I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 3 and 7 put and agreed to.

In Clause 8,

In order to meet the point made by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 10 and 13 put and agreed to.

In Clause 14,

In order to implement a promise I made, I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 15, 22 and 24 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading on 18th May.

With reference to the amendment which the Minister has moved in paragraph (b) of Clause 1, I expressed an opinion at the second reading on the insertion of these words and the sound principle thereof, a principle which is so sound that in my opinion it should be made universal. We are confronted with the position that all countries which are not covered by the insertion of these words, will still be privileged. As regards these countries which are now covered by the insertion of these words, we have the sound principle that copyright between ourselves and those countries will be based on reciprocal arrangement. We have no objection to a reciprocal arrangement being concluded with the countries mentioned. But we regard that, as the Act now stands and even with the amendment which the Minister now proposes, we will have a one-sided protection of copyrights, and we want to propose that the principle which is embodied in the Minister’s amendment will be the general course to be adhered to in the future, namely that all arrangements concerning copyrights between the Union and other countries will be based upon a reciprocal agreement. I think that that principle is so sound that it is unnecessary to dwell on it any further. I therefore wish to propose the following amendment—

It will be applicable to any country with whom we have an agreement. We are acting then in accordance with the principle that copyrights are protected by mutual agreements between countries. I do not know whether the copyrights of Afrikaans authors are protected in terms of this clause. If they are protected, then they must be protected either by means of a mutual agreement or by means of usage. I think that we in the Union cannot only rely on usage, unless that usage is based upon an agreement. If an agreement exists between the Union Government and the British territories which are mentioned here, then the amendment falls within the existing practice. But if an agreement does not exist, then now, in my opinion, is the opportunity to ensure that all copyrights will be protected over the whole world, including the British territories, on the basis of a mutual agreement. We do not want to take up the time of the House, and it is such a sound principle that there can really be no objection to it. But for us it is of importance because it is a sound principle and because it will place South Africa’s prestige on the level where it ought to be.

May I point out to the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) that he has handed his amendment to me, but I cannot understand exactly how it fits into the Bill before the Committee.

May I explain that I wrote it out with the intention of reading it out here. It amounts to the deletion of certain words and the substitution of those words by other words.

The amendment which I have here is the following: Amendment to Clause 21 (g). Delete all words after “copyright” to the end of the subclause. Delete the word “or” from the proposed amendment to Clause 1 (b) of the Bill, and substitute that deleted word by “any country with the government of which the Government of the Union has concluded a reciprocal agreement for the protection of copyright”. The amendment is not in a proper form and I cannot put it thus.

May I just in the meantime tell my hon. friend that as I undertook to do last year, I discussed this matter with the law advisers, for my hon. friend then raised the matter in a wider sense. We discussed it with the law advisers with a view to the possibility of bringing about an amendment, more or less as my hon. friend desires. They, however, pointed out that we actually have in reality a reciprocal agreement with the other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations, because the British Copyright Act is to a large degree embodied in our own Act. This results in a reciprocal position. We recognise their copyright and they recognise our copyright. The law advisers were unwilling, in view of possible complications as a result of that Act, to propose a provision such as my hon. friend desires. I would suggest that my hon. friend leaves the matter there. He can discuss it further with us before the Report Stage. But it would be undesirable to move an amendment now. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter further in the light of the advice furnished by the law advisers.

I do not wish to enlarge on what was said by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). He explained very clearly that we want to protect our copyrights on the basis of reciprocal arrangements and that we are not merely, because we form a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, prepared to accept certain arrangements. The hon. member stated our views very clearly as regards that matter. I have risen to draw the Minister’s attention to something which perhaps does not really relate to this Bill, but which is yet creating a strange position is our country, namely the fact that every South African author is obliged by law— and that is apparently only because we are regarded as forming a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations—to send a specimen copy of any book which he publishes to the British Museum. This is subject to penal provisions. I do not know whether the English authors are obliged, when they publish a book, to send a specimen copy to the Parliamentary Library or to the South African Library. I call this an anomaly which continues to exist.

I do not know what the legal position is, but it does not fall under this Bill.

It does not fall under this Bill, but it is the legal position. I mention it here because it concerns the same principle which has already been mentioned here, namely that only because South Africa is a part of the British Empire it is subject to certain obligations which still remind us of the colonial stage, and I want to draw the Acting Prime Minister’s attention to this.

The position has unfortunately taken a turn which I did not anticipate. The Chairman has now ruled that I cannot put the amendment. On the other hand the position as put by the Minister, is not wholly acceptable. That protection does exist by implication, I accept. But it is not legal protection in accordance with the provisions of a reciprocal agreement, or a contractual undertaking. Now my intention is this. Whereas the existing clause is an improvement on the existing Act, I am nevertheless obliged to move my amendment at this stage, for otherwise I will not have the opportunity of effecting an amendment.

But you can place an amendment on the Order Paper.

But then I must vote against this clause.

No, that is unnecessary. The clause is being amended in another respect.

In that case I can raise the matter at a later stage.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Clause 6 contains an amendment by which the preamble to the artide is amended and it appears to me that the new preamble may also dominate the rest of the article. It is proposed tö delete the words “all goods warehoused or re-warehoused” and to substitute “goods of a particular denomination entered for warehousing or re-warehousing on a separate bill of entry”. To me it reads as if the proposed amendment has a more limited scope than the words which it is proposed to delete. My interpretation of the words which must be deleted is that they are of wider application to a greater scope of goods than the proposed words, and the question is whether by so doing an additional class of goods cannot perhaps be created which will fall under the provisions of the Act. The article has actually to do with the classification of goods as regards the storage period in State warehouses. Now with the amendment of the Act, it appears to me that an additional class of goods can originate. I do not wish to discuss the matter further here but would like to see the Minister go into the matter, and that it is made clear that nothing more is contemplated by his amendment than what was originally defined in the Act.

The position is that in the section of the principal Act which is now to be amended, we are dealing with the determination of the maximum period for the warehousing of goods without payment of customs duties. The usual practice is not to apply this provision to definite parcels of goods but to whole consignments of a particular kind of goods. The words, as we find them in the Act today “all warehoused or re-ware-housed goods”, can be interpreted as meaning every parcel of goods. Of course it is not to the advantage of the importer to give that interpretation to these words and in practice that interpretation is not given to them, and only whole consignments of a particular kind of goods are dealt with. In order to make the position quite clear we are now putting forward this amendment. This provision will not be contrary to the best interests of the importer but it will benefit him.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

In sub-section 2 an alternative method is being suggested for the owner of goods which have been destroyed or spoilt. This amendment now provides that the Commissioner can make an offer to the owner to abandon such goods to the State and, as I read it thereby to obtain a refund of the customs duties which have already been paid, for this only applies where customs duties have been paid on goods which had not yet been removed from the warehouse. Where goods have been spoilt or have become of inferior quality the owner is now put in the position of being able to abandon the goods to the Department. I take it that thereafter the State can do with it as it likes. First of all, the Department will still obtain customs duties on it but these goods may be worth less or many be worth more than those duties. If the goods are worth more then it means that the State cannot appropriate the full amount derived from the sale thereof and that means that negotiations have to take place in order to pay the balance to the owner. On the other hand it is possible that the goods are worth less than the customs duties which will have to be paid. When they are worth nothing at all we should accept the principle that no customs duties shall be paid on articles which are valueless. That is morally sound, although the State cannot be held responsible for the fact that the goods have lost all value. But in cases where the goods are worth less than the customs duties the State should at least have the right to recover part of the money and to refund the balance. I do not know whether I read this correctly but it looks to me that we are now adopting a new principle as far as importers are concerned. The importer will now be able to abandon the goods to the State and thereafter he will be relieved of all responsibility. When the goods should be worth more than the customs duties I feel that the importer should rather dispose of them himself and that the State should obtain part of the customs duties. If the goods are worth less the State should rather remit part of the customs duty but not the whole.

Actually no new principle is involved in this amendment. What we propose here we can already do in the case of goods which have been imported and stored without payment of customs duties. Now, however, we are dealing with the case of goods on which customs duties have been paid and we want to grant the importer the same facilities in this case as he already has in the other case. We do not bind ourselves to take his goods against payment of customs duties. Every case will be considered on its merits and therefore there is no danger that the State will suffer any loss in the cases to which the hon. member referred. The State is not obliged to accept the offer in those cases. I therefore believe that the hon. member can be reassured.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

In this clause provision is made for the inspection of everybody’s goods. Sub-section (2) is a new sub-section which is now being added to Section 106 of the principal Act and everybody leaving the Union will now be obliged, if called upon by the proper officer to do so to declare unreservedly all goods in his possession which he proposes taking with him. It will be obvious to anybody with some travelling experience that this may lead to enormous difficulties. I do admit that the clause lays down that this will only happen if the person concerned is called upon to do so by the proper officer and it is therefore clear that these difficulties will not arise in every case but nevertheless in certain cases difficulties will arise. I quite understand that the provisions will only be applied in cases where there is a suspicion that somebody is abusing the opportunity in order to export, for instance, prohibited goods. Of course, there is a provision in the Act, I think it is Section 10, which entitles the State to take action in cases of smuggling. That means that this new addition cannot actually have been put in with the idea of preventing smuggling. Most likely the Department has had further experience in regard to the export of goods which should not be exported. I should like the Minister to tell the House what the intention of this amendment is apart from preventing smuggling.

There are certain goods the export of which is prohibited or in connection with which there are limitations on the export. Under the present provision in the Act the powers of the Department are not sufficient to obtain the necessary information. It is of course not our intention to apply this provision to everybody but only to such cases where there is a suspicion and it is necessary to have those powers in such cases. I can give the hon. member the assurance that these powers will be used with discretion.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

On the motion of the Minister of Finance an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

This clause makes provision for the non-collection of customs duties on corned beef imported into the country during last year. Before we can accept this clause we should first like to have a statement from the Government and especially from the Minister of Agriculture in connection with this matter. For that reason I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is not in his seat.

Move the adjournment of the debate.

The matter is of such a serious nature that we must have an explanation.

Will you allow me to say something by way of explanation. I want to point out that this clause only applies to the period mentioned therein. We have taken action in terms of Section 81 of the principal Act which gives us the power to do such a thing after a period of notice and if we want to continue with it afterwards we must first obtain the approval of Parliament. This clause only deals with the period preceding the coming into force of that provision, namely, the period from the 14th October to the 3rd November, 1944, but in terms of the Customs Act we also have to obtain the aproval of Parliament for the further period and it will be necessary for me to put a proposal to the House for granting such approval. I therefore want to explain that we are now only dealing with the commencement of that period but in order to cover the main provision a further motion will be necessary which still has to be introduced and I will ask the Minister of Agriculture to be present then. Here, however, we are only dealing with the transition period.

I quite understand the Minister’s explanation that this provision only relates to a certain period of last year, but that does not alter the fact that if we on this side now vote for the noncollection of this customs duty, it can be concluded that members on this side associate themselves with the importation of meat, whereas today it is quite clear that the Government as far as the importation of meat is concerned did not act in the best interests of the country as a whole. What do we find now? We not only find that today there is a surplus of beef but also a surplus of mutton and the question therefore is whether we on this side of the House can be expected to approve of the importation of meat. We hoped that the Minister of Agriculture would be present to make a statement in connection with this matter.

He will do so when the proposal concerned comes up for discussion. This clause does not actually deal with the point.

Quite right. But we feel that we cannot accept the principle because we cannot see that there was any necessity for the importation of meat. As the hon. Minister knows, at the moment not less than 80,000 sheep carcases are lying in the docks and we feel that the market is being flooded. This morning we read in the newspapers that the abattoirs at Cape Town are over-stocked and that there is a large supply of sheep. Farmers who wanted to send cattle to the Johannesburg market were notified by their agents that they cannot obtain permits and on the other hand statements are made that there is a shortage of meat in the country, and it is said that owing to this shortage meat has to be imported. There is no proof that there was a shortage but there is ample proof that proper control is lacking and unless we can get the assurance that the Government will take steps immediately to bring the meat position in South Africa under proper control so that the farmers will not suffer losses, we cannot be satisfied. Do you know that there is a panic among the farmers? One can notice everywhere that not only large numbers of sheep are sent mainly to the controlled markets, but that also at country stock sales the supply is larger than the market can absorb and the result is that the farmers become panicky and do not know what the future holds in store for them. If the Minister cannot give the assurance that he will improve the position by according the farmers a better treatment in future as far as prices are concerned, he must expect the kind of thing to happen which did happen. The prices which the farmers obtain today are unsatisfactory and the farmers suffer great losses because at present they have to market cattle which are not in a very good condition. The drought has seriously affected the country and not only the Union but also South-West Africa and the farmers became worried and sent their cattle to the market because they are afraid of the drought conditions. The cattle which they do send are, however, not in such a condition that they can obtain the best prices and if we look at the fixed prices which the Minister has laid down we notice that when meat is not absolutely prime, then the farmers receive only a low price for their cattle. That is what is happening today. Owing to the anxiety which exists, the farmers send cattle to the market because they are afraid that they will not be able to feed then cattle through the winter months, and consequently they send their cattle in a poor condition and they obtain very low prices. I had hoped that the Minister would make a statement which would reassure the farmers and that he would give an undertaking that steps will be taken immediately. We on this side are not going to accept the clause unless we can obtain a statement from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry immediately that he will tackle the problem. I can assure the Minister of Finance that the position is very acute at the moment.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux). The Minister says that he will have to introduce a motion in regard to this matter and that he will see that the Minister of Agriculture will be present, but we want to protest against the principle now. We have to do that in connection with this clause. If we approve of the clause, then we approve of the principle that meat should be imported and then we shall have committed ourselves. I want to lodge a strong protest against the unsound manner in which the Minister of Agriculture controls the food position and especially the meat position. There can be no doubt that farmers are panicky at the moment because meat is sent to the stock sales and is sold at low prices and is practically given away.

I want to suggest that the hon. member should confine himself to the period mentioned in this clause, namely from the fourteenth day of October to the third day of November, 1944. As the Minister indicated the hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter when the relative motion will be dealt with. This clause only deals with that particular period.

But what happened during that period is precisely the cause of the position which has developed today. If no meat had been imported at that time most probably the position today would not be that we are saddled with a huge surplus.

Only a very small quantity was imported.

Every control causes a panic on the market and for that reason I want to protest most strongly against it. The hon. member is laughing. When in the past few years the farmers were unfairly treated the excuse was: “There is a war on”. But now there is no longer a war on and even though the Minister laughs about the matter we have to object most strongly against the importation of meat and we cannot accept this clause unless the Minister of Agriculture makes a satisfactory statement in regard to the whole position. Why was the importation of meat allowed? The Minister did something which was illegal and for that reason he now has to come to this House and ask us to indemnify that illegal Act. That is what it amounts to. We cannot allow such a thing to be done illegally, and let the Minister thereafter come to Parliament and force the matter through by means of his majority when he asks for approval of what has been done. We cannot protest strongly enough against the actions of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance. That importation of meat happened to the detriment of our farmers and our farming population in general. I hope that something of this nature will not again occur in the future. I strongly protest against it and I hope that the Minister of Finance will postpone the matter so that the Minister of Agriculture—I do not know where he is now hiding again—will have an opportunity to make a statement in regard to the matter.

I should like to endorse the remarks made by the previous two speakers in regard to this matter. The information we should like to receive from the Minister is why meat has been imported? The Minister mentioned the section of the Act under which the Government is entitled to do so and I accept that as being correct. The meat was imported by the Government and handed to the Food Controller for distribution in the country, but what we should like to know is what price was paid at the time and at what price it was retailed to the consumers. Even after the remission of this penny and l½d. per lb. in customs duty, did the consumers benefit and if so, how much did they benefit? We should like to know this because our contention is that it was not necessary to import meat during that period. The Government is now asking for an indemnity for that period when relatively little was imported. The imports could, however, have been very heavy at that time and we should like to know at what price the meat was imported. It is now said that this clause does not deal with that matter, and that approval is being asked only for that particular period. We know that the majority on the other side will pass this clause, but we have to protest against the actions of the Government. If we can be satisfied that the consumers did benefit by those actions or that the position was such that the country did not have any meat or that the meat was distributed to the poor at a low price and that they received the benefit of it, we will not object so much. But we contend that it was necessary at the time and that there was no actual shortage of meat. That happened a few months ago and it is clear that there could not have been a shortage, but this scheme was so badly handled that the whole meat business became paralysed. We want to emphasise that there never was a shortage and that the position would not have arisen if the scheme had been properly applied. I now want to put a direct question to the Minister. It was said here that 80,000 sheep carcases had been imported from Australia.

That question has nothing to do with this clause.

I only want to ask whether customs duties were paid on this meat and whether tomorrow or the day after there will not be another request to this House to approve of the importation of meat?

I should like to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). We are dealing here with the tinned meat taken over by the Food Controller from the Department of Defence. Of course the Department of Defence did not pay customs duties on the importation of that meat. The meat was imported for the requirements of the army, but as soon as the meat was made available to the public customs duties would have had to be paid according to the Act.

Was it only tinned meat?

Corned beef.

It says here frozen pork.

