I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to the Loan Funds. When is he going to lay the additional Estimates of his own Department on the Table, and also the Estimates for the coming year? The House has been sitting for a considerable time and it is the rule to lay the Estimates on the Table as soon as Parliament meets.

The hon: member will find he is mistaken when he says it is the rule to lay the Estimates on the Table as soon as Parliament meets. He will find that the Minister of Railways and Harbours was very early this year. As far as my own Additional Estimates are concerned, I hope they will be ready in a day or two. The main Estimates will still take some time. The hon. member will realise that what is an apparent delay—not a real delay—is due to a certain extent to the fact that I have been absent from this country.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I move—

Hon. members will see from the notice paper that my motion is to the effect that, in view of the inability of purchasers of land from the Government to pay for same, owing to high prices and the high interest, due to the drought and other causes, I ask the Government respectfully not to press for payment at present; and I go on to ask the Government to consider the advisability of making an enquiry into the ability of these people to meet their engagements to the Government. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I have no intention of attacking the Government in the least, because I am quite convinced that this Government is as anxious as their predecessors were to promote land settlement. I have had occasion to communicate with the Minister of Lands from time to time regarding individual cases, and I have invariably found him to be courteous and willing to help; but he is bound by the law and the regulations, and he must of necessity leave a great deal of power in the hands of his officials and members of the land boards, and they in turn have their hands tied by the laws and regulations. It is necessary. I admit, to have laws and regulations to prevent abuses, but I hope to show that our land laws are not conducive to land settlement. If I compare the position of the Minister of Lands with my own, I am bound to say that I am more responsible than he is, because I was a member of the Government during whose term of office most of these laws were introduced and passed. If I may say anything in excuse of myself, it is that it was only recently that I realized how badly our land laws worked, and it made me resolve to lay this matter fully before Parliament, because Parliament, as a whole, is responsible for the laws it has passed, and Parliament will be held responsible if these laws are not modified very much in favour of land settlement. Our land laws are defective in this—that we expect far too much from settlers. In some other countries settlers can get a small farm free of charge. Owing to the fact that we have little land suitable for land settlement, it was necessary for us to buy land, and we have saddled the settler with heavy liabilities which he will never be able to discharge. The Government is responsible for these settlers, and has a special responsibility to see that everything in reason is done to enable the settlers, whom they themselves have placed on the land, to be successful. When the war was over, and our men came back from active service in 1919, the cry was for land. The Government of the day was very sympathetic, and Parliament voted the money. Land boards were told to get busy. The inevitable result was that land boomed; prices began to soar, and members of land boards, who were practical farmers themselves, must have felt, in many cases, that they were advising the Government to pay prices that were far too high; but they had no option. Every land board office was besieged by men clamouring for land, and price was a secondary consideration. When the land was allotted to an applicant, according to our law, he was bound to have a lease of five years. During the first year he made no payment; during the second and third years he paid rent equal to 2 per cent, of the purchase price, and during the fourth and fifth years the rent was increased to 3½ per cent, of the price. Then he was bound to pay the purchase price which the Government had paid for the land plus survey fees, the costs of transfer and other costs which the Government had incurred. He had to pay this price in half-yearly instalments extending over 20 years, and that period was increased recently by law to 40 years, so that the price was payable in 80 half-yearly instalments. But in addition to the purchase price the law provided that interest at the rate of 4 per cent. should also be paid, and there, I think, considerable hardship and an unnecessary burden were placed on the settler. In many cases they were quite ignorant of land values and trusted to the Land Board, and trusted that the officials of the Government would see that they got good land. In many cases, I am afraid, they did not get what they expected. With regard to the failure that has attended our land settlement since Union, the causes have been many. We have had farmers who failed because they were bad farmers. Other men failed who put their money into stock. We know that the value of cattle during the last few years dropped by 40 per cent. Others pinned their faith to cotton, but owing to drought and the drop in the price of cotton, they have not done well. The men I have principally in view in my motion have suffered from all these drawbacks, but in addition they have failed because of the high prices which the Government has expected them to pay for the land. The Government can do little to improve the prices of produce and cattle except in getting better markets oversea. With regard to drought, the only thing the Government can do, apart from giving temporary relief, is to construct irrigation works or assist land owners to do so. But in regard to the high prices the Government have it in their own power to mitigate the position. They can meet the point by not pressing for payment. I am afraid that unless relief is given to those who are at present on the land many more holdings will be abandoned, and the large army of unemployed will be swelled by men from the land. In order to show that the plight of these settlers is not only serious, but desperate, I want to instance a case to the House. A man, whose name I have given to the Minister, in 1919 bought from the Government 875 acres in the Dundee district at 47s. 3d. per acre, and 20 additional acres at 40s. an acre, the total price being £2,142. This man spent £400 in permanent improvements, and several hundreds more in equipping his farm and getting to work. He unfortunately, was told that the land he got was good arable land, instead of which it was found to be extremely poor. Although he used as much as 200 lbs. of fertilizer to the acre, the best crop he got was seven bags to the acre, and usually he got only three or four. He got the best soil on the farm analysed, and the report stated that it was deficient in every kind of plant food. This man was going back, and he got assistance from the Government and borrowed £250, but then hearing that the Government was willing to revalue the holdings he applied for a re-valuation, which he got, and the price was reduced to £1,743. But this re-valuation was a farce, because the Government added £291 arrear rent. The interest on arrear rent was added £22: and quite rightly, they added the loan £250, interest on the loan £60, making £2,366, which he was told was the price of his land. Then, in addition to that, according to the law—the Minister had no option—40 years’ interest at 4 per cent.—£2,399—was added, bringing the price up to £4,765. He was told he had to pay that sum in 80 half-yearly instalments of £59 11s. 3d. each. That works out at a little less than £5 an acre, omitting the loan of £250. A practical farmer, who knows this land, told me that the previous owner who sold the land to the Government could not make a living on it, and, in his opinion, it was never worth more than 12s. an acre. I put it to the farmers in the House, would any of them take on this proposition of trying to pay £4,765 for 900 acres of grazing land, and very poor land at that? Is it any wonder that these settlers look upon the Minister of Lands as a grasping Shylock who is trying to extract his pound of flesh from the unfortunate settlers? That is not my opinion, but it is theirs. I know the Minister would like to help them more than he has done, and I feel convinced that the Government will see that relief is given to these people. In the first part of my motion I ask the Government to give these men breathing time. The Minister, in a recent reply, said he was not pressing the settlers, but the settlers do not know that—they can only take the letters which the Minister’s department sends to them as expressing his intention. These men are very much perturbed because the Minister’s officials are pressing them. One letter, dated September last, says it must be clearly understood that all arrears have been capitalized, and that the department will insist on the arrears being paid on due date. In November the same man received a letter warning him that unless a special endeavour was made by him to liquidate the outstanding amount at an early date, there would be no alternative but to consider the matter in a serious light. Another letter stated that unless the department heard from the settler at an early date there would be no alternative but to submit the matter for the consideration of the Land Board, as the non-payment of instalments was a decided breach of the lease. Another settler received a similar letter only a month ago. These men have had drought losses, stock has fallen fifty per cent, in value, they have put all their savings into their holdings, and they simply have not a penny with which to pay the Government. Surely it would be better to let them struggle on than to frighten them with these letters, which they take to mean that Government will turn them off the land unless they pay. A good case can be made out for the first part of my motion. With regard to the second portion, in which I press for an enquiry into the ability of the settlers to pay, I am very anxious to see an independent enquiry—I mean an enquiry by a person or persons unconnected with the officials of the Land Department or with the semi-officials of the Land Board.

