister and his Government as an act of injustice towards people who are defenceless. I strongly protest against it.

I should like to bring something to the notice of the House. I want to ask the hon. Minister what reason there is for haste in connection with this Bill. The Minister had another Bill of a similar character, namely the Saldanha Bay Water Supply Bill, and I should like to know why in the case of Saldanha Bay, 10 days were granted, although these people are only 80 miles from Cape Town, along the main road with sufficient petrol to get to Cape Town, and why the same period of 10 days only is granted in this case? These people who are interested in Dongola are 1,300 miles from Cape Town, and they are only getting 10 days. I think the Minister must admit that the people are entitled to a longer period. Rightly or wrongly, this is a matter which deeply affects the people and they are entitled to be heard. They submitted certain contentions; they were insulted and besmirched. These people should be given a full opportunity to come and defend themselves. But they are being given the same time as the people at Saldanha, which is 80 miles away. It seems to me that there is another motive in giving the people such short notice. I think it is extremely unfair.

Would you be satisfied if I made it a week longer, the 27th April?

Yes.

I move as a further amendment—

I second.

On a point or order, are we not sitting unconstitutionally? The automatic adjournment of the House was suspended until such time as the motion for the second reading of the Bill was disposed of, and we are now dealing with something else.

This arises out of the second reading. It must necessarily be disposed of.

The committee stage also flows from the second reading.

The motion which is now being discussed forms part of the second reading.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Higgerty put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. Sauer dropped.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.