We are now dealing with Clause 17 and the hon. member is referring to Clause 18. In Clause 17 we are only dealing with corned beef. This was tinned meat taken over from the Department of Defence. As soon as this was taken over and made available to the public it became subject to customs duties of 1½d. per lb. At the time there was a great shortage of meat for public consumption and we wanted to make the meat available to the public as cheaply as possible. At the time there definitely was a shortage. Arrangements were therefore made that such meat should be exempt from the customs duty of 1½d. per lb. if retailed to the public and the public did receive the benefit of that 1½d. per lb. The price paid by the Department of Defence was 1s. per lb. It was then taken over by the Food Controller. With the 1½d. customs duty he would have had to pay 1s. 1½d. per lb. and that would have meant that the consumer buying from the retailer would have had to pay 1s. 9d. Owing to the remission of the customs duty and also a small decrease in the profit margin of the retailer the price to the public was then brought down from 1s. 9d. to 1s. 7d. per lb. The public therefore receive the full benefit. As far as this period is concerned, the amount of customs duties involved would have been approximately £1,000. This means that the quantity of meat taken over during that period amounted to approximately 150,000 lbs. That is all we are dealing with here. The question of further imports will be dealt with in the motion which I shall have to submit to the House at a later stage.

I am surprised to hear the price which is being paid here for inferior meat canned in other countries. That meat of course is of a very low grade. It has to compete with the meat in this country and for that low grade they pay 1s. 1½d. if the customs duty is paid and if is not paid then 1s. per lb. That means that this low grade meat is being sold at £5 per 100 lbs., and in this country one can obtain only about 35s. for that same grade of meat. I want to say once more that at that time there was plenty of meat in the country and that it was absolutely unnecessary to import meat. I now want to ask a further question, namely whether the Meat Control Board recommended the importation of this meat or whether the Government did so under the emergency regulations, and if the latter be the case, why the Government puts the blame on the Meat Control Board for having imported the meat?

This is meat which was imported for the army. It was part of the stocks of the Department of Defence.

I just want to protest against Clause 17. I will talk about Clause 18 when we come to it.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—65:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander. M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bumside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

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: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I feel that Clause 18 is just as contentious as the previous one. Here we have a case of the importation of meat from neighbouring territories in order to ruin the farmers in the Union or to force them to accept lower prices. I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Meat Control Board recommended the importation of meat from Rhodesia, or whether it was done under the emergency regulations. I should like to know who imported it and whether the Government is again going to use the Meat Control Board as a smokescreen to cover up its sins.

Of course I cannot go into those details. This is a matter for the Department of Agriculture. I am only dealing with the question of the remission of customs duties but I understand that this importation was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Meat Control Board. In any case I want to point out once more, as I did before, that this arrangement was only valid for four months, namely from the 11th June to the 11th November. Those four months are past and the matter is now therefore entirely obsolete. The imports took place only during that period.

From the reply given a moment ago by the Minister to this House it is very clear that he does not possess the necessary information. For that reason it is essential that the Minister of Agriculture should be present in the House to give us that information. It is abundantly clear that there was some exchange of notes between the Union and Rhodesia and that the contract for those four months was changed in such a way that underweight cattle could be imported. As the Minister knows, beef can only be imported when the animal is of a certain weight. From the Schedule it appears that they evaded that stipulation in order to force our farmer to his knees. Instead of complying with that stipulation the Government went along and said: Send any animal, whether it complies with the weight stipulation or not. I repeat once more how essential it is that the Minister of Agriculture should have been here this morning and that he should not have taken to his heels when these clauses were due for discussion. He is not present now. He treats this House with contempt. The Minister of Finance says that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter at a later stage but this morning we had the suitable opportunity. The Minister of Agriculture should have been here this morning to supply the House with the necessary information. He was here earlier this morning but before these clauses were due for consideration he simply left the House. He has come in this very moment. Let him now give the House the necessary information.

Just tell him what the information is which you want.

We want to know why the importation of cattle from Rhodesia was allowed during those four months. Was the idea to undermine the farmers in South Africa and to bring down their prices and therefore to import meat from Rhodesia although it was not in accordance with the agreement? I think the Minister of Agriculture owes this House an explanation why those actions were taken.

During the previous stage of this Bill the hon. Minister said we approached Rhodesia in this matter and that we asked a favour from Rhodesia. We know that Rhodesia has been trying for years to obtain a market for beef in South Africa. We have now provided that market for Rhodesia, and as the Minister knows, we have since 1925 based our whole tariff on a quid pro quo basis. In other words, if we want to do somebody else a favour, we want to obtain something in return. This is a matter which was raised here by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). He asks whether we tried to obtain a better market for our goods in Rhodesia. Although this was a temporary arrangement, as the Minister of Finance explained, it nevertheless was an advantage which Rhodesia enjoyed by being able to export to the Union free of duty. There is also the question of competition with our farmers. I do not want to go into that aspect but I am interested in the question whether we received something in return for what we gave to Rhodesia.

As far as that aspect of the matter is concerned I want to say once more that Rhodesia was not keen to get rid of the meat. We approached Rhodesia to make the meat available. Rhodesia was not saddled with the meat. The Minister of Agriculture will deal with the other aspect of the matter.

Without going into the merits of the meat control I just want to say that there was a time when meat in the controlled areas was very scarce, although it was plentiful in the uncontrolled areas. Owing to a scarcity even in the uncontrolled areas the price of mutton was unprecedently high at one time.

The hon. member cannot go into that now; he should confine himself to the four months mentioned in the Schedule.

Then I want to say that the importation of meat from outside the Union during that period was absolutely necessary and the contention that this was a measure to force the farmers to bring down their prices is devoid of all truth, and I want to point out that we have to proceed very carefully in this matter. Today there is much meat in the country because the farmers owing to drought are marketing their stock to such an extent that it may possibly cause another shortage in the future.

Before the Minister of Agriculture replies I just want to tell him that he owes the country an explanation. Here we notice that at a certain time last year he imported beef from overseas and also from the neighbouring territory of Rhodesia.

Tinned meat.

It was done for the Department of Defence.

In any case it came on the market here. What we want to know, before we can approve of this clause, is what the Minister is going to do in order to improve this position, for we now find that there is not a shortage of meat in South Africa.

And there never was.

Today the position is that the market is being flooded. Even when there was a shortage, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) admitted that here, there was a surplus of meat in the uncontrolled districts. That proves that there was no shortage and before we can approve of this clause and can condone this remission we must be informed by the Minister whether he will take steps to see that the farmers will in future be encouraged to market their cattle, and that they will not send their cattle to the market only when drought conditions force them to do so, but that they will be treated in such a way by the Minister that they will market their cattle under normal conditions also. Then there will be sufficient meat for the consumers.

I think it is rather peculiar that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) should become so excited about this matter and should talk so glibly about the importation of meat as a means to bring down the price to the farmer. What is the truth in regard to this matter? We imported meat to this country because we had a shortage in our controlled areas.

Because of your miserable control.

What objections can our producers in the country raise when their prices are fixed, when there was no open market as in the past, and when the importation of meat from elsewhere could not force down our prices? The prices were fixed and the farmers were always at liberty to send their meat to the market and obtain the fixed prices.

Those reduced prices.

We now get the old complaint that the prices are too low. Today with those same prices and even lower prices we obtain so much slaughter cattle that we cannot even slaughter all of it.

That is on account of the drought.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad earlier in the year even spoke about famine and today he makes a noise because we have imported meat from Rhodesia. His method of considering matters only from a political point of view and not from the point of view of the best interests of the country do not carry us any further. The fact simply is that we very much needed that meat during those four months in order to provide our population in the large cities with food. Our population, which in some cases had to work long hours in the war factories, needed that meat. We therefore imported meat and the farmers could always obtain the same prices which had been laid down. It did not affect their prices. They were not done the slightest injustice and neither did they suffer any disadvantage. The prices were fixed and they still could obtain those prices and if in future it should be necessary to again import meat if there is a shortage in the controlled areas in our country, I shall again take steps to import meat in order to assist our people here. A point was raised by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) and I want to tell him that the position today is that we do not limit the controlled areas to the decreased quota which was fixed not so long ago. We slaughter the cattle as quickly as we can and the meat we cannot put into cold storage is supplied to the butchers. In other words we do not limit the butchers to the quota of 65 per cent. Here in Cape Town we supplied them with as much as 129 per cent. of the existing quota in order to help our farmers and not to obstruct their efforts. As I said before, we slaughter as quickly as we can and the meat we cannot put into cold storage, we distribute far above the retail quota in order to assist the farmers, so that during the winter months they will not be saddled with their cattle.

And you wanted to make the House believe that our livestock had been reduced to a minimum by excessive slaughtering.

My hon. friend just now contended that the reason for the cattle coming to the market is the existing drought. I do not want to go into the question of the price level again, for I know quite well that the other side cannot put up a defendable case in regard to that question and for that reason it is not necessary to go into the matter once more. We slaughter as quickly as we can, however, so that the cattle need not be kept until the winter months when large numbers of them might die.

I was somewhat astonished by the explanation of the Minister although it corresponds with his attitude right through the operation of the meat scheme. He fixed the prices at such a level that the farmers simply could not sell their cattle and when they could not sell it at those prices he threatened that he would import meat.

There was no threat at all. Their prices were fixed.

I consider that this clause is far worse than the previous one under which corned beef was imported from America, for in this case we already had an agreement with Rhodesia. So much cattle and so much meat were to be imported and not more. Those provisions worked all right and I still maintain that it was not necessary to set aside that agreement and to import beef during a certain period. Seeing that the Minister today admits that they are slaughtering the cattle as rapidly as possible in order to meet the farmers’ difficulties, I just want to say that if they had been a little more accommodating at that time there would not have been a shortage and there would not have been any necessity for importing meat. I take it we shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter again at a later stage. At this stage we just want to voice our protest against the actions of the Minister.

I should like to say to the Minister that it is no use telling us that this was only a temporary arrangement and that it now belongs to the past. An agreement with Rhodesia was in force under which there was a limitation on the importation of cattle because we wanted to protect the cattle farmers in our country. The Government without coming to Parliament to obtain approval set aside that agreement. Now all of a sudden they maintain that they asked Rhodesia for a favour. We will now obtain meat from them; they have done us a favour and for that reason we did not negotiate with them in order to obtain reciprocal benefits for the Union. The Minister should know better than to use that argument. The position is that the Rhodesias always wanted to export then cattle to this counutry, and that would bring down the price to the farmers in this country. Now all of a sudden they do us a favour by exporting their meat to this country. The Minister of Agriculture says: “Look here, you know that there was a shortage of meat and for that reason I allowed the importation”. He maintains that we on this side are trying to make political capital out of it and he furthermore says that if there should be another shortage in the controlled areas he will again import meat. It does not take more than four months to discourage the farmers and during those four months you forced the farmers to send their meat to the market because they are saddled with a Minister who while pretending that he acts in the interests of agriculture in general, in my opinion only looks after the interests of the consumers. Let us be fair about this. At that time the position was critical. The farmers had the cattle. The Minister knows that as well as I do and the Department knew that there were sufficient cattle. At that time, however, the farmers had sufficient grazing and for that reason they did not want to sell. They moreover were dissatisfied with the prices. They did not know what the price would be from day to day. Because there was a drought they were forced to send their cattle to the markets and in those four months the Minister made the farmers lose courage. That period now belongs to the past. Now he no longer needs those measures. I am not going to accept a provision which will harm the farmers and I now tell the Minister that the consumers were prepared to pay for the meat, and that they would have been prepared to pay more for it. At that time they would have paid more, but the Minister by his obstinacy and his clumsiness in the fixing of prices created that state of affairs and now he tries to find all kinds of excuses. I am not going to accept this clause and I do not think that the excuse put forward by the Minister of Finance that this was only a temporary measure, entitles him to ask us to accept this clause.

The Minister with much self-complacency told the House that if it should be necessary he would again import meat.

What would you do if it were necessary.

I want to tell the Minister that the farmers in the country will note what he has said here.

Should we let the people starve?

No, we will let you starve.

The Minister by importing meat succeeded in keeping his ill-considered scheme going in South Africa and that was the whole idea behind this importation. He threatened the farmers with it. He told the farmers: If you do not market your cattle I am going to import.

I did not say so.

You said so in the Free State.

You do not know what you are talking about.

And now with much self-complacency he says that he will do so again. Before the Minister imported meat he should have explained to the public that there was a shortage of meat in the country. We now see that there was no shortage. The whole problem was that the farmers were unwilling to sell their cattle to the Government at a reduced price. The Minister continually said that there was no reduced price. The Minister continually said that there was no reduction in price and he now says it again. I want to ask him to go to any rural area and tell the farmers there that there was no reduction in price as compared to the prices ruling before the scheme came into operation. He will fare badly.

I said that the importation of meat did not bring down the fixed price.

The point I am making now is that the fixed price did not give satisfaction and for that reason the farmers could not market their cattle. Owing to the Minister’s ill-considered and defective scheme which put the farmers at a disadvantage, they were not prepared to send their cattle to the market. Now the drought is forcing them to do so. It is not because they are willing to market their cattle but the drought simply compels them to do so. Today the Minister again threatens that if the farmers are not prepared to market their cattle he will again import meat. The Minister will now get a reputation among the farmers of being a person threatening to do anything in order to force the farmers to market their cattle at uneconomical prices. The Minister referred here to the consumer. This side of the House looks better after the interests of the consumer than the Minister himself. If he could have given us the assurance that the low prices which he fixed would have benefited the consumer, we would have been satisfied. The consumer, however, today does not pay less for his meat than he paid before the Minister’s scheme came into operation. The consumer pays either the same price or a higher price. He does not pay less and that is why we are dissatisfied. The result was—and we now have had it proved—that the Minister’s scheme kept the farmers’ cattle off the market. We expected that the Minister would tell us today that he will have the whole scheme investigated in order to eliminate unnecessary costs between the producer and the consumer so that the farmer might be able to get a more satisfactory price without the consumer having to pay more for his meat. That is what he should have done. If the meat can be retailed to the consumers at a lower price and if the farmers can obtain a satisfactory price then the whole matter will be in order. But now the Minister sticks to his ill-considered scheme to the disadvantage of the farmer. He simply says that he will again make use of the same means of importing meat in order to force the farmers to sell their cattle. I hope that the country and the farmers will now realise that. The Minister of Agriculture will still have to suffer for it.

I am disappointed with the explanation of the Minister. I only want to know from the Minister of Finance whether next week he will not come along with some other legislation to this House in regard to the customs duty on the 80,000 carcases which the Minister of Agriculture has now imported. I maintain that those 80,000 carcases have already arrived in the country and have been put into cold storage. There is no further storage available for meat. The result is that the farmers’ cattle have to wait seven days before being slaughtered and the farmers have to pay for the fodder.

I have already ruled that hon. members cannot discuss that matter at present.

I am talking about the importation of meat which took place and which should not have taken place. The Minister could have paid the farmers remunerative prices when his scheme came into operation and then we would not have had this confusion in the country on account of the meat scheme. The Minister cannot realise the position because he does not even possess a theoretical knowledge of agriculture. He came along with this ill-considered scheme and the result was that a chaotic position was created in the country. Today conditions are such that the farmers have to sell their cattle owing to the drought, and the cattle have to stand for seven days at the auction pens. This Bill which is being introduced by the Minister of Finance, or rather this clause in the Bill, is nothing but an indemnity measure for the sins of the Minister of Agriculture. This is an indemnity Act to be passed by this House in order to whitewash this mistake in regard to the importation of meat. Our country has to pay for it. The importation of meat is one of the most fatal measures which can be adopted against the interests of our farmers and the position will still become worse.

You should have supported the meat scheme.

I said that the meat scheme only created a chaotic position. We want the Minister to realise that the importation of meat is not to the advantage of the farmer but to his disadvantage. If the consumer had obtained the benefit of the meat scheme we could still have been satisfied, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) also pointed out. Then there would not have been a meat shortage. But the whole scheme has been devised only to give the wholesale butchers and Imperial Cold Storage all the benefit and the consumers did not receive any benefit at all.

It is interesting to hear how members opposite now talk about meat. It is necessary for me to remind them of the time when they said that the scheme was good. Many of the members who sit on the other side approved of the meat scheme.

Nonsense.

Now they damn the scheme, and say that it had all sorts of defects. They talk here about the price of meat and they say that the prices were not good. But now they damn the whole scheme and not only the prices. I just want to point out what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said here. He declared that the Minister cannot say that there was not enough meat in the country.

You now have proof of it.

That hon. member now wants to give us to understand that he contended that there was enough meat in the country as there were enough cattle in the country.

Don’t you know yet that one gets meat from cattle?

The hon. member talks here about meat when he means cattle. He now wants to twist his statement. There may be enough cattle in the land and yet there is not enough meat on the market. That is the whole point. Hon. members on the opposite side wish to create that wrong impression in the country. I want to put a further question to them. Members on the opposite side, or many of them, took the side of those who tried to prevent the farmers from sending their meat to the market.

They said that they must not send it.

Several of those gentlemen encouraged those people not to send their meat to the market, in spite of the fact that they welcomed the scheme, as such.

It is your own people who kept their cattle off the market.

Those hon. members pretended here that they were in favour of the scheme, but they advised the farmers not to send their cattle to the market. Those members have done a great wrong to the farmers. The one day they gave them one type of advice, and the day after when they were not in the responsible position of members of this House, they gave the farmers other advice. The farmers will still get even with them. They want to know how long they can trust a man. They do not want to hear one thing today, and something different tomorrow. There are many people who are hostile to any scheme, but it is time that we knew exactly where those members stand.

Has the scheme any supporters?

That hon. member was never a supporter of any scheme for the farmers. But there are people on the platteland and farmers on the opposite side and on this side who surely think a little deeper over the matter. They must know that, if meat and other foods are necessary for the nation, and the farmers adopt an attitude of resistance when the Minister of Agriculture wants to import for the consumers, then we as farmers are creating enemies which will be detrimental to us in the future. We must take care and see that the people in the country are provided with food.

I have given the undertaking that we would not discuss this Bill later than the luncheon adjournment so that this afternoon we can start with the discussion on the lands Vote. In order to keep that undertaking I now want to move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 18th May.