Why?

The officials of the Land Department look upon it as their particular business to collect the moneys due. Behind them is the Treasury, whose duty it is to see that everybody who owes money to the Government, is pressed for payment. In the past the price of land has been fixed by the Land Board, and it is too much to expect that they will reduce the price considerably, for if they did so it would be a reflection on themselves. It is highly necessary that a fresh start should be made, and that we should overhaul the whole of our existing land settlement system. The real problem is not to get in the money, but how are we going to keep on the land the settlers already there, and how best to increase their number? The Government extends very liberal help to men who have been driven off the land and to the unemployed generally. They take them in hand, find them work, and even pay them while they are being trained to go back on to the land, when the Government will give them houses and holdings, cattle and seed, probably spending £1,000 on a man who is down and out. Is it not better to help the man on the land so as to keep him there and to prevent him joining the ranks of the unemployed? The Department of Labour last year spent £391,000 in unemployed relief and in training the unemployed to go back on to the land. I think a good portion of that money should be diverted to helping men already on the land. I don’t think our land settlement is likely to be a success unless we make up our minds that the Government must lose a certain amount of money. It is quite impossible for a settler to go on to a raw piece of veld and make sufficient profit to pay rent during the first five years. Even an experienced farmer with plenty of capital and no rent to pay will have a hard job to make a profit during his first five years. He would be very lucky indeed if he could show any profit at all at the end of the first five years of farming on a new piece of land. How much more difficult it must be for an inexperienced man or a man with limited training and capital to make sufficient profit to pay the Government £40 or £50 every half year. Again, we should reduce the price of land very considerably; the land I have mentioned should be reduced by 75 per cent. It was reduced by a few shillings an acre. The land generally held by settlers was bought in the boom period. So the settlers are burdened with the mistakes made by the Land Department. I don’t say we ought to make a reduction all round, but a close enquiry should be made into the circumstances of each settler and into the nature of the soil he is expected to pay for. I have heard of a case where an official was sent to value a farm, and he simply drove up to the farm house, had a cup of coffee, chatted over the matter, and drove away without looking at the place. We want a detailed inspection of the land. Again, it is entirely wrong to charge the settlers with interest, I have shown how the price of land is doubled by adding interest. In Natal, prior to Union, we had several successful land settlement schemes. The land was sold by auction at the upset price of ten shillings an acre, and most of the purchasers paid from twelve shillings to fifteen shillings an acre. They had twenty years in which to pay for the land, and no interest was charged them unless they fell into arrears with their payments. Not only in Zululand, but throughout the whole of Natal, land settlement from 1895 down to the date of Union was, on the whole, successful. We can never expect our settlers to succeed if we charge them this very heavy interest. When land has been revalued, it is wrong to debit the settler with arrear payments, because that makes the position of a settler no better. In the case I have referred to, the poor man expected to get relief, but found he only got relief to the extent of the miserable sum of £36. I do not think the Government can defend for a moment the usurious charges made for interest.

£2,399 was the correct amount of the valuation of the land.

The purchase price was £1,743. The rent was £290 18s. 1d., and interest £22. These are the figures, and the total is £2,056, or, in other words, a reduction of £86.

After the arrears were added again?

Yes. It is quite right to charge him with the advance, but wrong to charge him with the arrears. If that was wrong, as I hold it was, it was doubly wrong to charge him interest on the arrears. How can a poor settler pay interest on the arrears if he cannot pay the arrears themselves? The Minister must admit that the burden he has put upon these men is greater than they can bear. He may say that many of them have paid neither rent nor instalments. That is true in some instances. They have no money with which to pay. They have put all they had into the land, and have gone on living in a meagre way. The position was so serious that some of them abandoned their farms and left. The piling of these burdens on the settlers is a bad policy. It is going to cost money to write off large sums, but this country has already written off large sums to keep men on the land. By the courtesy of the Auditor-General, I have some figures which I shall read. During the thirteen years preceding 31st March, 1926, the Irrigation Department has written off £206,000. In connection with the repatriation of burghers, the globular sum of £2,225,000 has been written off since 1913. The Land Department itself has written off since Union to the 31st of December last year the large sum of £529,000. The Secretary of Land, in his evidence before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, last year told the committee there would have to be written off other sums, and he estimated a loss of a further sum of £400,000 before they were out of the wood, if we are going to make land settlement a success, we must write off much more. The Government is bound to lose money, but if they do not come to the rescue in a substantial way, they will lose the men as well as the money. Ultimately, the Government will have to reduce the prices materially, because new settlers cannot afford to pay these prices. There are many holdings which have been abandoned. There are several in my own constituency standing vacant for some time, and nobody looked at them owing to the high prices, if we are to make land settlement a success, we must not look at the matter from the accountant’s point of view, and we must not expect a pecuniary return for the money spent. The best asset any country can have is a numerous and contented farm population, especially here in South Africa, as we Europeans are outnumbered by the coloured population in the country. It is therefore necessary to strengthen the European element in the country districts. They have been leaving and going into the towns. We must encourage them to go back to the land in the interests of the country, and the country must face a loss if necessary. If we keep the people on the land, they will mutually repay ten-fold any expanse incurred in settling them. These men are not loafers, nor are they poor whites. They are hardworking men, and the Government must come to their assistance. During the recent tour of my constituency I met many settlers, some of whom I had not seen since they came back from active service, when they were young, eager, and anxious to get to work. When I saw them a few weeks ago, they were old, hopeless, worn men, worn out trying to make a living from a reluctant soil. Many of them have increased their responsibilities by marrying, and they told me that it wrung their hearts to think that they can only give their wives and families the barest necessities and the coarsest food, at which even the Kafirs turn up their noses. One man said to me—

His wife was standing there with a baby in her arms, and she asked me with tears in her eyes whether the Government could not do something to help them. It was cases of this kind which decided me to bring the whole question before the House. I ask the Government to so amend the Land Laws in order to make it easier in the future for these settlers, and for those who may go on the land in future, to make their farming a success.

seconded.

I agree with the first portion of the motion, but I want to extend it a little in the latter portion. I agree with the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) that the Government should give every assistance possible to those settlers who cannot meet their obligations to the Government. I want to go further than the hon. member for Dundee, because we know there are many settlers in the country who have never paid their rent and, therefore, their failure is not due to the high price of the land. It has been due to the system under which the settlers have been settled. Therefore, I want to move an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Dundee. The amendment I propose is in a slightly amended form to that which appears on the Order Paper—

In moving this amendment I am not making an attack upon the Government. I am attacking the system. I should not do justice to the settlers whom I represent nor to the cause I am pleading if I attempt to make a party question of it. Neither this Government nor previous Governments are to blame for the present position. Our land settlement policy has grown up from crude conditions during the course of years. It is, therefore, ill designed to meet the modern economic conditions. It is a reflection of the past. I think we should now make an endeavour to build up land legislation in view of the future. This land settlement is really a national matter. We may say all we like about the necessity for fostering industries, for fostering the primal industry of mining and for creating wages boards and boards of industry; but if we do not establish our security on the land there is no necessity for our white population. For the success of the future and the success of any policy, whether political and economical, depends, in a large measure, upon success in agriculture. The present deplorable state of land settlement is not the fault of the Minister. Like the hon. member for Dundee I can pay a tribute to the solicitude of the Minister for the welfare of the settlers. I have approached him often in regard to settlers in my own constituency and he has done all in his power to help them. His power is conditioned, however, entirely by the Land Acts. He cannot go outside them and all the assistance he can render is conditioned by what is laid down there. The responsibility for the present state of things, then, lies upon every individual member of the House and it is to the House itself that I appeal for the appointment of a commission to investigate the position. Consider, in the first instance, our method of dealing with land settlement. We have four departments all having something to do with the purchase of land, all having something to do with putting settlers on the land; they are the Lands Department, the Labour Department, the Agricultural Department and the Irrigation Department. There is, as far as land settlement is concerned, an entire lack of co-ordination between the work of these departments. One department does not know what the other is doing. Sometimes, and when it does know, departmental dignity steps in the way of cooperation. The Labour Department is dealing with land settlement questions on its own without any consultation with the Lands Department, which has had experience ranging over a quarter of a century. The Lands Department is chiefly concerned in its administration with matters of survey, with matters of valuation, with the allotment of land, with the placing of the settler on the land, and giving him title. But it is not concerned in any way with the production of wealth from the soil, after the settler is there. The settler gets no assistance from the Government in the production of wealth from the soil. It is just here that our system breaks down. The settler, when he goes on to the land, is left to paddle his own canoe entirely. He is left to fight for every service which should be made available to him. He has, for instance, to petition, the Provincial Council to build a road to his settlement, in order to get his produce to the market, only to meet with the reply that the provincial authorities should not be called upon to construct roads through Government settlements. The Central Government appealed to, agree to construct a road, and is reprimanded by our Public Accounts Committee for spending money upon a provincial matter, consequently nothing is done and the settler is left to do the best he can. Later, he has to petition the postal authorities for every postal convenience that he needs, and he has to petition the Department of Justice, which is notoriously indifferent to settlers throughout the country, to obtain even the simple elements of protection, and he has to go to the Agricultural Department, cap in hand, to beg of them every little simple service which is available to the farmers of the country. He has to go to the Irrigation Department to beg them to put a bore hole down on his farm. The settler, as I say, is right up against it. He meets with restriction in many ways. He is restricted by the Veterinary Department from the very outset—often from sheer caprice—and the Railway Department pays him no consideration whatsoever, and charges him double rates for all goods carried on construction. Consider the foolish confusion, too, which exists in the financial arrangements. The settler can get a loan from the Lands Department for the building of a house, or for stock or implements, but if he wants to build a tank on his farm, he has to go to the Land Bank, and the Land Bank, before it grants a loan, goes to the Lands Department to get that loan underwritten. If he wants a bore put down on his farm and a windmill to pump water into the tank he must go to the Irrigation Department. Here is interminable confusion, even in matters of finance. And now we have the Labour Department, a department which seems to have its hand very firmly on the public purse, much more so than any other department, and which is able to give out money to whomsoever it wishes. We have created another wheel to our coach, a fifth wheel, in the Irrigation Commission. Surely, irrigation is a branch of land settlement, a subsidiary branch, and here we form an irrigation commission and, instead of putting it under the Minister of Lands, under whom it ought to be, we put it under the Minister of Agriculture. Previously, it was under the Minister of Justice. What is the result of all this confusion? The result is easily shown by the figures which come before the House periodically. The Lands Department does not produce much information in the way of annual reports. There was no report last year. I have a few figures extracted from the report of the year before, and I find that there were 11,525 debtors in 1923, and 11,213 in 1924, all of them unable to pay interest. That seems to me to be a most alarming picture of the condition of land settlement in this country when 11,213 are owing money to the Government which they are unable to pay. The Public Accounts Committee investigated this matter and they told the Minister of Lands that he must put on the screw, and they brought a motion into this House a couple of years ago to insist that the Minister of Lands should be firmer in the collection of arrears from land settlers. What was the consequence? The consequence was that the Minister of Lands started to put on the screw with the result that he has been told that probably 90 per cent, of the settlers in Natal will be unable to remain on their farms if they have to pay these arrears. We had from the Minister a few days ago the fact that 6,809 settlers are on the main land settlements, and of these 2,139 have met their instalments to the Government, so that to-day there are 69 per cent, of the total settlers on the land who are unable to meet their engagements to the Government. It would be very interesting to know how many of those 31 per cent, who are meeting their engagements to the Government have built their successes on the failures of their predecessors on the farms. I want to come to one particular illustration of the disaster which overwhelms our land settlement which has occurred recently