I just want to explain that my hon. friend, the Minister of Lands, is not present at the moment because I told him that his Vote would only be dealt with after the luncheon adjournment. It actually is now time to adjourn.

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

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour privilege. I move—

We are doing this in order to place us in a position to deal with the Kakamas report and the conduct of the Minister in reference to Kakamas. It is necessary for me to refer to the motion that was introduced in this House last year by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). His motion was—

That is the motion that was introduced last year by the hon. member for Gordonia. In his motion the hon. member dealt with eleven charges that the Minister had drawn up against the Dutch Reformed Church and he formulated these charges from 1 to 11. I do not want to read them out but we shall deal with these charges during the debate. I should like, however, to read to the House what the Minister said amongst other things, in reply, and the reference will be found in Hansard Volume 48 (Col. 4011). The hon. member for Gordonia said:

Thereupon the Minister of Lands replied:

The Minister bluntly states here that the accusations made by him against the Church are correct. Now you will recall that when later on the Minister brought forward a motion for a commission of enquiry the Minister spoke at such great length that before the period allowed for the discussion of this matter elapsed it could only be shortly touched on by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). Moreover, there was no possibility of a discussion on the Minister’s proposal. Now you would have expected that when the Minister announced a commission would be appointed that the commission would not have been appointed by the complainant. You would, of course, have expected that a commission would have been appointed by someone who stood aloof from these accusations against the Church. But what do you find? This person who levels the charges also acts indirectly as judge. What does he do? He appoints the commission, the Bench, and of the five members he appointed four were people who had to back up the Minister.

And he was even afraid of that tribunal.

But the Minister added that he would never again make such a blunder as to appoint anyone else. He referred to the Rev. Mr. Du Toit.

I shall never appoint the Rev. Mr. Du Toit again.

The Minister says he will never appoint anyone who will not play up to him. I am now excluding the judge. But we expected something else. We expected further that the Minister, seeing that he wanted to act the big man, would have had the courage of his convictions. What should we have expected? That he on his own initiative would have given the commission he appointed the power to summon witnesses.

But then they might also have summoned him too.

But even more one would have expected that as the Minister made the accusations, and as we had seen his methods, he would have appeared before the commission himself with his information and his accusations. I accuse him today of being the biggest milksop (“papbroek”) sitting in the House. The Minister has made a number of wild assertions but he did not have the courage to appear before the advocates and the tribunal. He was too afraid, but what is more, the Minister said that he stood by everyone of his charges, that is to say that he stood by the eleven he made. Were these eleven accusations submitted to the commission of inquiry? No. The commission’s terms of reference fell under eight heads, and the Minister took care that very little of these charges were inserted by him in the commission’s terms of reference. In consequence, the commission could not go into these charges. But nevertheless this commission, comprised of men who had to play up to the Minister, put him in the wrong when they got anywhere near these charges the Minister directed against the Church. You find that on every point the highest tribute is paid to the Church for the work it has done.

Then they ought to be very satisfied.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I should like to turn to certain of the accusations made by the Minister. In the House last year—the reference is in Hansard, column 4017—the Minister spoke about the purpose of Kakamas, what the object of the founders of Kakamas was, and then he referred to what the original object was of Goedemoed, and after that he said—

And then he goes on to say that it was a transition period, that it was not intended that the people should remain there permanently. What does the commission say? His commission gives us its finding whether Kakamas answered the purpose for which it was instituted, and I refer to recommendations Nos. 6 and 7 of the commission. I am reading Recommendation No. 7 on page 2 of the report. There they refer to Prof. Wilcocks’ recommendation. They refer to how Prof. Wilcocks first said that the original intention in regard to Kakamas was that it should not afford permanent residence for the colonists but that he later said that after he had gone into the matter he found there was no justification for the assertion that the Church had intended that Kakamas should merely serve as a training ground. Then we come to their eighth recommendation, in which the commission states—

Then we find the recommendation proceeds—

This is a clear refutation of the charge made by the Minister of Lands that Kakamas did not answer its purpose. I go still further. The Minister came with a whole series of charges. The first charge against the church was that they treated their people so badly that there had been more than 30 cancellations during the year 1942. Let us look at the facts. The Minister ascribed those 30 odd cancellations during 1942 to the way the Church had treated these people. But we find that during the whole period since Kakamas was instituted only five colonists were turned out of the colony.

And how many did he drive away?

A sixth case is still receiving attention. The Minister said last year that these people had been driven off and that all they got was an amount of £200 in respect of the improvements on their erven. I do not want to mention all the names of the persons concerned but I shall mention the cases. The first case shows that a man sold his erf for £700. In the second case he sold the rights to his erf for £450. In the third case the figure was £450. In the fourth case it was £700. And we could continue like this one after the other, and in no single case did the colonist receive only £200.

Withdraw it.

Give him a chance first to say whether he will not now resign.

There is not a single instance of a man being dispossessed of his land in the way the Minister of Lands intimated to us. And then the Minister went on to say: “They made slaves and sheep of the poor people.” What does the commission say on this point? I refer to paragraph 100 of the report—

Now let us turn to paragraph 182, and what do we find there—

Then let us look at paragraphs 194 and 195—

The Minister made that accusation, and here we see that the commission refutes those accusations in the clearest terms. In this connection I should also like to refer to paragraph 199—

We find various other paragraphs in the report to which I could refer, but these will suffice. The Minister goes further and he says that when compensation was paid to these people no compensation was given to them for the improvements they made. He states that the improvements were no taken into consideration. What does the commission say about that? Let us turn to paragraph 296. But I want to go further and to refer the House to what we find in paragraph 280—

1. (i) That it is more directly and almost entirely, in the interest of the colony in general (rather than in the direct interest of the individual colonist in particular).
2. (ii) That the trading has been only indirectly in the particular interest of the colonists. We say this for the reasons that colonists have undoubtedly benefited from the shopping facilities and amenities which have been established in the colony and which, gentrally speaking, compare very favourably with those outside.

I could continue in this strain; one charge after the other that the Minister brought up has been refuted by the commission. From cover to cover the report sounds the one note, praise for the Dutch Reformed Church for what it has done there. We can take one paragraph after the other until we have a whole series of them which refer to this. But I should like to confine myself more particularly to the question of title. This was the big point the Minister mentioned. He said that was the source of all the trouble. I should like in the first place to refer to the findings of the commission. The commission makes the recommendation that the people should receive their title, but what does it say in addition to that? It says this; (1) The settler may not sell his plot without the consent of the proposed board; (2) he may not keep more cattle than prescribed; (3) he may not mortgage his land; (4) he may not lease or sell his land or nominate his successor without the approval of the proposed board. Now I ask you, mention to me a single restriction that is at present placed on the land which is not also suggested by the commission. The commission goes further and it makes a further exception. It say that the man who does not comply with the administrative regulations in force should not be liable to expulsion. The commission recommends that where a person would be at present liable to expulsion if he did not submit to the regulations this should not be the case if he obtains title. But the commission goes further and it says that this settlement should be reserved for members of the Dutch Reformed Church. But if a man cannot be expelled how can the settlement be reserved for members of the Dutch Reformed Church? A person may join another faith while he is a settler. The main object of the commission in regard to the recommendation about title was that the people could offer their property as security for a loan. That cannot be done today, nor can it be done under the recommendations of this commission. They cannot borrow money on their property without the consent of the board of control. What is the dispute then? What the commission has failed to tell us is what it is going to cost these people to have the land divided and to get transfer and diagram. That has not been explained to us by the commission and it is necessary that these people should know more or less what costs will be involved. The cost of survey, division and transfer will amount to between £40,000 and £50,000, and that will have to be spread over the colonists. Then we still have this, that every colonist will have to pay his pro rata share of the amount that should be paid out to the Dutch Reformed Church. The big point comes down to this, as I stated at the outset, that the Minister of Lands, both in this House and outside, has made the most humiliating remarks about the administration of the Church. He appointed his commission and yet it appears from the report of the commission that it has not the slightest fault to find with the administration by the Church. From the report it transpires that the administration of the Church has always been in the interests of the colonists and to their advantage. The commission says very clearly that every penny that has been spent has been applied for the benefit of the colonists. I have spoken at the beginning on this matter in order to give the Minister an opportunity to reply at once and to say what his standpoint is in connection with this report. Let him stand up here and tell us why he had not the courage of his convictions to appear before the commission. Let him tell us, in the second place, why he did not refer to the commission all the accusations that he made. Let him in the third place tell us why he did not give this commission the right to summon witnesses. Never before in our legal history has it been known that a complainant has himself appointed the court. The Dutch Reformed Church made rperesentations to the Acting Prime Minister asking him not to allow the Minister of Lands to appoint the tribunal himself. That did not help matters. Notwithstanding this we find that the report which has to serve for the protection of the Minister of Lands is a report that has not proved one single accusation made by the Minister of Lands.

I want to deal with a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). The first one concerns the appointment of the commission. I ask him to look at the motion which was introduced in the House and in which a request was made for a judicial commission. Who has to appoint such a commission? The Governor-General. The Governor-General did appoint it.

Nonsense.

Even though the Minister is responsible. After all this is his Department. That is the first reply. Read the Hansard report and you will find that members of the Opposition shouted dozens of times: “Appoint a commission; appoint a commission!” [Interjections]. They asked for a judicial commission. Well, it was appointed.

Who appointed it?

I have only ten minutes and not half an hour as the Opposition had and I ask the hon. members to give me a chance. The hon. member furthermore said that the commission had no power to subpoena witnesses. I maintain that there was no evidence which the commission required and which it did not get, which it did not obtain in a reasonable manner as it expected to do, so that the commission as such under the chairmanship of a judge could not in a single instance declare that it was sorry that it could not obtain the information it wanted to obtain. Under the chairmanship of a judge the commission obtained all the evidence it desired to be put at its disposal.

It only obtained what it wanted.

We now come to the question of the terms of reference.

Were you one of the judges?

Is there one single point in the terms of reference which could have been in the interests of the colonists….

[Inaudible.]

Order, order!

I ask whether there is one single point in favour of the colonists and of settlement in South Africa, and especially in the interests of Kakamas as a whole in its entire composition, which is not mentioned in the terms of reference?

There are many points like that.

I maintain that the whole future and the whole past …. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) continues with his interruptions, I shall have to deal with him.

The whole past, present and future of Kakamas, the whole welfare of the colony is covered by these terms of reference. As far as this point is concerned the hon. member has no reason to complain against the terms of reference. Everything is covered by it. The terms of reference were very wide and all possible questions in regard to Kakamas could have been covered and were in fact covered. The hon. member furthermore spoke about the original purpose of Kakamas. The commission found that Kakamas, as it exists today, has entirely outgrown its original purpose, a credit to the settlers, a credit to the State and a credit to the Church—a credit to all of them. That is the finding of the commission. Kakamas has outgrown its original purpose and I will tell you why—because not a single poor man, for whom Kakamas was originally intended, can today obtain a plot there. The reason for that is that the plots which they have to buy there are now sold at such a high price that the poor man for whom Kakamas was originally intended cannot afford to pay it. Rhenosterkop for a certain time answered that purpose and accommodated a large number of people, as is stated in the Report. But Rhenosterkop is also full, so that we can say that Kakamas has entirely outgrown its purpose.

Which proves that the undertaking of the church was one hundred per cent. successful.

Yes, of course. Read the Report and you will see that in spite of the prejudice you have against the commission, that was the finding of the commission, so that you obtained quite a different thing from what you expected. The settlement has outgrown the status of a labour colony and therefore we can no longer keep the colonists under the conditions, under the constitution and under the provisions of the days when Kakamas was a labour colony. It has grown to the full status of a settlement and it was necessary and imperative that those people should obtain the status of settlers and should not remain in the position of people living in a labour colony. In this connection I have to refer to another point raised by the hon. member, namely, the compensation which settlers obtained when they left Kakamas. The prices he mentioned were paid and even much higher prices were paid by private people, but not a single one was paid by the Labour Colony Commission. My hon. friend should himself realise that the Labour Colony Commission can under no circumstances pay more than the fixed price because that would be in conflict with the constitution. The higher prices which were paid were paid by private people who were sufficiently wealthy to pay them and they, therefore, took the place of the people for whom Kakamas was originally intended. The result was that comparatively well-to-do people arrived there. They became good settlers but not good inhabitants of a labour colony.

It was such a sucess that even the commission had to admit it.

The hon. member also referred to the restrictions on ownership recommended by the commission. He will notice, however, especially since he is greatly interested in these matters—that the restrictions recommended here are in fact practically the same restrictions as recommended in the Report of the Deas Commission. What is his objection against them?

But the Minister did not want to accept that Report.

This is the alternative report. I do not know how many hon. members have properly studied the Report of the Deas Commission. But you will find that the restrictions against which the hon. member is now objecting are practically the same as those contained in the Report of the Deas Commission.

Are they not the same as those existing there today?

The restrictions against which you object are practically the same as those laid down in the Report of the Deas Commission of 1940. At that time no fuss was made about it. You then approved of them. The hon. member also said that the main reason why ownership was insisted upon from time to time was in order that the colonists could borrow money on the security of their land. The hon. member knows quite well and all hon. members know that this was not the only reason but that there is a deeply rooted desire in every man in South Africa to become the owner of a piece of land. Many members have even repeatedly declared in this House that it is the pride of the inhabitants of South Africa to possess their own piece of land. The main reason is that the people there want to obtain ownership and if you read the Report and all the evidence you will notice that it is an inherent desire in the people who have grown up there and who attended school there—that in their hearts of hearts they cherish the hope that one day the land will belong to them. They sweated and worked in order to build up the settlement and their ideal was to obtain ownership one day. Now you will realise what went on in the minds of those people when they found out that it was the unanimous finding of the commission that they should obtain ownership. You can imagine what an encouragement this will be for the future of those people. I want to ask hon. members who have not had the time to read the entire Report to turn to page 69 where they will find a short summary of the recommendations of the commission, so that they cannot come under the spell of vague statements that the commission recommended this, that or the other thing. Read it and then you will have a concise idea of all the recommendations. I say this because my hon. friend referred to paragraphs and afterwards he mentioned the recommendations of the commission. That creates a wrong impression.

He did not do so.

In some cases he did so. [Time limit.]

Far removed from the land of Kakamas there is a matter which exercises my mind and one which I want to put to the Minister of Lands. It concerns the question of settlement as far as the returned soldier is concerned, in the sugar industry. I have not been asked to bring up this matter and probably I will not be thanned for raising it by some people, and particularly by the Minister of Lands, but the position is that many statements have been made in connection with this type of settlement. The war is coming to a conclusion and I, as the representative for Zululand am continually bombarded with questions in connection with what the Government is going to do in connection with a settlement scheme. It will be even more embarrassing to me in the recess after this Session. I am aware of the fact that negotiations have been taking place between the Department of Lands and the industry for no less a period than the last four years, and I am aware of the fact that in 1943 the industry, as a gesture to the returned soldier, offered to make available 400,000 tons of cane for settlement purposes. Since that time much negotiation has taken place and various things have been discussed, amongst them being the following. Scheme A is the settlement on land offered by the milling companies from their own estates; scheme B was the settlement on ground at the Umfolozi and Umhlatuzi to be reclaimed by the Government; scheme C, Crown lands to be given to the returned soldiers, and scheme D, settlement at Pongola. I am aware of the fact that difficulties have arisen, but the Minister of Lands has at various periods made extravagant statements in the Press about the wonderful opportunities which exist as far as sugar settlement is concerned. From my point of view it has become distinctly embarrassing because I am aware of the fact that negotiations between the industry and the Minister are such that I do not think much has come of it. What has broken down I do not know. I am aware of the fact that as far as the milling companies are concerned that scheme broke down on the question of leasehold tenure as against freehold title. On the other hand, as far as the question of Crown lands is concerned, last year, I think it was, I noticed that £25,000 had been nut on the estimates for the reclamation of land at Umhlatuzi and £75,000 for the reclamation of land at Umfolozi. Whether much development has been done in these particular areas and whether any holdings are available at present for settlement I do not know. I would like to have the information from the Minister. In connection with the purchase of private farms I do not think much has been done and I would like to know from the Minister what was the outcome of the work of the Industrial Committee set up to go into all these various schemes. The final scheme which seems to present to be receiving attention is that at Pongola? I have read through the Pongola report, and to summarise the findings of the commission, they say that it can be made a successful scheme; secondly, that malaria can be sufficiently controlled; thirdly, that healthy families can be raised there, particularly if the children are taken away at a certain stage; fourthly, that while it can be a success with transportation as it is, it will be better still if transport is improved, and fifthly, that sugar would prove a suitable main crop, but that this be held in abeyance until the sugar position in regard to the Union has been clarified. It is not my intention to discuss the pros and cons of settlements at Pongola. It is quite evident to me as far as concerns the schemes put up by the sugar industry three years ago very little has been done. I have heard it is the Minister’s intention to place the returned soldiers at Pongola. Well, Pongola in the present circumstances is out of the question. First of all, we have to have a mill, which will cost in the vicinity of £500,000, and a railway has to be put in. That being the case it is evident Pongola will be ruled out for many years to come. But I am anxious to know, seeing the sugar industry has made this gesture to the returned soldiers and has made 400,000 tons of cane available, what the Minister and the Department of Lands have done in order to accept that gesture given by the sugar industry in the form of this 400,000 tons. The soldiers are beginning to come back and they are anxious to know whether the Government has made any arrangements in connection with the soldiers’ settlement; and I as representative of Zululand, feel my position. I am being continually asked what have the Government done. I know that negotiations are taking place. I think the time has arrived when the Minister should give the House, and give South Africa, a clear statement on the Government’s intentions—as to what they have done up to date, and what they intend doing in the immediate future as far as the soldiers’ settlement in Zululand is concerned. We as an industry are very anxious to play our part. We are prepared to absorb returned soldiers. At the same time we are anxious that these returned soldiers should not be put on the land from a political point of view. We are anxious that they should be settled economically. We are far more concerned about the economic side of settlement than the political side. They are different issues. We want to settle them economically.

We want to absorb as many as we possibly can. That offer has been on tap for three years. [Interruptions.] I am offering a portion of my quota and so is everybody else, if the market is not available to absorb the sugar from the tonnage offered. But the negotiations have been between the Minister and the industry, and I know nothing about the outcome of these negotiations. When I was on the Sugar Association, we thought we should assist the Government in this way to setetle from 150 to 200 returned soldiers; and I would like to know how far the Government has gone in preparing holdings, how many holdings they have, where they are situated, and how long it will be before we can put the first returned soldier on the land.

I am sorry, but I must revert once again to Kakamas. I have had the opportunity of reading this commission’s report and studying it thoroughly, and I have also had the opportunity of hearing one of the members of the commission here today, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I have only ten minutes and I do not want to waste my time talking about him but truly if I were in his position, I would be so ashamed that I would not be able to show my face. There is a man who is willing to allow himself to be used to try and slander and cast aspersions at the Church. I have sat here and given the matter serious thought and it seemed to me when I looked at the Minister that saying is true and appropriate for him, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”. Otherwise I cannot understand the bevariour which the Minister has adopted in connection with this matter, with the appointment of the commission—I do not mean the appointment of the commission, but the personnel, the members which were appointed. It was a very important question, as was even commented on by the chairman of the commission, and for us who are members of the Church it was a still greater question and a more important question. The Church which is dear to us and which exercises a tremendous influence, a Church which has never yet ill-used this influence, that Church has been slandered in this House. I think of only two things which have been said. One thing which the Minister said was that the Church treated the colonists or settlers worse than he treated his sheep. He went further and referred to the money which was collected by the Church and said that it had not been used in the interests of the settlers. I think only of these two things. When anything is dear to one, and it is attacked by others, then it is our duty to rise and say what the position really is. On the grounds of the Minister’s accusations, a request was made to him by this side of the House to appoint a judicial commission. We know the Minister of Lands. We asked that a judicial commission should be appointed because we wanted an unbiased body to judge the accusations which the Minister made against the Church. What was his reply? It is an ordinary occurrence to appoint commissions to enquire into questions and to reach a solution. It is done in all the democratic countries in the world and the procedure has often been commended. One finds the following remark in section eight of the Encyclopedia of Social Science in that connection: “It has often been praised as a scientific approach to the solution of public problems.” The request that an unbiased commission should be appointed was overlooked and a commission was appointed—I will come to the personnel in a moment to indicate how prejudiced the commission was. In the same book it is stated: “It has been criticised, it has been condemned as a device for dodging an issue.” When one examines the report and studies it thoroughly, it is absolutely clear that this commission wás what we usually call a white-washing commission. The hon. member for Calvinia said: “Where has it ever happened in the world before that a man who is the complainant has had the right to appoint the court?” It has happened here. A court was appointed which was prejudiced in the complainant’s favour. Where has there ever been a court like this in any part of the world where right and justice has prevailed? The Minister naturally wishes to destroy everybody. He wants to destroy the settlers. He, who has made such accusations in connection with the colonists at Kakamas, came along only a sitting ago and put an Act through which deprives a settler of the right to have his old father or mother on his plot, and which deprives a son who is over 21 years old of the right to remain on the plot. He who did this, came here and accused the Church in connection with the treatment of the colonists. And notwithstanding the fact that the so-called court which was appointed, the commission, was a biased commission, the evidence which they heard was so convincing that it makes one wonder that the Minister, who must have known what the position was, could still have appointed such a commission. That the Kakamas Labour Colony was a success, there is not the slightest doubt. My thoughts go back 20 or 25 years to the way the Church pegged along with the colony. I think back on the labour of love which it performed, the attempts which were made to save the sinking section of our nation. I think of a man under whom I served for years, Dr. Van der Merwe, how anxious he was about the settlement, until eventually he managed to get a man there like the late Mr. Conradie, at one time Administrator of the Cape Province, to manage the colony. From this time onwards it became a success. At that time the State had not conceived the idea of establishing such a colony to care for the upliftment of poor whites, but left it to the Church. We see what the Church has done there, the money which it has put into it. And then the Church is slandered by the appointment of a commission, whose report, if it were not for the chairman, would not be worth the trouble of reading. That is the position. Take a man like the hon. member for Krugersdorp. Does he think that the Minister appointed him because he is such a brilliant person with so much intellect? Does he imagine that? Was he appointed because he had so much say in the social sphere? He knows just as well as I do that the Minister only appointed him because he had already pronounced an opinion on the matter in this House the previous year. He was at Kakamas, he enquired into the matter, and he stood up here and said that the system was quite wrong, that a change must be brought about, that the people must get transport. I do not want to read it all out, but it is to be found in Hansard. He is the man who was appointed by the Minister as a judge. He is the man who was appointed to judge whether the Church was acting righteously and whether things were in order. A commission such as this has less right to be prejudiced than a court, for the commission was not only the tribunal, but also the complainant. Let us take them man for man. If I am biased, I have no right to act on such a body which has to pronounce judgment on matters in connection with which I have already expressed an opinion. Such a person would not even be allowed to act as a member of a jury to pronounce judgment on the lowest of murderers. That murderer, if he can prove that a member of the jury has said what the hon. member said about the question which he had to pass judgment on, can have him ejected. He cannot sit as a member of the jury. [Time limit.]

I am glad to hear that the hon. member is a member of the same Church as I am, but I am very disappointed that he no longer makes manifest the spirit of that Church.

Did you not express an opinion beforehand?

He made some of the most venomous remarks which I have heard for a long time. The hon. member should not don the cloak of sanctity for that purpose. The hon. member is now posing as a spontaneous and brilliant member of the Church and as the Church’s protector. Against whom?

Against you.

If he wants to protect the Church in a decent way, good and well. I do not believe that the Church would associate itself with such venomous attacks intended to indicate that the Church has not been fairly treated. But I think that even the hon. member must admit that it was unfair to say that I attempted here to besmirch and cast aspersions at the Church.

The Minister did so.

On a point of explanation. I know the hon. member is not deaf, but I just want him to understand that I said that the Minister of Lands had besmirched the Church.

But you said that I allowed myself to be used to do so. If it was a case of prejudice then I would commend hon. members to look at the report and to see whether they will find a minority report there. The spontaneous thing, the fact which is as clear as daylight, is that with the exception of one minor point, where the chairman differed, namely only in respect of the matter of time when the new board of control should come into operation, the findings are unanimous. They are unanimous recommendations. Is the hon. member insinuating that the judge on the commission and a magistrate who has been a magistrate all his life, allowed themselves to be influenced by the other members, who were supposed to be biassed? One would surely think that they would have sufficient backbone and courage not to allow themselves to be led by a prejudiced Van den Berg, a prejudiced Klopper and a prejudiced Butler. But I repeat that it is as clear as daylight that all these allegations of prejudice are entirely unfounded, and if hon. members read the report, they will have to admit it. No judge and no magistrate would allow himself to be dominated by a few laymen.

Do you admit that you expressed an opinion beforehand?

When bias is alleged, I challenge hon. members to indicate one paragraph in the report on which grounds the commission can be accused of partiality.

We will do so.

We have now had 40 minutes of that side of the House, and there has not yet been one finding mentioned which does not testify to spontaneous impartiality. On the contrary the petty arguments which have been advanced, were not advanced to prove that the report was biased, but to be used to make an attack on the Minister. That is all. From my point of view we have here a unique case in the history of South Africa of a man who has particularly gone out of his way to promote the welfare of a group of poor people, to work out the salvation of a group of poor people ….

Who is that?

The Minister of Lands. He could just as well have folded his arms and said that the settlers could be left to their lot; that he had nothing to do with them. But he said that the matter should be investigated.

Ask the settlers who have been chased off.

The hon. member is constantly interjecting. It seems to me it must be one of his secret weapons. How can you convince a member when he takes up this attitude?

He does not want the answers.

Naturally not, for they are deadly. I hope that hon. members will examine the recommendations and will sift out where there was genuine bias, and I hope that they will then also fling the accusation at the head of the judge who was chairman. But naturally, I would not be surprised if hon. members say: “Judge or no judge, we reject it.” We have had it often before from them.

And you were not biased?

But this is where the hon. members’ arguments come to a dead end. They asked for such a commission.

Not for you.

Unfortunately the hon. members uttered a completely wrong prediction, like the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) who knew beforehand who the members of the commission would be.

Those appointed were worse weaklings.

If hon. members could be clear in their minds as to what the commission’s terms of reference were they would see that the purpose was merely to promote the interests of the settlers. For that reason alone I consented to sit on the commission. It was in the interests of the settlers that the terms of reference were made.

What did they pay you?

The terms of reference were the following—

1. (1) The manner in which the Labour Colony Commission, Kakamas, of the Dutch Reformed Church of the the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, has carried out its obligations undertaken to the Government in 1907 that, in return for obtaining a training monopoly in the Labour Colony—
   1. (a) it would not levy a profit of more than 6 per cent. on the nett value of all goods sold in its stores after making allowance for cost of transport, deterioration of stock, bad debts and salary of storekeeper and assistants;
   2. (b) it would devote all profit arising from the shop on the erection of reading rooms and other permanent works undertaken to benefit the social status of the settlement;
2. (2)
   1. (a) in how far the present system of trading at the Kakamas Labour Colony is in the interests of the colony in general and in the interests of the colonists in particular, whether the present arrangement should continue or what changes, if any, in this direction should be made in the interests of the colony and the colonists; and further
   2. (b) whether the said training should not be on a co-operative basis;
3. (3) the extent to which the principles contained in the constitution of the Kakamas Labour Colony as set forth in Proclamation No. 163 of 1910 have been given effect to and whether the said principles are satisfactory and, if not, to propose alterations;
4. (4) the management of the Labour Colony and the policy followed by its founders since its establishment;
5. (5) in how far a Labour Colony worked on the lines of the Kakamas Colony serves to meet the purpose of the social reclamation of indigent whites who have become impoverished, or become degenerated, or who are becoming impoverished, or are degenerating, and who are becoming a burden on the State; what further or additional steps should be taken to produce the best results at the least possible cost, and in how far the system requires modification, alteration, or extension;
6. (6) what arrangements should be made for the further advancement of persons in a labour colony, who have proved themselves—
   1. (a) fit to be independent agricultural settlers;
   2. (b) unsuitable as agricultural settlers;
7. (7) the future constitution, administration and management of the Labour Colony, as also matters pertaining to education, public health, trade, agricultural policy, marketing of produce, freehold title of land and other matters in relation to the well-being of the colony;
8. (8) in how far the financial statements submitted by the Labour Colony reflect the correct position and how monies collected by public subscriptions have been utilised in the development of the colony.

[Time limit.]

I do not wish to spend the short time at my disposal in replying to the Sabie-Nero-member on my left hand side, who was shooting birds with a catapult while Kakamas was on fire. I only want to say that where he said that we asked for such a commission, we never did ask for such a commission. We asked for a judicial commission, a judicial commission on which judges sit. We hoped that if judges sat on the commission, the Minister would appear before the judicial commission. Perhaps he is not fond of judges. That is perhaps why he did not put in an appearance. I do not know, but perhaps my memory does not go back far enough. As far as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is concerned, I will, however, say just this: We have no grouse against him. We are surprised at him. He was hot appointed to pronounce an unbiased judgment on Kakamas, but to pass a biased judgment over Kakamas, and if the pronouncement was unbiased to some degree, it is to his honour that he did so. I wish to congratulate him on it. We are surprised. He was appointed with the aim of issuing a report according to what the Minister knew of the hon. member, namely that he had delivered an unfavourable speech in this House before he was appointed as a member of the commission. But when the hon. member arrived there, he passed a different judgment to the one he pronounced in this House beforehand when he made a speech. When he had hard the evidence, he pronounced another judgment. Perhaps if he had heard the Minister’s evidence, he would have passed yet another judgment, but unfortunately the Minister did not put in an appearance before the commission and the judge. The hon. member reminds me of Bileam who went to blaspheme but instead he blessed. The hon. member for Krugersdorp also went to Kakamas to blaspheme, but he returned and blessed. I do not say that the hon. member conducted himself, as the Minister would probably say, like Bileam’s friend, but I want the hon. member to understand that my grouse is not against Bileam but against Bileam’s friend. My grouse is that the Minister appointed the hon. member for Krugersdorp on the commission because he knew that the hon. member for Krugersdorp had already come to a decision in connection with Kakamas. The Minister can look at me. He knew that the hon. member for Krugersdorp stood up here in the House and delivered an attack on the Church and on Kakamas, and because he expressed an opinion on the matter before having heard any evidence, the Minister appointed him, because the Minister thought that he would be one of his yes-men on the commission. The hon. member for Krugersdorp only played the part of yes-man sometimes — in between the bird-shooting, and for that: we accord him all honour. But our grouse is against the Minister. Our grouse is that the Minister decided to appoint on the commission a majority of people who had already expressed an opinion in the matter before the commission commenced its sittings, or who would soft-soap him. That is our grouse and it is one of the most disgraceful things that, under the pretext of appointing an unbiased commission to enquire into matters, you should appoint people who had already expressed an opinion on the matter before having heard the evidence. Moreover, and quite naturally, when they were hearing the evidence, the most important witness stayed away, namely the Minister. The Minister is really the man who made the accusations against Kakamas. The Minister is a brave man; he is a man of action.

He is not a man of words.

He is not a man of words. He is a man of action. He went round throughout the country and delivered bitter and harsh attacks on the Dutch Reformed Church. He besmirched them from beginning to end. Scarcely had the Minister opened his mouth when before he closed it again one or other besmirching remark about the Dutch Reformed Church came forth from his lips. We know why it was so. The hon. Minister had at one time a one track mind, and his one track was the besmirchment of the Dutch Reformed Church. The Minister received tidings at one time with great joy that a possible division among the Dutch Reformed Church had come about in the north. We also learned that he encouraged it strongly. He was glad that there was a possibility of a split in the Dutch Reformed Church. Then the Kakamas affair came along and the Minister saw a chance of going for the Church. What happened? He stood up here with his usual heroism. He made numbers of accusations against the Dutch Reformed Church. He appointed a commission of his own yes-men and a few others whom he placed in a very unjust and difficult position to pronounce judgment the way he wanted it, and when they did not pass the judgment he desired, what did he do with the report? He sent the report back to the commission and asked them to change it. Let us glance at some of these accusations which he made against the Dutch Reformed Church. He said in his speech that the only interest the Church had in Kakamas was the business. He said that Kakamas was only a milch cow out of which the Church could make money. These are the accusations which he made. Did he appear before the commission to try to prove those accusations? No, he did not have the courage to appear before the judge and the advocate who could have put him under cross-examination. Only here in the House where he was protected by the restriction on calumny, could he slander the Church, but outside he did not have the com-age to appear before the commission and endeavour to prove the things which he uttered in this House.

Not even before his own yes-men.

No, his accusation was so bad that even Beliam would not protect him. He said that the Church applied the regulations so strictly that a settler could be ejected for a small offence, and if he were ejected he could at the most receive £200 for development work which perhaps represented a value of £1,000 or £1,500. It is a monstrous ignominy against the Church. But what did the Minister do? He ejected 2,000 lessees and he did not pay them a single penny compensation for the improvements which they had erected.

Where did he do that?

Those lessees who came there to bare tracts of ground, who improved those bare tracts of ground, he simply turned them out and left them without a refuge and without a penny of compensation.

On a point of order, I should like to know whether I understood the hon. member aright that I sent the report back to the commission to be altered and that I referred it back to them more than once to be altered.

Did you not refer it back? I understand it was referred back.

Now you understand that.

Is it so or not?

Now you “understand”. It is gossip again.

The hon. Minister wants to get away from this point.

And you want to get away from the point.

The big complaint against the Church is that they wanted to send people away from Kakamas and that they paid at the most £200 for improvements these people had effected. Now I want to ask the Minister: What did he pay to the lessees he drove away? Did he pay them a single penny? Did he attempt to find a home for those people? No, he did nothing. How many people have not come to me who were thrown on the street and whose land is now lying idle but who have been deprived of a living by the persecution mania of the Minister. This is the man who makes accusations against the Dutch Reformed Church, accusations that they want to expel people, while he is the sinner. He is the man who has deprived them of their home and reduced them to starvation. [Time limit.]