in my own constituency. In doing so, I want to take my full share of the blame for what has happened. There exists in northern Zululand an area of ground of about 200,000 to 300,000 acres. It has been considered by all agriculturists who have seen it as the richest and most fertile portion of the Union. Seen in very favourable conditions, there is nothing anywhere to equal it. This area is traversed by perennial rivers capable of irrigating probably the whole area. Unfortunately, no rainfall records were kept of this area. Everybody who saw this area before settlement believed, as I believed, and still believe, that it is a very rich tract of land indeed. For a very long time there was a public demand and I also led that public demand, that this land should be thrown open for occupation, but the Government of the day, some three or four years ago was very cautious in the matter. After a good deal of urging, it cut the land into suitable areas, but before proceeding to grant allotments, it placed three settlers on the land to carry out experiments in cane growing. These experiments had been commenced and were continuing when a further pressure was brought upon the Government. Then came the cotton boom. Everybody began to talk cotton; articles appeared in all the papers of the Union, painting in glowing pictures the wealth to be obtained from cotton. Interested people were constantly being interviewed on the possibilities of cotton growing. The Prime Minister, during the last election period, went round the country telling the people that the poor whites on this land in Zululand could make £1,500 a year from cotton growing. The House and the country must accept the fullest responsibility for what occurred. I have here a Government publication called “Farming Opportunities in South Africa,” issued under the authority of the Publicity Department of the South African Railways and Harbours. It is also supported by the Agricultural Department. It was published in 1922. This book was to be found in the principal hotels and clubs in London, and it was to be found in the steamships coming out to South Africa. It has been called “the settlers’ Bible.” It was pointed out to me that if we turned to page 279 we find it is given there that the rainfall of the Umkuzi district averages 35.1 to 50 inches a year. That is the official information. We know from bitter experience that the rainfall during the last two years at Umkusi has been something like 12 to 14 inches. In this book cotton is pointed to as having a glorious future in South Africa and as having passed the experimental stage and was then in the stage where settlers growing cotton can rely on a very fine return. The return is given as £350 for every 50 acres as the lowest yield. A favourable yield in favourable places is given as £2,000 for 52 acres, and the most favourable place was shown to be in the so-called “cotton belt of Zululand.” On this glowing account and on these representations a number of men came to this country. They came with an abundance of capital; they were men of education and character. A number of them had held high commands in the army in the late war and they were a body of which any country might be proud. The greatest majority of them, of course, were South Africans. Here they were, some 150 or so of these new pioneers, many of them with a capital of about £2,030 to £4,000, starting out on the virgin veld full of enthusiasm to win this reward pictured to them in a Government publication. The position today is that 75 per cent, of these settlers at Umkusi have left the land; they have left their farms. The capital they had has all gone. I am not exaggerating when I say that some of them have been on the verge of starvation. The first year they had a flood which destroyed their crop, and the last two years they have been suffering under a very heavy drought. They were in this unfortunate position, more unfortunate than in other parts, that they could not fall back on cattle, for though the country I am speaking of is excellent grazing country, it is also a Nazana area—so the salvation of live stock was impossible to them. What I want the House to realise is that these men have between them spent somewhere between a quarter and half a million of money in developing Government land—our own land. They have lived for three to four years in a malarious climate with their wives and children, and to-day they are reduced to the position of “poor whites.” It is a piteous condition to which these people have been brought. Further south there is an opportunity; the rainfall has been better, but I see no hope of their carrying on under present conditions at Umkusi. It may be said that nothing the Government could have done would have prevented this occurrence. Certainly they could not have prevented the drought and the flood, and the Government may be held not to blame for what has happened, but this is just where the lack of coordination between the departments begins to manifest itself. As soon as these people realized that they were up against it they immediately began to petition the Government for someone to come down and tell them what they could grow, for it was patent to everybody that without crops of some kind there could be no existence. But the Department of Agriculture gave them no assistance. Last year I petitioned the Minister of Agriculture to establish an experimental station in that area. I was informed that a station was being established in the Transvaal and therefore it was impossible to establish another in Zululand. The Minister said he would allow experimental plots to be established in Zululand. The settlers have been waiting month after month for these plots to be established but nothing has been done. The Minister will remember I went on the deputation to see him at Pretoria some months ago, and when the deputation interviewed the Department of Agriculture the Department promised that an expert would be sent down to Zululand immediately to establish an experimental plot. The settlers waited month sifter month, but nothing happened. No one went there until a month ago, and then an official was sent there without any power, having no money, and not knowing what was to be done. None of these settlers want to leave their farms; they all want to remain there, and if only they had the opportunity to remain they would be perfectly willing to put in their hardest work to try and win out in the future. They have appealed to the Provincial Council to be allowed to build roads, and the Provincial Council has turned them down. They appealed to the Forestry Department to be allowed to plant trees, and the Forestry Department told them the country is not suitable for growing trees. They cannot get cattle on their farms. What then are they to do? What help can the Government give them? There are a number of poor settlers in an infinitely worse plight than even the men of whom I have spoken. They had very little when they went there. They had mostly loans from the Government to carry on, and they are reduced to the position that they have nothing whatsoever to eat and they are going out into the veld and shooting the few bucks remaining and asking the storekeepers to give them a little meal in exchange for the skins. They cannot even obtain the seed mealies necessary to maintain existence next season. The other settlers have some market value. They can no doubt obtain work, but these people will only swell the ranks of unemployment. I want to contrast this with what was done on similar land in North Africa. In the Sudan there is another 300,000 acres of similar land to that at Umkusi which has recently been settled. The Sudanese Government entered into a contract with a private company known as the Sudan Plantations, Ltd., to irrigate the whole of that area for cotton growing. The Government built the main canal and the plantations company constructed the minor canals and put the settlers on the land and assisted them with advice. The result is they produced last year £3,000,000 worth of cotton off that area. I mention that as an illustration of what is possible by different methods. In the south we place settlers on the land with half a million of capital and lose it, together with the settlers. In the north they proceed in a different method and build up a wealth-producing capacity for the future. The land of which I am speaking, as the Minister will admit, is extraordinarily fertile. It is the richest land probably in the Union. It is traversed by perennial rivers, the waters of which are running to the sea.