I do not know whether it is necessary for me to waste time on the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I shall now continue with the other members of the commission. I think it is right that this House should realise what the position is. The next member I wish to talk about it Lt.-Col. Michael Daniel Otto Klopper. He is the chief accountant of the Department of Lands. He is the chief accountant of the Department, a department which had an advocate to present their case. Have you ever heard of a complainant appointing his clerk as magistrate and then obtaining another man as attorney. This is what occurred. I feel terribly sorry for that man. The Minister has the reputation of being a strict Minister, and he does not hide it either. He says that if anyone does not do what he wants he will throw them into rhe street. He has said that frequently. Now there is an official of his department there who has to do as the Minister says. The Minister makes no secret of it. He takes a man out of his department to serve on the commission. That man has to be impartial. He has to pass judgment on whether the Department of Lands or the Minister of Lands is right and whether the Dutch Reformed Church is right. I want to mention only one case. Before we are finshed we shall mention other cases. Mr. Klopper is chief accountant, and if you turn to page 34 of the Report you will see that he there deals with the profits the shop was supposed to have made. He works out the average profit. He takes first the years 1930 to 1939. He takes the nine years, a period when there were droughts, a period when there were floods, and then he takes the average for those nine years to make a comparison of the profits. What is the other period he takes? He takes first the years 1930 to 1939 and then he takes the years 1940 to 1943. He first takes nine bad years and he compares them with the years 1940 to 1943. Now he takes the average of the three years. He wants to show what per cent. profit was made during those years. But he takes the three years of the war, when the prices were very high and when the profits were higher than before the war and he wants to make a comparison. Then he comes to 1943, and he says that they are now only making 6.5 per cent. profit because the Minister complained. That is not all that the member set out in his report. He includes in the business the profits yielded in the wheat and lucerne mills, the profit on produce, the tailoring, the shoemaking section and the garage. If ever there was a scandal it was this case where you appoint a commission and you place on it an official out of the department concerned to judge the case and you appoint an advocate to plead the department’s case. I cannot imagine what the advocate must have thought, because these members were recused. The Church intimated to the Minister that it was going to ask for them to be recused, and when the Minister had to reply what did he say? He said it was not a court; it was a commission and the commission’s report was not binding on the Church nor was it binding on the Minister. Consequently he could appoint any person. I now want to ask the Minister what he intends to do in connection with the Report. Is he going to adopt it, and if he adopts it is he going to act in this connection. Is he going to introduce legislation and take the Church’s property? That is what I want to know. He appointed a man as judge on the commission and the judge sits there on the Bench. But that is not all; the advocate that appeared for the Department of Lands also appeared on behalf of the agricultural associations that objected in regard to the matter that had to be decided on by the Minister’s supporter.

By his agent.

And this man had an advocate to defend him. The farmers who raised the objection had the same advocate as the Department of Lands; in other words, the Lands Department made common cause with the people who had made an objection. You cannot argue this way. This is the position in conectnion with two of the people. Now we come to the other man who was a magistrate. I only want to say this in regard to him. I was not there, but people who sat there all the time told me that for years he was an interpreter and later he became a magistrate, and they said to me that most of the time he sat there and slept, and when he was not asleep he was eating oranges or biltong.

Where does the biltong come from?

From Dongola, no doubt.

Did you not also hear that in the Lobby? You hear everything, of course, in the Lobby.

Let us go further into it. I should like to dispose of one aspect of the matter. Who is the next man? It is Hendrik Johannes Nel. I think he felt difficulty would arise and he did not serve on the commission. Then James Watt Butler was appointed. One of the matters that had to be investigated was whether it would be preferable for the Church to have the shops and whether the settlers ought to have co-operative stores. Mr. Butler is the leader who has always complained against the Church. He is the man who has struggled to induce the settlers to go in for co-operation, and the Minister appointed him on the commission. He is a director of the co-operative, and they actually put him on the commission to serve as one of the judges.

And the Minister is afraid to appear before him.

Now we have finished with this impartial commission. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) who always poses as a very able debater and a lawyer, etc …

I am a lawyer but I do not pretend to be an able debater.

The hon. member has tried to create the impression in this House that this commission assumed its task from the angle of accuser and accused.

And it is so.

I always remain perfectly quiet when that hon. member speaks. I have not on a single occasion interrupted the hon. member for Swellfendam.

On a point of order, it was not I who spoke.

The hon. member referred to the complainant When he mentioned Lt.-Col. Klopper as the complainant’s clerk. He cannot get past that. He made the point that the complainant appointed his own men to serve on the commission, and that Lt.-Col. Klopper was clerk to the complainant. In his opening speech to the commission Judge De Villiers spoke these words to the commission. I am reading now from page 2 of the evidence—

Here it is clear. The commission did not accept its task as in the nature of a trial. I say this in reply to the point made by the hon. member there. Then the judge said further—

The hon. member stormed here and wanted to create the impression that we had some other task.

But you had two advocates.

The Lands Department was represented by an advocate and the Church also had one. No one offered any objection to them. The advocates were of considerable assistance to us in having a proper trial of the matter.

There you are using the words “to have a trial”.

The advocates were of great assistance to us in having the evidence led properly. There were three advocates. The Lands Departement and the Farmers’ Association had one advocate, and the Church had two very able advocates and an attorney.

For the other side.

Yes.

Exactly, that is the point.

I am only referring to this because the hon. member wanted to create the impression that it should have been the duty of the commission to hear the case. I hope he will not continue along that line. Now I come to the terms of reference of the commission. The findings of the commission appear on pages 35 to 40. There we have the recommendations in connection with the first of the terms of reference. I see that hon. members on my right are attacking the Minister, but they do not deal with the report, and now we shall deal with these points one by one. Let us take the terms of reference one by one, and then see what the findings of the commission are. The first point was the manner in which the Labour Colony Commission had carried out its obligations undertaken to the Government that—

You will find the answer to this in the report, and you will find that actually during those years that percentage of profit was greatly exceeded. That was the first task of the commission. The commission had to determine whether that 6 per cent. profit was exceeded after provision was made for all those things I read out. The answer is given clearly on page 30. You will find that in most cases the profit runs to about 9 per cent., 10 per cent. and 11 per cent., and sometimes even more. So that as far as this is concerned the profit of 6 per cent. was exceeded in every case. In the light of the evidence no one could have decided otherwise than that limit of profit was exceeded.

Is that only on the shops?

The report is in the hon. member’s hands.

Do you include the mills?

We agreed that the mills could be included, but if you exclude the mills you make your case much worse. There was no fewer than three different formulas under which this figure could be determined. Whichever of these three formulas is applied you will find that the profit exceeded 6 per cent.

Read paragraph 243.

I can make my own speech, and the hon. member can mention those points when it is his turn to address the House. Now I come to subparagraph (b) of the first of the terms of reference—

The members of the commission drove through the whole colony and hon. members who know Kakamas will know that there are no reading rooms, and the hon. member will not dispute that. Let us now take the terms of refernce one by one so that we may understand each other thoroughly. We now come to the second of them. It is discussed on pages 41 to 45 and I should like the hon. members to go into the thing thoroughly. What does the second one say—

Then you will find in paragraph 281 of the report what the commission’s recommendation is—

That is one of the recommendations I read. Now we come to the third of the terms of reference. That is dealt with on pages 22 to 40. I should like us to run through them one by one so that there will be no confusion.

It seems to me you are confused.

It reads—

The Church was itself the first to admit that it could no longer function under that constitution, and that it had become hopelessly obsolete, but that in the past it was so cruel that the Church itself said—

There you have a document that is still on the Statute Book. The Church could have carried that out, but they said that the document was so inapplicable that you could not expect free citizens of the Union of South Africa to submit to such a document. I hope that my hon. friends will not make an attempt to defend that old constitution of Kakamas as it exists under Proclamation No. 163 of 1910.

That is what the Minister will say.

How can the Minister say that; the Minister is the man who said the commission should see whether that thing was right and see whether the time had not arrived to draft a new constitution. The hon. member should read the terms of reference and he will see that the accusation he is now making is devoid of all truth. Now I come to the fourth of the terms of reference—

That is discussed on page 22 and here hon. members will find virtually the whole history, the whole background of Kakamas. You will see here that the original idea of Kakamas was that it should be a labour colony where only hopeless people could be accommodated and given temporary work to provide them with a livelihood for a little time, but in the course of time owing to the determination of the colonists, with the help of thousands of pounds given by the State it developed to the status of a settlement. [Time limit.]

I have followed this debate closely. I see the Minister is very interested. I introduced a motion on the 28th March, 1944, arid that motion was discussed here and I drew up eleven charges which I grouped from various allegations that the Minister had hurled at the Church and also at the Kakamas Commission. The Minister said that he stood by every one of those charges. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he still stands by those charges, which he did not refer to the commission for enquiry. I want to know this from the Minister. We on this side of the House will not be Satisfied until the Minister of Lands has told us whether he adheres to those accusations that he made. On a previous occasion he stated that he stood by every one of them, but he had not the courage to formulate those charges in his terms of reference to the commission, nor had he the courage to appear before the commission. This is one of the most scandalous things that has occurred in the public life of South Africa. That here in 1909 the State made the Church the trustee of a very important enterprise—one of the largest enterprises in our country—and the Minister of Lands has stood up here from time to time and said that the Church could not carry out its trusteeship, and he went further and said that the Church was holding the trusteeship for its own advantage. Did the Minister say that or not? Now he is deaf. We repeat that he is afraid to answer now. If a man had the courage to stand up here and make accusations against the Church affecting the business of the Church at Kakamas — and that while the Church was not represented — then you would have expected him to have referred those charges to the commission of enquiry in its terms of reference, but the Minister did not have the courage to refer this to the commission as one of the terms of reference, and when the advocates tried indirectly to refute that allegation of the Minister’s the judge said it was not a point of reference. How can the Minister of Lands imagine that we who belong to that Church can be satisfied, and that the Church will be satisfied when he comes along with such an accusation, and now notwithstanding all the charges levelled against the Church the commission has found that everything the Church earned in Kakamas was put back into Kakamas and that no one had derived any personal profit from it. Then he spoke about the colossal profits that were made. He spoke in the superlative degree about profits of 300 per cent. Here the commission states that it gave one of the leading firms of auditors instructions to investigate the books, and did they find those colossal profits?

On a point of explanation. The hon. member is on the wrong track. I spoke about 300 per cent. that we found in the year 1919. That is found in the report, in black and white.

The Minister cannot try to run away now. He should have appeared before the commission to substantiate that accusation.

But you should not tell an untruth.

I am not telling an untruth. The Minister stated that colossal profits were made, and why did he not go and support that statement before the commission when this firm stated that was not the case?

You said that I asserted it was 300 per cent.

The Minister further stated that the price of commodities was forced up by the shops. That was not referred to the commission either. It is one of the worst accusations that was made. But the Minister did not refer that to the commission. No, he received instructions from his supporters and he tried on hearsay to gull the House into believing that these were facts. Now we know and members on this side will shortly prove, that those supporters of his are in the wrong and repudiate him. Then he says further that the Church utilised Kakamas to invest money at 5 per cent. He further states that there were accumulated profits to an amount of £129,000 which did not come only out of the pockets of the settlers but also out of the pockets of the poorly paid clerks and assistants in the shops. That too, he did not refer to the commission. Then he stated further that profits were made out of the settlers from which a reserve fund was created and that it was the intention of the Church to invest that elsewhere. Where now are the members on the other side who always had so much to say? It was a breach of the trusteeship of the Church if it had done that. Under the constitution the money that was made there ought to have been invested there, and here we find that the Minister of Lands, both inside the House and outside the House made this accusation that the Church failed to comply with its trusteeship.

Read the Van Blerk report.

The Minister did not refer this matter to the commission either

Read the Van Blerk report to the Synod.

I have nothing to do with the Van Blerk report to the Synod. What I am dealing with now is the fact that the Minister also failed to refer this report to the commission. The Minister stated here that the Church accumulated £129,000 at Kakamas as a reserve, and that it wanted to invest it elsewhere. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he does not think that this sort of accusation is a flagrant charge of irregularity against the Church and not only that but of misuse of trusteeship. No, the Minister of Lands now stands discredited before the public of South Africa because he made these frightful accusations against the Church, and because he had not the courage—no doubt he has reconsidered the matter—because he had not the courage to refer it to the commission and because he also had not the courage to appear before the judge to be examined by the advocates and in order to present his case. Here in this House he played the big man and he said: I stand by everyone of those charges I am not one who runs away. He did run away. He sits there today as a coward.

The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

Vrey well, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. Then I will say that he was afraid, and I say that he stands discredited before the public of South Africa. He virtually accused the Church of theft, that it had accumulated money at Kakamas with the object of using that money elsewhere. Then we find further that he accused the Kakamas Labour Colony with having hampered the activities of the farmers’ associations by refusing a building site to them. Evidence was given on this point, and it was shown that the object of it was not to hamper the activities of the farmers’ associations but the activities of the agitators who had commenced an agitation for political profit. [Time limit.]

I should like to put a few simple questions to the Minister of Lands. I shall put them simply so that he can just answer them across the floor. The first is: Did he receive advice during this debate to speak as little as possible and if possible still less? That is a very simple question. The spectacle that the Minister of Lands presents is that when he opens his mouth he puts his foot into it badly. When he talks about Kakamas he makes mistakes at once, and when he has finished talking his case is worse than it was previously. I put this simple question to him. He appears now to be in a good humour and perhaps he will answer.

You should go to Hollywood.

If I go to Hollywood, Hollywood will still be there, but if he goes to Hollywood, Hollywood will be missing. The second question I want to put to the Minister affects a very important issue we are discussing. We have heard from the judge who sits there on the front bench of the Labour Party that this matter has two aspects. It appears to me that only one side of the case was put and not the other side. I want to prevent any misunderstanding. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) stood up here and said his information was that the report was referred back to the commission. The incident passed so quickly that I am going over it now slowly in order to be clear about what the Minister said. I think the Minister said: What did you say? Did I refer the report back two or three times? I do not supposé it is a secret, and it is a very simple question. I see the Minister is prepared to answer, and we should like to know from him if he will send the report back to the commission. Now I turn to the next question. The Minister appointed a commission. The hon. member for Krugersdorp stated it was a judicial commission, and he added that a judicial commission of that sort had to hear both sides of the case and then had to say which side was right. This commission that had to hear both sides of the case should therefore have had all the available evidence from both sides. I do not know whether there is anyone who will not agree that a judicial commission that investigates anything of this sort should have all the evidence from both sides of the case. Then when it has all the evidence from both sides it must arrive at its findings on that evidence. I see the Acting Prime Minister is now speaking to him; perhaps he is now telling the Minister of Lands that he can speak. I want to ask the Minister why he, the Minister of Lands who is sitting there, did not appear before that commission that he himself appointed, in order further to set out his side of the case. It is a very important question. The whole country was full of the two sides of the matter. Perhaps the Minister was ill, and if so we should like to know whether he was ill or where he was. We should very much like to know. If I was in the Minister’s position, and I thought I had a good case, I should be very glad to lay that evidence before the commission so that it might see the good side of my case, but the Minister was not there although the whole country expected him to be. We are entitled to know why he was not there. Was he afraid, or was he afraid that if he was present the report of the commission would have been as we have it now? Was he afraid that the report might even have been worse from his point of view, with his evidence? That is a very simple question. Then I should like to put a further question to the Minister, and one that is very proper. There sits one of the judges that were appointed and here the Minister is sitting. Let him rise in his place and ask that judge he himself appointed who appeared to be most in the right after that judge had heard both sides of the case, the Minister or the Church? I hope the Minister is now in the mood to reply.

I was occupied with paragraph (4) of the terms of reference of the commission. I want to indicate to the House what that was and what the answer in the finding of the commission was on each one of the terms of reference.

Has the Minister asked you to reply?

I do not know whether the hon. member was asked that by anyone when he took part in a debate. It appears to me that is his background. It is not so, however, in my case. I was dealing with the fourth of the terms of reference, in which we find the following—

The big reason for the strife that has been in progress all these years at Kakamas is the question of title, and we find that under this paragraph in the terms of reference. Title was consistently refused by the management at Kakamas. You will find that years ago there was this strife at Kakamas and the strife in respect of title became stronger and stronger all the time. On the question of title the commission states, amongst other things, the following in paragraph 90—

Then you have in addition the findings in the evidence itself and in the reports of various persons who clearly prove that the original idea of Kakamas was simply that of being a work colony, but that even the board later realised that that settlement could not in any respect be any longer regarded as a work colony. You will find that in paragraph 97 the commission makes the following statement—

The Church never maintained that it was a temporary home. [Quorum.] The idea was therefore originally to place absolutely impoverished people there, people who could only be rehabilitated in that way. That brings us to the present position, and to indicate it I would refer the House to paragraph 146—

This is a point that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has frequently made. If we go into the history of Kakamas you will find that people went there with their families in a state of dire poverty, so poor that the Church found it necessary to find a new means of living for them. Now we come to the fifth of the terms of reference—

That you will find dealt with on pages 67 to 69, and although it is treated briefly it is of extreme importance. On those pages you will see what the commission found, that we encountered at Kakamas what we also encountered at other settlements where the Department of Lands has expended funds and granted holdings, that there are people there that have remained there for years and years and who have not been a success on the settlement. In the case of Kakamas some two-thirds of the settlers who came there left. What the reasons were in all the cases we do not know. But we may assume that while some were able to make a living there others were unable to do so. That is supported by the evidence. Some of them made plans and sought to escape. But the point is now what is to be done with those persons who have not proved successful as ‘ settlers? The recommendation is that such persons should not be retained on the settlement against their natural inclination, but that steps should be taken by the Department of Labour to place them in other spheres of employment. We pass now to the sixth of the terms of reference—

1. (a) fit to be independent agricultural settlers;
2. (b) unsuitable as agricultural settlers.

That stands in relation to what I have already dealt with, and the commission made a necessary recommendation in that respect that I shall mention here, and that I also mentioned at Rhenosterkop. There is a group of people placed there who could not be put on an ordinary settlement on account of their age or physical defects. You will see in the recommendations that Rhenosterkop was finally adjusted to make provision for such cases of people who could not be employed on the settlement itself. No. 7 of the terms of reference is also important, and it is as follows—

We came to the conclusion that because the settlement grew to the stage and the status that the people there eventually became prosperous, and seeing that for 20 long years they strove to obtain title and looked forward to one governing body and local board after the other as on other settlements, we had to make a recommendation in order to meet their interests as far as possible. The commission there made the recommendation that where these people there were rehabilitated, and where with the assistance of the State and the Church they had attained to that status of responsibility, they should no longer be controlled in that childish way by a labour colony but that they should be treated as free citizens, namely that they should have their own board of control and that the responsibility for the control of the settlement should be vested in a board comprised of representatives selected from the settlement, that they would have the majority, and the State that has contributed so much financially to the success of the settlement should have authority together with them on the board, and that the Church that came there with the idea of building up that settlement should also have a say on the board. [Time limit.]