There is fever.

There is probably fever, but where wealth is produced you do not find men hanging back because of fever. I have myself lived in one of the worst malarial areas of the Union, and you do not find men shirking land settlement because these areas are malarial. I think we have reached a stage when we really ought to take stock of our present land settlement policy, and ask ourselves whether we are proceeding on wise lines or not. I am certain of this, that if we are merely going on the present lines of drawing rent from the land and leaving the settlers there, without the aid of science and organization, the history of land settlement for the last fifty years will repeat itself in the next fifty.

seconded.

The hon. members for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) and Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) have criticised on three points. In the first place the hon. member for Dundee said that our land settlement laws were very bad, and he stated expressly that we should try to improve the Acts on the lines of other countries. I am very glad that the hon. members are now pleading for this improvement, but one asks oneself why they did not make the same proposals while they were still in power. Is it because they did not then expect that improvements would be made and that they have more confidence in the present Minister? I think that confidence is justified as I will show by figures, but their point was that our Acts, even after the improvements made by the present Minister of Lands, are worse than those of other countries, more particularly of the other Dominions. I have here the legislature in force in other Dominions, and I just want to compare it with our present legislation. Let me first call to mind that our present Minister of Lands has extended the period of re-payment to forty years, and reduced the interest payable to 4 per cent. In New South Wales we find that while our interest is 4 per cent, it is there 5½ per cent, and the time for repayment is only 31 years, while it is 40 years with us. Are conditions there better than with us? In the State of Victoria the period for repayment is 31 years and the interest 4½ per cent. In the State of Queensland the figures for interest and repayment are 6.6 to our 5.1. These are all instances showing that our position is more favourable and I do not think hon. members can give instances of better conditions in other Dominions. Then the hon. member for Dundee said that the Government should not insist on the settlers paying. The two members who spoke said that they did not wish to discuss land settlement from a party point of view. This is praiseworthy, and I agree with them, because land settlement is a national matter and not a political one. I therefore much regret that S.A.P. people outside Parliament are clearly not of the same opinion. What, e.g., did the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) say quite recently at Louis Trichardt? I quote from the translated report in the Rand Daily Mail. He then said—

And he says further—

But what did the leader of the Opposition and his Government do when they were in power? The figures are in the Blue Book. The hon. member for Dundee said “write off, constantly write off more.” What did the S.A.P. Government do? The present Minister of Lands has in two years written down capital by £230,000.

Much more.

I am quoting from the Blue Book. It is now undoubtedly much more. The former Government from 1920 to 1923 did not write off a penny. Does it not appear then that the attitude of the hon. members is nothing more than an attempt to make political capital?

Do you assist the settlers?

I assist them in the way of truth and justice. There are many settlers in my constituency and I shall just mention some things about them to show what they think, but I do not want our settlers to be assisted in an underhand manner. I consider it unfair to come here and say “write off, and write off more,” when proof is given that the present Minister of Lands has in two years written off at least £230,000 and the previous Government did not write off a single penny in three years, and when the present Government has reduced the interest from 5 to 4 per cent, and the time for repayment has been extended from 20 to 40 years. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has just quoted from a book which he strongly disapproved of. He did not say that this Government was responsible for the contents of the book, but left the impression that it all happened under the present Government. Did the member look at the date of the book? The book is entitled “Farming Opportunities in South Africa.”

I said so.

Then I apologise. It escaped my attention. I know the hon. member is honest, but the fact is that the present misery among these people is not due to the present Government, but to the previous one, and therefore the complaint should not be made against the present but against the previous Government. These members now want the Government to appoint a commission to investigate matters. It appears from the speech of the hon. member for Dundee that he is not even so conversant with matters in his own neighbourhood. The hon. member may simply take it that the Department of Lands knows better than he does. The Department has at least five commissions available for enquiry into the conditions. There are two land boards in the Transvaal, one in the Free State, one in Natal and one or two in the Cape Province. If the Government were to appoint another commission some member of the Opposition would come and represent that the Government was wasting too much money on commissions. Is that not party politics? The fact of hon. members introducing these proposals has proved that they have confidence in the Minister of Lands, and I think it should be large enough to leave the further conduct of affairs in his hands as well. I want to quote a few more figures from the financial bible of South Africa, the report of the Auditor-General. I quote from page 348 of the Dutch version—

And now hon. members come and say we must treat the settlers more fairly and show still more sympathy. I again recall the attitude of the previous Government in comparison with the present one. We know that there are many-set tiers who do their utmost to meet their obligations. They work and save to meet their obligations to the State and the taxpayers, because if they do not pay the taxpayers have to come into the breach. Is it commonsense that while a large number of the settlers are doing their best to meet their obligations hon. members should say that we should not take such severe action? Will they not be giving a handle to the settlers, of whom there are fortunately only a few, who are keen on evading their obligations? Will it not give a handle to the man who instead of paying his debts buys silk stockings for his wife and a motor car for himself? I think that as responsible people we should show the greatest sympathy and co-operation towards the settler, but it must be made clear to them that it is their duty to the State and their fellow taxpayers to meet their obligations. I fear that the attitude of the hon. members for Dundee and Zululand, however well-intentioned, will not meet with the success that they expect, but will really have a bad effect. One individual, one settler, may be encouraged and others discouraged. When a neighbour who is trying to do his best sees that his companions live a jolly life, spend money and do not pay their debts to the State, he will also say, “why should I pay any more?” He will commence to do the same as the bad settler. The two hon. members emphasized that they were not contemplating Party advantage, but I have quoted from the speech of the hon. leader of the Opposition to show that the attitude outside the House is different. The feeling of the settlers is quite different to the feeling of the two hon. members who have spoken. I know the settlers of Mamagalieskraal personally, people who are quite satisfied to be saved from poverty by the good legislation which this Government has passed. I have here a letter from the settlers on Vyfhoek near Potchefstroom. There are about 80 of them. I should like to quote the resolution which they passed exactly two months ago on the 8th December, 1926—

In spite of these facts hon. members opposite say that they have not actually confidence in the Minister and his Department, because they ask for the appointment of a commission. They have not the confidence in the policy of the Government, because they ask for more money to be written off. I doubt whether the motion and the amendment are sensible, and desirable ones to be brought before the House. For the reasons that I have given I think it is a pity that the motion and amendment were introduced, and I personally shall vote against them.