I am not standing up to reply to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). During the whole afternoon he has been reading extracts from a Blue Book that has been laid on the Table and that every member has read for himself. I only want to say to the Minister of Lands that his conduct appears strange to me. It appears to me that he is treating this House with contempt. It was always the custom of the Minister of Lands to reply on his vote as soon as a matter was put to him. We have now for two hours been occupied with Kakamas. This is a subject that we want to dispose of before we pass on to discuss other subjects. But the Minister has not stirred to say a word in reply, and we do not know at all what his attitude is. The Minister knows that we have usually followed the course in relation to the votes of the various Ministers of disposing of one important subject first before passing on to the next. The Minister of Lands has a very extensive vote and there are many things we should like to deal with in connection with Lands and Irrigation. But this is a special point with which we are occupied and on which we have been occupied for two hours, and the Minister has not stirred. There is one point, for example, namely that this report was referred back to the commission, and he does not think it worth while to say whether that is so or not. He sits there as quiet as a coffin. Important points have been put to him but he simply will not reply. He accused the Church on various points. I do not know how many there were, but the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) read them out.

There are 26 of them.

No, there are only 11.

The Minister has stated that he stood by those charges and a judicial commission was appointed. The Minister was, however, afraid to appear before that commission or to appoint a separate judicial commission. He appointed a commission of his own officials and satellites. They had to formulate a judgment, and though the Minister of Lands accused the Church he had not the tourage to give evidence before that commission that had to make a report. If the Minister will not reply we shall very probably be obliged to move that progress be reported so that the Minister may have an opportunity to consult other people as to the nature of his reply to this debate. It is immaterial whom he consults, but it is obvious that the Minister has not the information at his disposal. He has first to obtain the information from the commission or from officials. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has apparently been prompted to speak on this matter on behalf of the Minister. He is the advocate who has to appear here, and his plea amounts to his reading out extracts from Blue Books which we know all about already. I make an appeal to the Minister that if he wants his vote to be disposed of in the shortest possible time he should now stand up and reply on the matters that have already been mentioned here. If he does not do so we shall continue to bombard him until he does reply.

The hon. member or Wolmaransstad (Gent Kemp) has made a reasonable appeal to the Minister of Lands to reply to the matters that have already been mentioned here. It really appears as if the Minister has arrived at an agreement with the judge of Krugersdorp that he should do the dirty work that the Minister usually does himself. Accordingly, as a protest against the attitude of the Minister I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—29:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T.

Naudé and J. J.

Serfontein.

Noes—73:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

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.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett. R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, Á.

Madeley W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg M.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

It is known that there is not a single man in South Africa who has acted so strongly against the Dutch Reformed Church as the Minister of Lands. He as Minister and as a member of his great Party has a degree of influence over his people and he has gone through the country and encouraged members of the Church not to elect Nationalists on Church councils. He has gone so far as to endeavour to cause a schism in the church, and that is not all. In a further effort to cause a schism he had made an appeal to the Saps in the Church not to contribute their thank offerings to the Church funds. Can you take it amiss when I charge the Minister with being infected by an anti-religious germ? We have heard recently that people are still infected with the Nazi germ, but I think when we see how the Minister of Lands has gone on in trying to cause dissension in the Dutch Reformed Church I have the right to charge him with having been bitten by this anti-religious germ, and I think the germ has emanated from Russia. I know how certain political dependants of the Minister withhold their contributions to the Church as a result of his influence. If we take that as a background and if we examine the terms of reference the Minister gave to the commission we can see what must have gone on in his mind. I also wish to voice my strong disapproval of the Minister not having instructed the commission to investigate the accusations that were made against the Dutch Reformed Church. But if we look at page 26 of the report of the commission we see that one of the terms of reference related to a charge that the Minister made against the Church in connection with Kakamas. We find there that one of the commission’s terms of reference was to enquire into the way in which the Kakamas Labour Colony devoted all profits arising from the shop to the erection of reading rooms and other permanent works to promote the social status of the settlement in conformity with its agreement with the Government. I want to draw attention to the fact that it was not only for the erection of reading rooms but also to benefit the social status, and you find that the commission arrived at the conclusion that all the profits had been devoted to the benefit of the settlers. That is the reply of the Minister’s own commission. Paragraph 239 states further—

That is the kernel of the matter. The Minister created the impression that the Kakamas commission acted dishonourably towards the settlers of Kakamas. That is the impression that the Minister awakened in the country, but his own commission says that no profits were devoted outside Kakamas. I think that is conclusive proof that these were simply reckless accusations that the Minister made. I should further like to read Paragraph 243 of the commission’s report—

Here again we have the judgment of the commission that there may perhaps have been a technical departure from the agreement, but the commission has no fault to find with this departure. I think that is deadly as far as the Minister is concerned. This commission was convinced that all the money made at Kakamas was expended in the interests of the settlers. That exposes the Minister as the person who disseminated wild rumours about the Church through South Africa, and they have been refuted by the commission he himself appointed. But let us go further and try to gain an idea of what is concealed in the mind of the Minister. On page 45 we find that he also instructed the commission—

When a Minister of the Crown gives an instruction of that sort, that the commission should institute an enquiry as to whether the funds had been rightly employed, then any right-minded person must see that what was in his mind is that fraud was committed in regard to these moneys. Hénce this instruction. What does his own commission say—

That is their finding, and it also appears on page 45. Where can we get a more complete reply to the accusations of the Minister. Here his own commission tells him that he was wrong in thinking that the accounts produced by the Dutch Reformed Church were false because they correspond with the books. As lovers of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa we feel that when we hear the accusation of the Minister and observe his conduct we must ask the members of the Church not to worry in the future about the Minister’s wild assertions. He has made allegations that he cannot substantiate, and he did not allow the commission to investigate the worst allegations he made, because he feared that its finding would be more deleterious to him. I would again make an appeal to the S.A.P. supporters who are members of our Church no longer to withhold their contributions to the Church, and not to allow themselves to be misled by the allegations of the Minister and his efforts to cause dissension in the Church. [Time limit.]

I was reading to the House the terms of reference to the commission and when my time was up I had come to No. 8, which reads as follows—

In this connection hon. members will see the finding of the commission on page 45. I do not want to do anyone an injustice, but it is of importance that the House should know what the actual position is and to take cognisance of paragraph 288 of the report—

1. (a) Department of Labour:

These are amounts that are not reflected in the financial statements. Let us be clear, there was no idea of dishonesty, but if emphasis is laid on the services the Church provide it must also be borne in mind the contribution made by the State and the contribution made by the Department of Labour, the Department of Social Welfare and the Provincial Council amounted to the huge sum of £96,471, and when we are occupied with the balance sheet I consider that such an amount should at least have been mentioned in the balance sheet. I would not have laid stress on this, but hon. members should not run away with the idea that Rhenosterkop and Kakamas were developed exclusively with the assistance of the Church.

The initiative as well as large financial contributions came from the Church.

The largest financial contributions were made by the State. If hon. members examine the evidence, and the full report with all the exhibits is now available in the Parliamentary Library, they will find that from the time of the inauguration of Kakamas until the present the Church, while we admit its good work, did not lose a penny but got all its money back.

But it gained nothing.

I only mention this because the State contributed and when reference is made to good work at Kakamas honour should be given as well to those hard-working and resolute folk at Kakamas. The Church had the idea, a good idea. The Church took the initiative for a very fine enterprise, but as appears from the report it could never have succeeded without the determination of the people.

Nor without the sound administration by the Church.

Read the report and then you will see. You could not achieve any success without the determination of the people themselves, and all the losses in the past were sustained by the settlers, and from the evidence hon. members will be able to see that the settlers sustained many losses. But the Church did not lose a penny.

The Church pulled them through in bad times.

The Church pulled them through in bad times. If the hon. member goes into the figures he will see that all the distress relief in connection with floods came from the State, and the State did not get its money back but the Church got every penny back. These are facts that the House should always bear in mind. Moreover, many of the people who could not endure it left. Many of them found the struggle impossible and they took their departure. Two-thirds left.

That is not true.

I have every exhibit here, and members can examine them. I do not say that they all left because they fared badly, because some of them got other work.

You gave us the impression a moment ago that two-thirds of them left because they could not stick it there any longer.

I never said that. I said that there was indeed evidence from people who could not make a living there. I am endeavouring to the best of my ability to give a true reflection of things, and if I do not succeed it is due to my human defects. I see no necessity why warfare should be conducted over this matter. I do not see any necessity for this subject always being used as a political football. I can give hon. members the assurance that whenever the opportunity arises I shall always interest myself in the settlers whether they are at Kakamas or other settlements, not from political motives but with a desire to see them uplifted. If there is one section of the community who deserve attention and interest it is the settlers. Settlement is today an easy business. The State settlements have reached a high level. Kakamas has also reached a high level. But nevertheless there are people who have a very difficult time, and I shall interest myself in Kakamas and in every settler in South Africa until I am convinced that no injustice is being done to them.

Are you interesting yourself in the temporary lessees who were driven off their plots by the Minister?

I am referring to settlers, and I know what a settler is. I am not referring to wealthy farmers who try to lease a portion of Government ground for their convenience. There are many settlers in South Africa who I hope will be accorded interest by hon. members on all sides of the House. Kakamas has now reached the stage when you will have to place the people there on an equal footing with other citizens. If the Minister decides to draft a Bill to give these people a legal status he will place them on an equal footing with the best Government settlement in South Africa, but if they have to remain in a position of being governed without having their own representation you cannot expect these people to develop the necessary self-respect. [Time limit.]

I do not want to intervene in the fight but I feel that certain things have been said which I cannot allow to pass in silence. In the first place when one sits here and listens to the speeches of the Opposition one would come to the conclusion that the only members of the Dutch Reformed Church are those present on the other side of the House. I should like, in the first place, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that about a third of the members of the Dutch Reformed Church belong to the United Party. I should like to bring to the notice of the House that whenever this Church makes a mistake ill one way or another and members of the Church criticise that mistake it is not necessarily an attack on that Church. It is done daily in all our congregations, and the effort of the Opposition to suggest that when the Minister of Lands opens his mouth to criticise the Church in one way or another he is necessarily making an attack on the Church does not redound to the credit of those members of the Church. I am a member of that Church, and so is the Minister of Lands, and I think that possibly my forbears have been members of that Church as far back as those of any member in this House. I may also claim too that I have just as much love for my Church as they have and that I have long served that Church. This effort on the part of members of the Opposition to obtain a monopoly of the Church for themselves is not something that will make for the welfare of our Church.

But why should the Church be slandered?

If the conduct of the Church is criticised aspersions are not necessarily cast on it. If the Kakamas Labour Colony is criticised because it has made a mistake the Church is not necessarily slandered. It is very wrong to take up a standpoint of that sort.

If he said that the Church committed theft would the Church then not be slandered?

If the K.L.C. at Kakamas made a mistake and the Church was censured, or rather if the K.L.C. was censured for that mistake then the members of the Opposition want to make out that those who point out the mistake are slandering the Church. If that is so then no one who is a member of that Church would dare venture to criticise. That is surely an erroneous representation of the case. Here an attack has been made on the Minister of Lands for him having tried to cause a schism in the Church. I do not want to go into that but I only want to say that the members of the United Party deserve all credit for the fact that no division has been created in the Church in these difficult times. We know what is in progress. I will state this and if hon. members were instrumental in that they will understand why I am saying this, that we as leaders of the United Party and who are members of the Church have done everything in our power to prevent dissension arising in these trying times. The Opposition have in recent years been trying to claim that the Dutch Reformed Church belongs to the Nationalist Party and that they are the only members of that Church.

You know that what you are now saying is untrue.

I think that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) knows it is true.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may an hon. member say of another hon. member that he knows what he is saying is untrue?

He said I knew it was true.

You said that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) knew that what he was saying was untrue.

Did the hon. member for Swellendam say that the hon. member knew what he said was untrue?

No, he said that I knew it was true.

I heard the hon. member say that the hon. member for Malmesbury knew what he said was untrue.

I am not sure, but if I did say so I am prepared to withdraw it. I shall however say that what he said is untrue.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is perfectly in order in saying that another hon. member is saying something that is untrue. He may not say that with premeditation he spoke an untruth but he may say that he said something that was untrue.

The hon. member for Swellendam said that the hon. member for Malmesbury knew that he was speaking an untruth.

The hon. member said that he withdrew that but he added that the hon. member was saying an untruth, and that is perfectly in order.

The hon. member for Malmesbury may proceed.

After I have said these few words I want to add that I know the Church has done a great and noble work at Kakamas. As one who is well acquainted with the circumstances of that settlement I know what the Church has done there, and I want to state here that the Church has done a great and noble work there. I do not want to detract from that at all. But the members of the Opposition know that that quarrel at Kakamas about title is an ancient quarrel. It was there long before it came to the notice of this House. I do not want to go into that. All I can say is that the members of the Opposition last year pressed for a commission of enquiry.

For a judicial commission.

Yes, that is so, and I want to say further that they were absolutely right in claiming that a commission should be appointed, and it was good for Kakamas and for the settlers that such a commission was appointed. Now we have the report of the commission and I notice that the Opposition is making use of this report against the Minister of Lands. I presume that they are highly delighted with the report and that they consider that the report discloses the facts correctly and makes the right recommendations. As far as Kakamas itself is concerned I know that what is mentioned here is the truth, that the settlers at Kakamas are no longer the impoverished people who were there formerly, at the commencement. I know there are people who get from £600 to £1,000 for their sultanas. We accept that those settlers, as the hon. member for Krugedsdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has stated, are relatively well off and their rights to the erven are naturally very valuable. The House must thus accept that the big object of the Church in respect of this uplift work has been accomplished, and I have no complaint against the Church in that connection. I know it has done a great and noble work and I only wish to state that the object the Church had in placing those people there was a good and noble one. That mistakes were made is a thing we cannot get past. When we examine the report we see that mistakes were made, but nothing can be achieved without mistakes being made. A work was done there of which the members of that Church can be proud.

I am glad that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) took up the cudgels for the Church, but he and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) remind me of a story of the elephant that while running through the bush saw a small bird that had fallen out of its nest and was freezing, and which then out of compassion for the little bird went and lay on it to keep it warm. The hon. member for Krugersdorp can say what he likes. The fact that he tries to show that the Church did not give certain figures and that it did not do right is not intended in any other way than to give the Church a stab. I want to tell him what the position is and what he and his commission have not told this House. These accounts in connection with Kakamas were sent up to the Government every year. They examined those accounts every year.

That shows how good the Minister was.

I want to say this, that the accounts were sent up every year and were inspected by the Government. There was no complaint then that the agreement was not being complied with or that the money was not being employed for paying off the debt. The hon. member did not tell us that there was previously a report presented to this Parliament, the report of the Fourie Commission, and that this Parliament accepted that report to the effect that the Church would continue with the work it was then engaged in. Nor did he tell the House what the conditions were there when the Church took up the whole business. Has he ever admitted what I am now going to say here, that the Government has never yet done any rehabilitation work in connection with settlers as the Church did there? I want further to say this: The State could never have done the rehabilitation work that the Church did there. The whole idea and intention on which it rested was to give a living to poor whites in our country, and the Church carried out that work splendidly, and now we find a terrible fuss being made as to whether the Church may have charged a penny too much for a bag of meal and whether it had paid perhaps £1 10s. short to its clerks. The time of the commission was occupied with stupidities and trivialities of this kind. We can read through the whole of this report and we can draw up a whole series of them, where one little thing was to the benefit of the Church and then we get the “but” and then there follows a whole lot of things to stab the Church in the back. Do you think the Minister of Lands would have had a cocktail party over this report if he did not think that he had got what he wanted? Mention is made here about attacks on clergymen. Did you notice the other day how the Minister of Labour talked here about “predikants” and made an attack on them, and how the Minister of Lands revelled in that? We can find half-a-dozen paragraphs in this report where this sort of thing is done against the Church. Take, for instance the question of the compulsory labour system to which a whole section of the report is devoted. I only want to say to the House that this system is in vogue throughout the country wherever we have furrows under the Irrigation Act. We have the same system in respect of all the furrows at Oudtshoorn and Robertson. That is the only system you can have unless the Irrigation Act is altered. For five years I have pleaded that the Irrigation Act should be altered, but so long as we have that Act and there are furrows under that Act that have to be repaired and cleaned we shall have to have the compulsory labour system (oproepstelsel). When the furrows have to be cleaned the people have themselves to go and work or they have to send someone. The report says that some of the people can do more work than others. That is the universal experience. Under an irrigation Board there is a labour levy (oproep) when the furrows have to be cleaned. The people supply their labourers and whether they are sturdy or weak they all get the same wage. It is a system that is in force in the country, and here we have a page and a half to tell us that it is wrong and that something else should be done at Kakamas. I maintain that the findings of the commission are not in accord with the statements. I wish to repeat that the Department of Lands cannot carry out rehabilitation work in connection with Afrikaners who have degenerated, work that the Church did there. It cannot do so because officials have not the heart for these people that the Church has. Then they talk about some people who were under-paid. There is a long report about that. The people who were under-paid said the Government inspector was there and that they were treated as he said they should be. They were eventually summoned, and when the matter was heard they got the money, which they refunded. They said they had made a mistake. The mistake had been made by the Government inspector. There is a whole page about that. Any unprejudiced person who goes through these statements carefully and then reads this report must feel insufficient mention has been made of the sacrifices that were made. Nothing is said here about all the sacrifices of the clergymen who took part in this work and who did not get a penny for the work they did out of love for their people and in an effort to rehabilitate these people. Did the Government ever offer to take away those people who were rehabilitated and place them on their own settlements? Then reference is made here to the profits that were derived and to the expense in placing the settlers there. Look at the report of the Auditor-General and at the statements presented to the Select Committee on Public Accounts and then you will see what the position is in connection with Government settlements. Here you find that the Church took a piece of rough land and settled these poor people who had nothing and rehabilitated them to such an extent that the hon. member for Malmesbury has come and told us that some of these people receive up to £600 and £1,000 for their sultanas. No, this is one of the monuments to the Church— the work it has done here in rehabilitating people and it is a pity this commission did not bring that strongly to the attention of the public. If the Government is so anxious to help in the further rehabilitation of these people why does it not now offer them farms? No, they want to dispossess the Church and take over the land. I asked the Minister what he was going to do, whether he was going to adopt the report and later introduce legislation to deprive the Church of its rights. But the Minister sits there in absolute silence. We want to know these things and if the Government has not yet made a decision we should also know that. The Minister must not allow the hon. member for Krugersdorp to function for him here. He was asked by one of the barristers before the commission to recuse himself the barrister appearing for the Department of Lands said: “I hope he will be impartial.” He further stated that seeing this report would not be binding on the Church nor on the Department of Lands it was not necessary for the hon. member to recuse himself, but he hoped he would be impartial. Even the advocate felt that he could not be other than partisan. However good and honourable a man may be he is still human. If he feels he has an opinion on the matter how is he going to alter it? I do not stand back for the hon. member in respect of the settlers when the Minister of Lands deprived them of their rights. I fought hard for them here, and he did not do so; and I think today that that legislation will mean the political death of the Minister of Lands. [Time limit.]