I think it is a pity that so worthy a motion as this one cannot be introduced into this House without having to listen to a speech of such a character as that which has just fallen from the last speaker. That is the best reply I can give to him. His remarks are entirely uncalled for, and are out of place in this discussion, and do not help to solve the difficulties we are endeavouring to overcome. I want to confine myself to that part of the motion which is an appeal to the Government for mercy. In appealing to the Minister, we are appealing to one whose sympathies, we feel, are with those who are in grave distress. We could not possibly have a man in that office with more sympathy, and I am glad of an opportunity of saying that. I have always found him courteous and anxious to help settlers in difficulties. I would also like to record that that is the spirit which permeates the whole of his office. We find it in dealing with his officials as well as with himself. That being so, we appeal with confidence to him for still further consideration for these people, and in doing so I feel it is necessary that we should satisfy him that conditions are such that he must extend his sympathy to a greater extent than he has done yet. Speaking generally regarding settlement schemes in South Africa, I am not one who feels that this policy cannot be carried out successfully. It is undoubtedly a fact that a large number of settlement schemes have failed, and failed miserably. But, speaking generally, there were reasons which foredoomed them to failure before even a plough or a spade has been put into the ground. One of the first considerations in a settlement scheme is that it should be a Government one, and it should not be left to private enterprise or to companies. The Government experts should select the ground, and should satisfy themselves that it will produce the particular crop for which there is a good market available; having done that, we are only at the beginning of our responsibilities. We cannot take people who are more or less ignorant of local conditions and expect them to make good unless we nurse them from the moment they arrive on the ground until they succeed. In successful schemes, there is always an expert who runs a farm or block in the locality, from whom the settlers can always get advice and assistance. In one of my first speeches in this House, I warned the Government not to be too anxious to entice people to this country to grow cotton. Cotton has been the undoing of many settlers. I have been growing cotton for four years, with considerable experience and plenty of labour, and so far I have not been able to make a profitable proposition of it. So that it is unreasonable to expect a settler who is a stranger to come into the country and grow cotton profitably. Another crop they should be warned about is tobacco. Tobacco requires expert growing and handling, and is liable to disease. But when it comes to sheep farming or citrus growing in suitable localities, it is altogether different. You can look throughout South Africa, and you find that 90 per cent. of the settlers who have been placed on sheep farms in good districts are succeeding to-day. Now as regards citrus, I do not know whether the Minister has travelled through Natal very much, or whether he has gone into one district in my constituency where there is a group of settlers making good growing oranges. They are now in their fourth and fifth years, and they are producing excellent exportable fruit. Their social conditions are enjoyable, the life is a good one, the climate is right, and the soil is excellent. They have made a success of that settlement without the assistance of one shilling of Government money. The only assistance they have asked for is railway facilities, and, apart from an inadequate road motor service, they have so far asked in

being one of the most successful settlements in South Africa, but they must have a railway. They are 19 miles from the railhead at present, and their output will be so great in the next two or three years that it will be too much for the road transport to handle. It would be a thousand pities if these men are allowed to fail for the lack of necessary transport, and if they do so fail the responsibility will be with the Government. Now I come to another settlement in my own constituency, the Blauwkrantz and Chieveley settlement, with which the Minister is conversant. It is not peopled by overseas men. They are all practical South Africans with a knowledge of local conditions. These men have had five years of drought, and have not reaped a crop worth talking about for that period. That in itself is a sufficient hardship. No blame is to be attached to anybody. They have appealed to the Minister, and the Minister has had the land revalued, and he has also altered the boundaries on some of the farms in order to make them a better proposition. Notwithstanding all that, the men cannot make a living unless they get a certain amount of rain, and this hitherto has not been forthcoming. Add to their distress the fact that they have had east coast fever, which was followed by an outbreak of anthrax which placed them in quarantine, and you will realize these people are in a parlous condition. This year, however, they are having a better season, the most promising year since they were placed in that area, and there is just a prospect of their reaping good crops. Just when they are anticipating these crops, there comes this demand for arrears. This is the first year with any possibility of making good, and they ask that the funds which they get from their crops should not be taken from them in payment of arrears. They say—

That is not an unreasonable thing to ask. All these settlers had capital when they started on the land, and I think their request is a reasonable one. Given a good year this year, and possibly a good one next year, I think there should be no demand made against them until 1928. Of course, if in the meantime they become sufficiently prosperous to be able to pay off the arrears, they are willing to give an undertaking to the Minister to that effect. I have placed the position before the Minister, and he is well acquainted with the facts, and consideration of this nature afforded now will make for the success of the settlement. I will confirm what has been said by previous speakers that the state of affairs which exists on this settlement is practically general throughout South Africa. It would be a blot on the country if we turned a deaf ear to these people and if we did not preserve them from the disaster which they are now facing; a good man kept on the land is of far greater value than a cash balance in the Land Bank.

When I saw the motion and amendment on the Order Paper, I did not in the least think that anyone would rise in the House and try to make political capital out of it. I was therefore astonished to hear the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) doing so. He goes so far as to acknowledge that the two hon. members who spoke before him stated that they did not want to make political capital. In my opinion, the hon. member did nothing else but to make dirty political capital out of the matter, in the way he went on. He tried to defend the Minister of Lands, but that is not necessary. We know the Minister well, and that he is well disposed towards the settlers, and that is the reason that the hon. members felt free to introduce their motion. It is the hon. member for Pretoria (North) who made use of it to throw mud at the former Government and its leader. I regard this not only as unsuitable, but also as unworthy. The hon. member wants to know why the previous Government did not write off the debts, but things have so changed since the new Government came into power, that it has become necessary to do so. We are glad that the new Government has done it, and the way in which the Minister did it. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) has, however, spoken in an undesirable manner, and tried to make dirty political capital out of it.

The hon. member must alter his language. He has twice used the word “dirty.”

I thought that it was applicable, but I shall leave it there. The hon. member tried to make political capital out of it and to throw mud. It is more than a man can do to sit still when you hear such a speech. The hon. member has made his reputation as far as I am concerned. I can understand now how such a person can travel at the country’s expense and put money in his pocket, and without any shame defend the expense.

The hon. member has used a phrase against the hon. member for Pretoria (North) which he must withdraw.

Which phrase do you mean?

Will the hon. member repeat what he said?

I said that I could now understand the hon. member travelling in Europe at public expense and putting money in his pocket, and then getting up in the House to defend the expenditure.

I was under the impression that the hon. member had represented that the hon. member for Pretoria (North) had done nothing in return.

No. I leave the matter there. I felt that something ought to be said. There is another matter I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is the case of persons who have obtained money from the Land Bank for jackal-proof fencing. The Minister knows that many of them are obliged to fence because they have received notice from their neighbours. They undertook the obligation, and before they could get any benefit the terrible drought came, and they will find it difficult to pay the instalments punctually.

Are they settlers?

What difference does that make?

The motion deals with settlers.

It is a matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, because many people will fail and have difficulty to pay the money in time. I want to ask whether the Government cannot consider giving time for payment.

Where must we put the blame for the failure of many settlers in South Africa? There must be something wrong if so many people fail on the countryside. This failure does not, of course, mean that only the settlers are affected. There are many of the small landowners who fail through circumstances beyond their control. They are in default in paying interest to the Land Bank as well as in the case of small landowners to the commercial banks, etc. The matter is, therefore, of great importance. There are people on the land who are to-day landowners, but in five years become settlers on Crown land, because, as landowners, they have failed, and the actual cause of their failure is a matter which must be enquired into by this House, even if a commission is possibly not necessary. We must consider what improvements can be made to enable these people to succeed where they are now failing. Doubtless the cause of the failure of many settlers can be attributed to the elements and the abnormal droughts in South Africa. In the Transvaal and in some parts of the Free State we have terrible hailstorms and frosts unheard of in tropical and sub-tropical parts. Let me instance that in Barberton—I think the Minister of Lands will agree when I say that that area causes the Department of Lands less trouble than any other part of the Union—a sub-tropical area the settlers have now been completely knocked out. Last winter they had an unusual frost there, and now an unprecedented drought. It is not the fault of these people that there has been a failure. The man cannot help his not being in a position to meet his obligations to the Government, to the Land Bank and to the commercial banks. Another cause of failure is, I think, the local marketing. The small settlers can do nothing in the existing circumstances. He cannot export overseas, but depends entirely on the Home market, and this is in such a state that he cannot make a living. I have asked myself whether the Department of Agriculture cannot get into touch with the provincial administration, who, in turn, has jurisdiction over market masters, to come to a better state of affairs. Conditions in the towns regarding market agents and market masters, and the way in which they are permitted to deal with the small man are really a public scandal, and I want to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture to convene a conference of farming market masters, and possibly mayors, to draw up a system whereby the system of handling the produce of settlers and others shall be improved upon. Another cause probably is the labour system. Cases arise where a settler has suddenly to pay entirely unexpected wages to his workmen, and as regards the raising of cotton, etc., this leads to a complete failure. Then there are individual cases (certainly not the majority) where settlers coming from beyond the Union immediately proceed to live in an expensive way when they come here, and that in certain cases is the cause of failure. Another cause is the too high valuation of the ground by the Department of Lands, or land boards. An originally too-high valuation undermines many a small settler, and the crop of cotton, e.g., is consequently out of proportion to the valuation of the land. The Department of Lands should certainly take account of ordinary business valuations in the calculation of the ground value. Is it not possible to create a system of insurance against destruction by the elements? In that way the small man will be enabled to keep going even if he cannot reap where he has sown. I have tried to show who should bear the blame, the State or the tillers of the ground. It is so often said that a man is lazy and that the farmer should take off his coat. I have just tried to show that the settler and the small landowner have to battle with things over which they have no control, and that that is the cause of failure in many cases.