I have not risen to talk about Kakamas, because I know too little about it. I would just like to put a few questions to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). But before I come to that, I just want to say this. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) made an imputation here which, when I think of it, is really quite unworthy of him. He said that the findings of the commission did not tally with the statements which were made before the commission.

I can prove it.

What he gave to understand is that even the impartiality of the Judge, who was the chairman must be doubted.

He is also human and can make a mistake.

Does the hon. member want to do that?

*Mr. S. E. WARREN Judges have made mistakes before now, and it is not at all an unheard of thing.

Then we know what the hon. member’s standpoint is, and I leave it there. The hon. member for Humansdorp said that the Minister sent the report back to the commission to have it altered. Is this so or not? If it is so, then it is a very serious allegation which he has made and we want to hear the truth. The member has stated it.

I put the question and the Minister asked me if I wanted to know if it was sent back two or three times.

I say again that we want to know if what the hon. member alleges is true, because it is a very serious allegation and it ought to be investigated.

Hear, hear.

Then the hon. member entirely distorted another matter. I can almost say …. but I shall leave it there. He says that the Minister complains that the people who have to leave Kakamas only get compensation up to an amount of £200 for the improvements they have made on their land, but the Minister of Lands drove 2,000 lessees off and put them in the road. The way in which he has made his allegation is a complete distortion. When people read the papers tomorrow they will get the impression that the Minister of Lands drove 2,000 settlers off their farms.

I was talking of lessees.

The hon. member represented the matter like that, and he does not tell this Committee that those 2,000 people—I do not know if that is the correct number—were temporary lessees who stayed on the land subject to a month’s notice. That is the sort of representation that gets around the country.

What he said is quite correct.

In that way more bitterness is caused than there already is. He knows that that sort of thing leads the people to feel, if they have temporary leases, that they have the right to occupy the land for life. I say that this is a distortion of the truth, and the hon. member ought to know it if he does not know it.

I think that I owe a reply to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). In regard to the figures he said that the financial position is reported to the Government every year.

I said that the accounts are annually submitted to the department.

The Government has to get an annual report by the Irrigation Commission. The commission reports to the Department of Lands. I now want to put before the House one document in connection with an enquiry by the Irrigation Commission which was submitted to the Kakamas Commission. Paragraph 17 of the Annual Report oh the Kakamas Labour Colony for the year 1st July, 1942 to the 30th June, 1943, contains the following. The hon. member suggested that the Government had always been aware of the conditions and that if something had been wrong the Government in any case never said anything about it. That there was apparently a neglect of duty in connection with this matter is quite true. I want, however, to bring this documentary evidence to his notice. In that paragraph we find the following remarks—

I read this out because the hon. member wanted to suggest that the Department of Lands had been negligent. This is one of the documents handed to us by-way of evidence.

What was done in regard thereto?

That the hon. member should ask the Minister.

But he does not want to talk.

But the hon. member stated here that the matter came to the attention of the department. This is one of the reports which was made available to us and it shows quite clearly that this finding of the Commission of Enquiry is correct, namely, that the profits were much higher than laid down in the agreement and in the constitution. I thought that I owed the hon. member this reply.

I just want to point out that the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) said here that he was not going to talk about Kakamas because he does not know much about Kakamas. It looks, however, as if the hon. member also has no idea of what a lessee is. He should remember that the people who are on the settlements as temporary lessees have not leased those plots for one month only, but that many of them have been living on those plots for 10, 15 and 20 years. Those are the tenants which the Minister has summarily ordered off their plots. Persons who had been living on those plots for a long period found that their leases had been cancelled. No wonder that people who have such ideas about lease, dare not talk about a wonderful rehabilitation scheme such as that put into effect at Kakamas.

May I just say on a point of explanation that no leases were entered into for ten or twenty years, as stated by the hon. member? These are temporary leases and they can be cancelled at any time after the prescribed notice has been given.

I feel inclined to repeat again what I said before, for the effect of it was that the Minister of Lands was prevailed upon to take part in the debate. Not for a single moment, however, did I state that those leases were entered into for ten or twenty years. But the position is that those people have been staying on those leased lands as long as they did not contravene the regulations, and they stayed there for 10, 20 and even 30 years. Now they have been thrown off after a short notice.

But according to their leases they could have been given notice at any time.

The people who are taking up that attitude towards lessees who have been staying on the land for such a long period, now want to express an opinion on the wonderful rehabilitation scheme which the Church put into effect at Kakamas. These are the people who in terms of the regulations have chased the farmers off their land and have condemned them to become slum dwellers in our cities. I want to say a few words in regard to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), the so-called judge. I want to point out at once that after the explanation by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) it has become clear that the Kakamas Commission of Enquiry by the way in which it dealt with the matter, gave proof of being a pro-Government commission. This was a pro-Govenment commission and I want to say at once that I did not expect it to be a pro-Church commission. He and the Minister should admit it. In spite of all that the report of that commission certainly was a devastating blow to the Minister of Lands, and on the other hand a triumph for the Church.

What are you complaining about then?

The hon. members over there are complaining. I do not think we on this side are trying to show whether hon. members on that side are faithful members of the Church or not. The question is whether these charges made against the Church by the Minister of Lands, and which he made in a rather insolent manner, were not a defilement of the honour and prestige of the Church. That is the matter that we should deal with. I maintain that the important omission in this report is that this pro-Government commission did not have the courage to give the Minister of Lands a rap on his knuckles for the charges which he levelled against the Church. I just want to address a few remarks to the hon. member for Krugersdorp. The hon. member gave us here a serious misrepresentation of Clause 8 of the terms of reference which reads as follows—

Why did the hon. member not read the other remarks on page 45 also especially those remarks which are intricately bound up with the serious charges made by the Minister against the Church, namely in connection with the question of church collections? I think in order to refresh the memory of the hon. member I shall read out the palin words used by the Minister of Lands last year and which appear in column 4026 of Hansard—

By way of implication this is a very impudent charge against the Church. Here on page 45 of the report of the Commission of Enquiry it says—

I now want to ask the Minister: Is that not a clear reply to the charge he levelled against the Church and will he have the manly courage, the moral courage, to get up here and admit that he was wide off the mark in this respect. What right does the Minister of Lands, who knows that a sound settlement policy means that you have to give land to landless persons so that they may ultimately become independent, possess to ask whether that money was used for charity. Did the hon. member for Krugersdorp expect that those collections should have been spent merely on charity? Does he expect that the Church should have acted as foolishly as the Minister of Lands by scattering the money amongst the people; was it not one of the means to achieve the actual purpose of the settlement, namely, to effect the rehabilitation of landless persons? Is this not one of the ways in which funds had to be collected in order to ensure that the Kakamas undertaking would at least be a success? The Minister comes here with a policy of doles; he wants to scatter the money without getting anything in return, and on that account he wants to blame the Church. Why did he not praise the Church and why did he not say: “The manner in which you have spent the money, namely on the rehabilitation of the people, is the right manner”? Instead of that he used it as an imputation that the money was not used for the benefit of the people at Kakamas. I want to put this question to the Minister. What would have been better, to distribute that money by way of charity among the people at Kakamas, or would the results have been better if that money had been spent for promoting the interests of the settlers? This was one of the ugliest charges made by the Minister and I feel that the Minister had been absolutely wrongly informed. When it suits the Minister he advocatets ownership in order to be able to hit out at the Church and on the other hand he wants to have the collections used for a sort of dole in order to hit out at the Church once more. If he wants to advocate the principle of ownership then he should also have advocated that these collections should have been used in such a way that they might lead to the rehabilitation of the settlers. I have here in front of me a report of the evidence when the Rev. Du Toit was examined ….

Leave the Church alone.

Yes, the hon. member wants us to leave the Church alone because he has no sentiments in regard to the Church. But I want to tell the hon. member the following: I will tell him why I do not leave the Church alone. The Church today has many contacts with the people and what is more, the Church is a reflection of the public opinion and if that hon. member is not in touch with the public opinion, then it is exactly because he does not take the Church into account. In regard to the manner in which the money was spent, the following appears in the report of the evidence. I quote here from the evidence given by the Rev. Du Toit—the following question was put to him—

The reply to this was—

I do not want to take up more of the time of the House in order to read more of this evidence, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp did. [Time limit.]

I should like the hon. member sitting on my left to listen to what I am saying. I have spoken at considerable length and the complaint against him was this, that though he was at Kakamas before the commission was appointed and though he went there to institute an enquiry into these matters and though he expressed an opinion on the matters referred to the commission of enquiry, he served on that commission. I want him to admit or deny that is the position. In this House he gave his findings in connection with the enquiry at Kakamas before he was appointed a member of that commission. I can read out the terms of reference and tell the hon. member what the position is, but I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading out what the hon. member said in the House in connection with Kakamas before the appointment of the commission. He has not uttered a word about his feelings before he was appointed a member of the commission. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) spoke here about the judge. A judge is a man just as I am. He is a man with feelings and with certain prejudices, but he is an experienced lawyer, a man who understands the art of balancing the facts against each other. But nothwithstanding that there are hundreds of appeals against the decisions of judges. Every day we have cases where the judge is wrong; he is not always right. A magistrate gives judgment and an appeal is made to the Supreme Court. Often the Supreme Court finds the magistrate was wrong. Then perhaps you appeal from the Supreme Court to the Appellate Division and there the judgment of the Supreme Court may be reversed. But I am not making any complaint that he was deliberately partisan. I have never mentioned his name. I do not want to condemn him.

You only want to condemn the others.

I have proved this. Does the hon. member want me to furnish better proof than I have brought. Take for instance, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg). He cannot deny it; he was appointed on the commission to decide what happened. If necessary I can quote his words from Hansard. He said in this House what he considered the policy should be and he did so before he was appointed a member of the commission. He cannot deny that. While a magistrate or a judge trained to adjudicate on matters, to weigh up the facts, may have a prejudice, frequently or always quite unconsciously, and acts in accordance with that prejudice, the hon. member for Krugersdorp has not had the benefit of that training. Any judge will admit that you may be unconsciously prejudiced. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has not had a legal training; what he knows about the taking of statements and the value of evidence is about as much as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) knows and consequently he was not in the position to recuse himself. He does not understand that.

Then you should never serve on a Select Committee because every day it happens that members express an opinion beforehand on a matter that the Select Committee has to decide.

If that hon. member did not talk so indistinctly I would be able to answer him, but one cannot hear him. In a court if there is even a trace of prejudice the magistrate or the judge has to recuse himself. You do not need to show that the magistrate or the judge is partisan; there need only be a suggestion of partisanship and he has to recuse himself. The report of a commission that is not impartial has no value. The value of a commission’s report arises from the ability and the standing and the impartiality of the persons responsible for it. On that depends the value or otherwise of such a report. No one has the right to sit on the bench or on a commission and pass judgment on a matter on which he has already expressed his opinion, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp has done that. Nor does he deny it. But his advocate, the advocate appearing for the Department of Lands—said it was quite right that if that was a court these members would have to recuse themselves. An objection was made, and they were asked to recuse themselves, and the matter was discussed before the commission. If there is a shred of partisanship you have no right to function as judge or magistrate, and the same thing applies in the case of a commission of enquiry. There are many barristers and attorneys sitting in this House who can confirm that. The other gentleman concerned was in the same position. His chief is the man who appointed this commission, and it was as the result of the allegations made by his chief that this commission was eventually appointed to enquire into the true position of affairs. I can mention another case where today we are still plucking the bitter fruits as a result of this practice of appointing officials to such bodies. One member of the Fruit Board, an official, let the farmers understand that in his opinion their request was reasonable. He comes here and the Minister says that we cannot pay that price for the fruit. What happens then? He told the farmers that their request was reasonable but that he had to stand by his chief. We have seen that year after year. He tells the farmers certain things and then the department says: The price you want for those raisins or for that fruit is too high; and because the person involved is an official of the department he is obliged to back up his chief.

You are now casting a reflection on an official who is not able to defend himself in this House.

That official or any official is in the position that he dare not go against the Minister. If he did so he would be put on the street. The Minister does not conceal that. He has frequently told me that, and he has frequently told others that. He is not a timid man. He has said that if anyone fails to do what he wants him to do he will have to go. Now you have this position. Here is an official under the Minister and he is functioning as a judge on a commission of enquiry. His advocate said that if it was a court that man could not sit, but he said it was a commission and its report would bind no one. It does not bind the Church nor does it bind the department and therefore he said he thought they could sit, but he added he hoped they would be impartial If he says that he hopes they will be impartial it is clear he thinks they are not impartial.

The sort of debate we have had this afternoon is to be regretted.

Shame!

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) says “shame”. It shows how much respect he has for the subject being discussed this afternoon.

Nevertheless we have respect for our Church.

I want to say to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—and I am certain he will agree with me—that this sort of debate will do no good. Nor will it under any circumstances in any way further the matter I know he wishes to further.

Why does the Minister not reply?

The result of this sort of debate can only be further estrangement and embitterment.

Why did you not tell your Minister that?

I want to put the question to the hon. members of the Opposition: Have we not enough bitterness in our national life? Do they intend to carry that bitterness further into our Church and our national life?

But the Minister attacked the Church.

Anyone whose intentions have been sincere and honourable towards the Church has looked forward to the day when there will be a stop to this lamentable spectacle we have now witnessed for a couple of years.

Through the Minister.

I do not want to cast blame on anyone. I do not want to go into that. The fact remains we have all looked forward to the day when there would be an end to this strife.

You mean you were ashamed of the Minister.

On pressure from that side of the House the commission of enquiry was appointed.

We asked for a judicial commission.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) says they asked for a judicial commission. If we are to accept as true what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said just now then it remains a fact that they would even cast doubt on the word of the angel Gabriel. What difference would it make if a judicial commission expressed its findings and they were not in accord with the views of hon. members on the other side? Then the hon. member for Swellendam would have passed the same criticism.

You do not know what you are talking about.

No, if I touch you on the raw you are hurt.

You are too big for your boots.

That commission was appointed and the report was brought out after a searching enquiry.

And the report says the Minister is wrong.

In the whole report there is nothing derogatory about the Church.

It is the Minister who slandered the Church.

I am dealing with the report.

We are dealing with the Minister.

On the contrary, that report accords to the Church all the honour that is due to it. It recognises that the Church has done good work, and there is no one on this side of the House who does not recognise the good work done there by the Church in the past.

What about your Minister?

We on this side of the House all admit that work, the Minister included.

Where did he say that?

The hon. members now want to fence, but the difference between their idea and mine is this: Though the commission attacked the management at Kakamas they say the Minister attacked the Church.

But he himself sent circulars round to all the Churches.

Just answer this question: Did the Church not associate itself with the management at Kakamas?

Yes, the Synod associated itself with the management, but not unanimously.

Swallow that.

That report was sent to the Minister, and what did the Minister do then?

Referred it back.

The Minister then invited the Moderator and the Chairman of the Kakamas Colony Commission and requested them to co-operate in the drafting of legislation. To our great disappointment the Kakamas Commission refused through its Chairman.

To do what?

They elected to join battle again in the public Press.

Who started the battle? Was it not the Minister?

Accordingly I stand up to express my disappointment over the conduct of the Kakamas Colony Commission.

Have those accusations been withdrawn?

On a point of order. I would ask that the words which have just been thrown across the floor of the House by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) be taken down.

May I point out to the hon. member that the rule under which words may be taken down is obsolete?

So is the hon. member.

It is not obsolete according to the book which has been given to me by the House.

It was ruled in this House some time ago that that rule is obsolete, and I myself regard it as obsolete.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) spoke about accusations. If we begin with accusations where are we going to end? The accusations do not come from one side.

Of course they did.