A discussion on land settlement, if carried on as most of the speakers have done this afternoon, can, of course, only do good. We must consider it from a national point of view; it is a national question, and as long as we keep party politics out of it there is every chance of our reaching that success which every member of this House has at heart. I warned the House last year in discussing this matter; I said we should be careful not to bring party politics into it, and I wish to repeat that here again. Not that I think that this or that hon. member has been guilty of that, but only because I want to issue this warning. It is a difficult problem as it is, and if you bring politics into it you might as well give it up as hopeless. Before going into the general question, I wish to remove a misunderstanding. I may be the cause of it. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) stated in the House a few days ago that, in reply to a question, I stated that I was not pressing these people for arrears. He then read letters from my department some months back. What happened was that, about a week or two before Parliament opened, I received letters from different parts of the country drawing attention to there being a severe drought and people being hard pressed— in fact, some could hardly make a living—and I was asked whether I could not consider not pressing for payment. There were articles and telegrams in the newspapers to the same effect. I sent a wire to my department instructing all land inspectors to send in, without delay, exhaustive reports of their respective areas and the conditions prevailing there, and in the meantime I gave instructions that the department ought not to press for payment. So as far as the first part of the motion is concerned, I have already done that. I have received these reports, and there are some parts of the country which are no doubt in a very bad way. Take Zululand. I have a report from the inspector there. The vest of Natal is very good indeed. At Umkuzi it is reported that the settlers are in a serious position owing to the prevailing drought. Umfolosi is fairly dry. At Vryheid the settlers are in a good position. At Paulpietersburg the mealie crop is very good, and the settlers are in a satisfactory position. At Utrecht and Dundee the position is not so good. In the north west and central area the position is very good, and an abnormally good harvest is expected. In the Southwest the position is good. At the south coast the position is promising. As far as the central coast is concerned it is dry, but the condition is not very serious. At Indwe the position was not so good, but the superintendent wired me that, if rain fell within a week after sending in his report, they could expect a good mealie crop. Rain has fallen and, therefore, the crop is saved. In the Free State the conditions are more or less normal. In the Transvaal conditions are good at Bethal and Heidelberg and other districts, and not so good in Standerton. Conditions are good in the western area, but very bad in Zoutpansberg, Pietersburg and Rustenburg. In Potchefstroom the conditions are not so good either. Long before I sent out these wires I gave an extension of time for the payment of all those who applied for it if the other conditions of settlement were fulfilled. My department is blamed, but we have the law to administer, and we have the explicit injunction of Parliament. When the Act of 1925 was passed it was pointed out, both here and in another place, that now that the settlers have got so many facilities, the Minister should not allow arrears to accumulate and get back into the old difficulty. The Public Accounts Committee reported that the Department of Lands is sometimes unnecessarily lax in getting payment from settlers when they were able to pay. This report was accepted by the House, and my department has no option. We have to administer the law and see what we can get in. On the other hand I want to say that, as regards the large majority of the settlers, the people are of good stamp, are trying to pay and are doing their best to meet their obligations. Rut there are those who have made the evasion of their indebtedness to the State a fine art, and you cannot get payment out of them unless you force them. Their example is infectious to others. One may work hard and deprives himself and his family of many of the little necessities and luxuries of life, and pays; his neighbour does not, and the former says “Why should I pay when my neighbour does not and gets off scot free?” One has to be careful. I found a man who said he could not pay and the reason was because I found he had just bought a motor-car. Every case will have to be treated on its own merits. I do not think that I could be accused of undue harshness— if I were accused of undue leniency that would be a better ground than undue harshness. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) quoted the case of a certain settler, but I want to give the figures again, because his figures were not accurate. In July, 1919, a farm was allotted to this man, the purchase price of which was £2,078. I had the farm re-valued, and the revaluation was done by two members of the Land Board and two valuers of the Land Bank. It was really done under my predecessor. No objection could be taken to the personnel. They brought it down to £1,678. But then he was in arrear, and we could not help that. According to the Act he was £290 18s. in arrear, and £250 was advanced to him the interest on which advance was £50, or altogether £623 7s. 5d. That brought up his land to £2,301 odd; twenty-eight acres were allotted to him, which brought it up to £2,366. Although this land was allotted in 1919, the price of the land could have nothing to do with his payments because in 7½ years he paid only £20 15s. Surely, if his failure was due to the payments on the land one could understand that; but it is shown that that is not the reason. I don’t think he bought a motor-car. Some of these settlers will not pay. Land settlement is not a philanthropic undertaking. The taxpayer spends a certain amount of money on land settlement, and we should try to get that money back. The mover says no interest should be charged to settlers—does he propose that we should not ask settlers to pay interest?

Yes.

What would the rest of the farming population say to that —those who have to buy their own farms and pay six or seven per cent, interest? We might consider dispensing with payment of interest in the case of Crown land, which we do not have to purchase. The man who buys land inspects it and he knows whether it is good or not. He pays four per cent. interest while the State pays five per cent. I do not think in such a case that we could forego the interest, and the general taxpayer would not allow it. I will give some figures which I am afraid will shock the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). On June 30, 1925, the settlers were in arreas to the amount of £583,000. and since then we have capitalised £273 000 leaving £310,000 not capitalised, could not understand why settlers do not make use of the liberal provision in the Act by which they can capitalise their arrears. It is expected that for the current year the arrears will be approximately £530,000, that is, £310,000 old arrears and £220.000 new arrears. Apart from meeting the settlers by extending the period of repayment to 40 years and reducing the interest to four per cent., we have written off a large amount. Since I took over, the amount of £355,000 has been written off, and this does not include the revaluation of Crown land which we do not pay for. The amount written off for Crown lands is £133 000 which has to be added to the £355,000. These figures do not include the Zululand revaluation of which £50,000 has been approved, and the board is still going into revaluations. The total amount written off since Union is £529,331. and with the further revaluations will be nearer £700,000.

Was there not an accumulation of arrears before Union?

I don’t think so. We are told that land settlement in our country is not a success, implying that in other countries land settlement is more successful than it is in South Africa, But last week I received a report showing that New Zealand has written off £2,488,000, and South Australia £1,625,000, on account of agricultural settlements. This shows that the same conditions prevail all over the world. We should not talk in a strain to discourage our settlers, and say that Government land settlement is a failure, because that is not really the case. All pioneers of new countries have to struggle, and I was reading the other day in Professor Cory’s book of what happened to the 1820 Settlers. In the first two years they had rust, and the third year a flood, but in Zululand there was a flood and two dry years. I know that in my own district, when the back parts of Rustenbuig were settled, the people had a very hard struggle, but ultimately they made a success of it. If people are not prepared to work hard and live frugally and do their best, they are not likely to be successful as farmers. I do not say that the settlers in Zululand did not do that. They were unfortunate. For three years they had no crops. Consequently, what could be expected?

You must admit that we misrepresented the facts to them.

I cannot quite catch what the hon. member said. Conditions all the world over are very much the same. Only the other day I came across an article in a newspaper showing the difficulties under which settlers on the land have to work in the United States. We know that farming is a very precarious industry. One year yon may have a bumper crop such as we had in Zululand just before the land was given out tor cotton, and then you get two or three had years. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has given the House the history of the Zululand settlements, and I do not think it necessary to say anything more on that subject. My predecessor in office established three probationary farms in order to see whether cane would pay. I think that was a right policy to adopt, and a policy which had been very carefully thought out to prevent failure. But what happened? Before it was proved whether this was a cane country, there was such a pressure of opinion from the public and the newspapers, that he was compelled to give out the land. That was due to the cotton boom. People thought they were going to get rich very quickly, and there was an unseemly scramble for these farms. I find that over 500 people applied for 107 farms. Unfortunately, things did not turn out as had been expected. I do not think the Government of that time or the present Government could be blamed for it. I find that my department was very careful when the allotments were made to warn people as to the nature of the country. In the notices which were published warnings were given as to malaria, ’ngana and east coast fever. These notices were sent out a month before to every person who applied for an allotment, warning him as to the conditions in Zululand.