When you talk about accusations it implies that you want to continue the strife eternally, but I want to point out that the Minister requested that they should co-operate in the drafting of legislation, and that request was refused. But could you find more magnanimity than is found in that attitude on the part of the Minister, and I should have thought the colony commission would thereafter have attempted to co-operate with a view to achieving the best results for Kakamas. But what did we find? They elected to go to the public Press and to continue the fight there, and I should again like to make an ‘appeal to the Kakamas Colony Commission to respond to that generous request by the hon. Minister, and in heaven’s name to co-operate in order to place legislation on the Statute Book that will be in the interests of Kakamas and which will make for the pacification of our Church and the country in general.

After the Church has been slandered.

To continue the battle is only going to mean further embitterment and estrangement, and I hope they will now see their way clear to work with the Minister.

The hon. and very pious member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) has delivered himself of a very peculiar speech today. He shakes his head. Perhaps there is an excess of piety. In any case in his speech he tried to show that. Let us analyse one or two of his points. The Church has now to be generous and to cooperate with the Minister in drawing up legislation.

Because the Minister was generous.

Good, because the Minister was generous, according to the hon. member. The Minister virtually told the Kakamas Colony Commission and the Church that they stole money.

Is that generous?

Those are the accusations that he made, that they obtained money from the people for certain purposes and applied them to other purposes. Is that not equivalent to a charge that they stole the money? He further stated that their books did not balance.

That is an allegation that they obtained the money under false pretences.

His charge was that the Church got money from the people by three pennies and sixpences under false pretences. This is the generous man’s accusations against the Church, and when this commission refers to the fact that that implication in the accusations he made are false he, did he the generous man, stand up and apologise. Did he say: “I accused you of obtaining money under false pretences. I am wrong, and I am sorry I said that. I withdraw it”? I ask the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland, the pious member, did the Minister withdraw that? Swallow that.

You are putting words into the Minister’s mouth that he never used.

I am not putting any words in the Minister’s mouth. I can read out the accusations to you. The Minister said they accumulated threepences and sixpences and did not devote them to the poor people in Kakamas. He said their books did not balance. Those are the accusations he made. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland’s magnanimous and noble Minister made these charges. Let us now go a little further.

You are’ giving a wrong meaning to the Minister’s words.

I shall read to the hon. member the Minister’s exact words.

I have read them myself.

If you repeat these things the Minister said you could be sued for slander.

Here is one of the accusations the Minister made—

The implication here is that the pennies taken from the people would be used elsewhere and that they had been obtained under false pretences from those people. And then this magnanimous man comes along and says that the only interest the Church had in Kakamas is to make money out of it. I ask the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland whether he did say that.

You are reading it.

And then this magnanimous man, the Minister of Lands, comes and says the only interest the Church still has in Kakamas is to make money out of it. I ask the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland whether he said that.

You know, of course.

But the hon. member says he has read it all. It is the charge that this generous man has made, but the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland turns round and accuses the Church on account of it hot wanting to co-operate with the Minister who has slandered him and who has not offered an apology.

I have accused the K.L.C., not the Church; that is not the Church.

Let us go a little further. The hon. member said one thing that is right; he said he was tired of the quarrel. I can give him the assurance that we are all tired of it, and more than tired. But who started it? It was his Minister. The accusations were made by the Minister who went through the country and who could not open his mouth without launching an attack on the Church. He attacked the clergy and he attacked the work of the Church at every centre. This is the man who began it, and the Minister’s accusations still stand. He could have withdrawn them, not us. It is for the Minister to eliminate these accusations, and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland who is defending the Minister now complains that the Church is keeping on with these things. The Minister had not the generosity to stand up and admit after the report came out that the accusations that he made were false. But the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland is barking up the wrong tree. There is the man, the Minister; he made the accusations, it is for him to remove the difficulty and he can do so by being generous. What would a gentleman have done? If one gentleman accused another of something which was really slanderous what would the gentleman do if it was proved to him that he made the accusations under a wrong impression, that the accusations he made were not true but false. Let us assume that the Minister made the accusations when he was angry and under a wrong impression; still when he found he had slandered another man he should have said to him—that is what a gentleman would have done: Look, I am sorry but I find that the accusations I made were wrong, I am sorry I made them, I withdraw them, here is my hand. Did the Minister act like a gentleman? He knows that the accusations he made were false. He knows this so well that he did not have the courage to stand up and try to defend himself and endeavour to prove the accusations that he brought, because he knows the accusations are false; but he is not gentleman enough to stand up and admit it and thus remove these difficulties from the path.

The kind member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) told us that we were imputing words to the Minister which he never used and he says that the Minister of Lands never accused the Church as such. Now the hon. member comes along and holds a sermon for us on this side of the House instead of addressing a sermon to his own Minister of Lands who has levelled such scandalous charges against the Dutch Reformed Church. For the information of hon. members I just want to give a short review of all the accusations made by his Minister against the Church, not against the Labour Colony Commission, but against the Church, and in which he definitely used the word “Church”. I want to refer the hon. member to Hansard and there he will find numerous instances of the Minister accusing the Church. Take for instance column 4013 of last year’s Hansard, where the Minister of Lands said—

He uses the words “the Church”. And also in column 4012 the Minister again uses the word “Church”. There he said “The Church recently admitted its guilt” …. not the Labour Colony Commission but the Church and in column 4014 the Minister stated—

And in column 4012 he also says—

That is a scandalous charge.

I hope that the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland will now be interested enough to count how many times the Minister used the word “Church”. In column 5940 the Minister said—

And then he added that they were being used—

But that is not all; we also find the following—

Not to the Labour Colony Commission.

But surely that is not an accusation.

And then in column 4010 we find—

But he goes further. These are not the only accusations made by the Minister. I only quote a few here and there. In column 4031 the Minister said—

Not the Labour Colony Commission, but again only the Church which is attacked by the Minister. In column 4030 he furthermore states—

Not the Labour Colony Commission, but the “Church”.

So the Church enriches itself at the expense of the poor people. It is scandalous that the Minister should say anything of that nature.

Then we have column 4023 where the Minister says—

I think this should be sufficient to make even such a dour supporter of the Minister as the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland admit that the man who made these scandalous charges against the Church is his Minister of Lands, and if the Minister wants to be magnanimous after all the false accusations which he has based on the incorrect information which he has received, he should get up and apologise to the Church.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) told the House that last year I expressed my opinion on the matter on which I as a member of the commission had to come to a decision and he then asked whether I could have acted in an impartial manner. The words which I used and to which the hon. member referred appear in the evidence on page 23 and those are the words on account of which it was suggested that I should have withdrawn from the commission. These are the words which were used according to Hansard—

Those are the words that were used to prove that I should have resigned from the commission and if there ever was an opportunity where I could prove that I was impartial, then you have it here, for it should have been clear to the hon. member that I advocated in this House that Kakamas should become a State scheme. But what did I recommend together with the other members of the commission? Not a State scheme but a self-controlled scheme under the management of the settlers themselves in collaboration with the State and the Church. That is my reply to the question of the hon. member for Swellendam whether I have been impartial. I leave the judgment to the House. I advocated in this House that the State should take over Kakamas arid I was appointed to the commission and we did not recommend a State scheme but a selfcontrolled scheme managed by the settlers themselves. I think that, however prejudiced others may have been, it must be admitted that I definitely was impartial in this case. And if I had decided otherwise, what about the other members of the commission? These words which I quoted were submitted to the judge and the commission as the reason why I should resign. These are the words which I used in the House and there you have the recommendation in black and white. Originally I did not make the same recommendation as has been made by the commission. If words have any meaning then I think that hon. members can abandon the idea that I did not act in an impartial manner. That is the only point which was raised against me. There is nothing else which the hon. member can quote in order to substantiate his argument.

You expressed an opinion on a matter which you had to enquire into.

But I came to a different decision. You make a statement here in the House. You have not yet all the facts at your disposal. Then you go and enquire into the matter and hear all the possible evidence, and on the basis of that evidence you arrive at a different conclusion. Nevertheless you are being accused of being prejudiced. If arguments and words have any meaning at all then I think hon. members should no longer make that charge against me. Furthermore. I want to ask whether hon. members want to maintain that whereas the commission came to a different opinion as that expressed by me here in the House, I moreover succeeded in dominating the other members of the commission? I ask this in reply to the hon. member for Swellendam. He has made that same charge several times. Furthermore, the insinuation was made that the report was referred back to the commission. I want to tell hon. members that the person who is spreading that story is spreading a malicious story. It is entirely without foundation. After the report had been completed the commission signed it and there was no idea that it would be referred back.

Was it not referred back? >

I was never referred back. The person who says so is stating an untruth. I was present at all the sittings of the commission from the beginning to the very end and until the report was drafted and the person who spreads this story is stating a falsehood and I hope that hon. members will forget it because it is untrue. Such a rumour may be going round but it is malicious. I say once more that if a man changes his opinion after having heard all the evidence, surely the hon. member can give me credit for having allowed myself to be influenced by that evidence in spite of the opinion I originally expressed, for my recommendation is different from the opinion I expressed in this House. I think that this is a decisive reply to the hon. member for Swellendam.

I just want to say to the Minister that it has now been proved that if he had followed our advice and had appointed a judicial commission, the difficulty would not exist, but he did not accept the wise advice from this side, and I am convinced that his side of the House are sorry today that three judges or for example two judges and a magistrate were not appointed to enquire into the matter. Whatever the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) may say, according to our English and Roman-Dutch law system a person cannot serve as a member of a jury or judge if beforehand he has expressed an opinion on the matter over which he has to sit.

What about the Deas Commission?

It does not matter. This was supposed to be a judicial commission and it is the principle of our judicial system that no person who has expressed an opinion on a point, can sit in order to judge the matter. But what we find so outrageous is that the hon. member for Krugersdorp does not hold his tongue and merely says that he is sorry that he made the mistake and that he should never have served thereon, for he said in this House—

That is the whole point, the question of rehabilitation. The Minister maintained that no rehabilitation had taken place. That was the Minister’s accusation, and it is one of the things to which the hon. member referred.

Read my report.

The Minister said that the whole idea of the commission was that people should only be kept there temporarily and that eventually they would leave. He reckoned that Kakamas was only a place where people should be kept temporarily. They would not be completely rehabilitated. Apart from what the hon. member for Krugersdorp may say, he behaved shamefully by acting on a commission when he was prejudiced.

Then the Rev. Du Toit did the same when he was a member of the Deas Commission.

This was a commission presided over by a judge, and according to our law principles, it was hopelessly wrong.

You are now on the right lines.

The hon. member is not himself; he is being actuated by a certain spirit. But I would like to argue this matter out with the Minister of Lands. Why we are still dwelling on this point is because the Minister made certain accusations against the Church and he did not embody these accusations in the points which he referred to the commission for investigation. The Minister’s accusations still stand today and a cloud hängs over the Church as a result of his accusations, namely, that they were committing great irregularities in connection with the trust which was entrusted to them. That is the legal point, and the Minister did not deem it advisable to have these points enquired into, and we know from the evidence that time and again it was obvious that the Minister’s accusations were unfounded. It is not a matter over which to fight, for this Minister has slandered and cast aspersions at the Church and he completely endorsed the eleven points of accusation as I formulated them at the time.

That is so.

Does the Minister still stand by them?

Yes.

Then we are not guilty of idle talk. But then the Minister has wasted the State’s money in not allowing the accusations to be investigated. He has failed in his duty shamefully by not allowing the accusations which he made to be enquired into. He says he still stands by them. I want to ask the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland what he thinks of the Minister now. Does it look as if the Minister wishes to confess? No. If we accept this report of the Kakamas Commission it would be of no avail. The Minister will continue with his accusations to eternity, until he disappears from the scene. His influence anyhow lessens by the day. One of the greatest admissions we had from the Minister was that he says he still stands by the accuations. He allowed one of the accusations to be enquired into, namely, the accusation which I formulated under (4)—

The Minister’s accusation was that the purpose was rehabilitation, but it was not fulfilled. The Minister had that point investigated, and the commission’s finding on that point was that the Minister was wrong. The commission investigated this point and found that the people were completely rehabilitated, in fact so rehabilitated that they are independent and that there is no other settlement in the country where people are rehabilitated to the extent that they are at Kakamas. And then the Minister comes and says that the accusation still stands, and says—

Notwithstanding what the commission says in its report, the Minister says that colossal profits were made. Syfret’s say that the profits made by the shops are very reasonable.

The Minister does not even believe his own commission.

But even if the profits which were made were used to benefit the Church, to the advantage of other members of the Church and other matters, there might perhaps be something to be said, but that it not the case. Syfret’s say that the last penny which had to be accounted for, was used in the upliftment of the people. Notwithstanding this the Minister comes and says that he still stands by his accusations. What then was the point in appointing a commission? Then the commission was eye-wash. Then we on this side of the House must ask for a second commission to investigate the accusations which the Minister still honours, and the Church, as far as I can gather, will not be satisfied until it is done and will not accept the report until the aspersions which have been cast at the Church are first removed.

The Minister will have to come himself and give evidence.

The day we come into power, we will appoint a commission and then the Minister will have to give evidence. But then I am afraid he will go to Russia. The Minister made the further accusation that before the price of goods went up, the commission shops at Kakamas were asking higher prices. This never happened, but the Minister says that he still stands by the accusations. [Time limit.]

Everybody who has listened to the debate today, whether they belong to the Minister’s Party or not, will come to this conclusion: “The Minister has had a heavy day”. Anybody who is human must experience an exceptionally heavy day if such a bombardement of accusations are flung at you, and you sit there and may not open your mouth. It is now clear to me that the Minister has received instructions not to talk, and he has had a heavy day. But the day that he has had is nothing to the night which lies ahead of him, the night which is about to start. Hon. members must understand that the Minister has been given those instructions because if he opens his mouth, he makes mistakes. He may not talk now but must wait until the House has adjourned and he will be told tonight what his reply should be tomorrow. Can one blame him for feeling uneasy? Any sober minded person cannot blame him. He may not make a rotten case still more rotten. He will have to be well instructed and advised tonight, and even if he does not sleep tonight, he can then come along tomorrow and give his reply in some way or another.

You are dong well.

I would suggest that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), who can see in the dark, should also make his contribution during the night. It is very clear to me that two arrangements have been come to. One is that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) must do as much talking as he can, even if he has to read the whole report out, for if he talks the Minister need not talk, and in this way the Government is being protected, and however bad the hon. member for Krugersdorp was on the commission, and however prejudiced, although he shot birds with a catapult at Kakamas, one must admit that the hon. member has done his utmost to keep the debate going, on instructions, in order to protect the Minister this afternoon. There were a few other hon. members, such as the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) who rose in all good faith and ventured to participate in the debate. They wanted to turn the trend of the debate so that the Minister would be protected, and they did their utmost and said “you misunderstand the position, the Minister did not accuse the Church, but the A.K.K.”. These two members left the House blushing with shame, for the Minister himself repudiated them. After they were finished, he told them that it was quite right that he had accused the Church. He repeated it by way of interjection when the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) was talking. He admitted of having accused the Church and that his attacks were directed against the Church, and not only against the Labour Colony Commission. He directed his grievances and attacks against the Church. I want to tell the Minister of Lands that with this attack on the Church he has brought disgrace upon himself, disgrace upon the Party which he represents and disgrace upon his own memory, because of having accused the Church as falsely as he has done. I wish him a good night, and that, after having made these false accusations and attacks—his whole history is crammed full of them—he will now think back over them and how he is going to reply. The Minister’s whole history shows that he is the greatest bird of prey we have ever had in the country. We have never before had anybody in our public life who is so inbued with the desire of persecuting and accusing people. He comes here with this spirit of persecution and makes false attacks and accusations against the Chinch. He made those accusations against the Labour Colony Commission and the Church, but he was too afraid to go and give evidence, and in the light of the evidence given before the commission and in the light of the report of the commission which he himself appointed, and of the arguments which have been used in this House, he sits there with the false accusations which are a blot on him and he is unable to defend himself. During the course of tonight he will have to go and seek help from other people to cover up this disgrace which he has brought upon himself. The Minister has already been discredited by his own people, by the members of his own Party. There is no longer one of them who dares risk to try and defend him. He will have to work tonight and do it himself tomorrow. I want to give the Minister this advice. If in public life he wishes to get rid of the cloud which hangs over him and of all the things which he has done, if he wishes to make his horizon clearer, then he must stop continually flinging accusations about in the country, and then refusing to appear before the tribunal which has to hear those accusations. I want to give the Minister the opportunity of working out his defence, and I think that the Acting Prime Minister will agree that we should afford him the opportunity of going home so that he can deliver his reply tomorrow.

In support of what has just been said by the hon. member, namely to give the Minister of Lands a little peace, and in view of the fact that the impromptus of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) are already becoming very weak it will be better to give them the opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter. In view of this, I move—

Motion put and negatived.

I did not intend discussing this matter, but I really do think that the Minister of Lands should now make his reply. He is also an Afrikaner and belongs to the Dutch Reformed Church. We have spent the whole afternoon discussing this matter which is of the greatest importance. I do not wish to delay the matter, but I honestly think that it is the duty of the Minister of Lands to rise and submit his case. We want to handle and dispense with a matter such as this in an honest way, and that is why I think that it is no more than right that the Minister of Lands should now stand up and settle the matter. He professes to have a good case. If he has such a good case, then it is his duty to rise and give this House an explanation. If he fails to do so, we can only conclude that he has a weak case. In South Africa we have the Dutch Church and the English Church, but all of us profess one faith; and if the Minister of Lands brings discredit upon our Church, then he is doing so to the Church as a whole, and thus to the English Church as well. I see that the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) is now with the Minister. Perhaps he will be able as a front bencher on the other side, to persuade the Minister to rise and say something. With the support of that hon. member I make this appeal to the Minister.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 18th May.