I move—

It has been the practice from time immemorial that where a person applied for naturalization in this country the application had to be supported by a certificate from some impartial person that he was a man of good character, so that the Minister could satisfy himself that he had references of the applicant’s good character. The matter was then investigated by the police and other authorities, and the Minister had to be satisfied as to the good character of the applicant. In 1910, when we passed our first Union statute dealing with this matter, similar provisions appeared, and it was laid down that the certificate had to be signed by a magistrate, a justice of the peace or field cornet. In the course of administration some difficulties arose with regard to the words—

but on representations made to the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) when he was Minister of the Interior, the Government ruled that the applicant would be personally known to the person signing the certificate, if such person satisfied himself from enquiries that the applicant was of good character. In last year’s statute, the old Union Act was repealed, and we made provision for reciprocity in regard to naturalization within the British Empire. The facilities were not curtailed, but we passed a provision that a man had to produce a certificate signed by a magistrate or a justice of the peace stating that the person so signing had satisfied himself from enquiries instituted by him that the applicant was of good character, so that we really intended to broaden the provisions. A J.P. was defined as a J.P. in any part of the Union. Parliament proposes, but legal interpretation disposes, and extraordinary results have followed from the legal interpretation of what we did last session. The legal advisers in interpreting the 1926 Act drew attention to the Act we passed in 1914 which is not referred to in last year’s Act. The Act of 1914 made new provisions with regard to J.P.’s, and Section 5 said that all existing J.P.’s were to continue to perform the duties they were then performing, “but shall not exercise powers, and shall not be required to perform duties imposed on Justices of the Peace by any law hereafter enacted.” The legal advisers told the Government that, in view of the Act of 1914, these J.P.’s were no longer eligible to sign these documents. I have a list of J.P.’s here who have performed these duties in Cape Town, and I will read the names. [List read.] Except for special J.P.’s there has been no appointment made here under the 1914 Act. So where we said J.P. and meant J.P. of the Union, by the interpretation of the Act it is held to mean that 99 per cent, of the J.P.’s are excluded. The result has been public inconvenience, because if a man wants to get his application endorsed he has to go to the magistrate, who is a very busy man, and it is unfair to expect that the whole brunt should be placed on the shoulders of the magistrate. In the country districts there has not been so much difficulty, because the magistrate knows every inhabitant; but in the large centres of population such as Cape Town and Johannesburg there has been the very gravest difficulty and inconvenience. I will not say anything about this interpretation. There is a great deal to be said for it from a legal point of view as a sound interpretation, but again, there is a great deal to be said against it. The Act is new, but there are no new functions for J.P.’s, who have been performing these functions for 25 years and more. I do not blame the Government in the matter, and when the law advisers made that interpretation they were bound to act upon it; and the only way to act now is to alter the existing law. I am not suggesting that anything new should be done with regard to J.P.’s, but that they should be left with the powers they have had for so many years, and whose work is done without any cost.

I have great pleasure in supporting this measure. Hailing as I do from the north, I know that considerable inconvenience has arisen from this matter. I do not for one moment blame the Minister, who was in charge of the Bill last year, because this is merely a question of interpretation. Personally, I think the interpretation was right, but quite unintentionally J.P.’s were deprived by the Act of last year from giving the certificates they had been giving. I do not think it is necessary to add much more to what the hon. member has just said. He has shown that 35 gentlemen in Cape Town were at one fell stroke deprived from giving the certificates. I am sure it must have occurred to the Minister, when representations had been made from all parts, that an injustice has been done, not to the J.P.’s, but to the people who are desirous of obtaining a certificate. I think I may appeal with confidence to the Minister to accept this measure.

After the very clear and concise statement made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), no explanation is required from me as to the precise state the legislation passed last session has brought this particular matter. It is clear a departure has occurred from the liberal construction placed by the former Government on the Act of 1910, which required that the J.P. or the magistrate concerned should personally know the applicant for naturalization. The departure from this was that it was laid down that, although an applicant might not be personally known to a J.P., he could satisfy himself by enquiries made whether the statutory requirements as to the fitness of the applicant had been satisfied. I do not think it could have been the intention of the House or certainly of hon. members on this side to depart from that previous policy, and I think the Minister will satisfy the House that it was not the intention of the Government. That being so has this alteration caused that inconvenience in the larger cities of the Union to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) has referred? That is an undoubted fact. The Minister has the testimony of two hon. members representing large towns a thousand miles apart, to which I should like to add my corroboration. It is not merely a matter of detail, but a matter of importance to those concerned. I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), and I ask the Minister readily, as I believe he will do, to accept the principle underlying this Bill.

I think it is unnecessary to take up much of the time of the House on this Bill, because I do not believe that there can be any difference of opinion in the House about it. I think the House will pass the Bill with acclamation, and I, as the Minister who was responsible for the Bill last year, am quite prepared to accept this amendment. The difficulty arose on account of there actually being two kinds of Justices of the Peace in the country, but when the Act was passed last year, this was not noticed. All members who spoke last year thought that there was only one kind of Justice of the Peace in the country, but in reality there were two. There were two kinds because before 1914 no distinction was made between Justices of the Peace acting in an administrative capacity and Justices of the Peace who do nothing else hut act as commissioners of oaths. The Government, however, found in 1914 that it was desirable to make a distinction between those who act officially and thus practically form a part of the machinery of State, and those who are merely commissioners of oaths and as such do not form part of such machinery, and do not assist in any administrative work of the State. Therefore, the Act as passed made a distinction between Justices of the Peace and commissioners of oaths. Any Government is always out to protect existing rights, and consequently at that time provision was made that those who before 1914 were merely commissioners of oaths but were called Justices of the Peace should retain the latter title. In that way, a number of persons in the country who are called Justices of the Peace, but who are merely commissioners of oaths, do not act in any administrative capacity. To that class of Justices who previously used to attest applications from persons for naturalization, no thought was given in the drafting and passing of the Bill last year. The question merely is whether they shall be included in the provision of the law which authorizes Justices of the Peace to sign applications for naturalization. For my part, I can tell the House that if anyone decides to settle here permanently, to become naturalized, and in that way to identify himself with the people, no obstacle ought to be placed in his way. Therefore, I have no objection to people who have once established themselves in this country and want to become citizens becoming naturalized as easily as possible, and therefore I have no objection to allowing the additional persons who previously had the power of attesting documents to perform the work required in the Bill. The question is only whether there would be additional danger in allowing persons who are unfitted on account of their character or otherwise to in such case attest the applications referred to. My answer is, No, simply because the Department of the Interior keeps a watchful eye, and a matter is not disposed of if an application is subscribed by a Justice of the Peace. In all cases where there is reason to believe that it is necessary the Department can—and it often does so—ask the police to make an enquiry and report on the particular case. I think that the additional facility can be granted to persons who want to adopt citizenship, and that there is no danger to the State of undesirable persons being in that way admitted to citizenship. Therefore, I have no objection to supporting the Bill.

I thank hon. members for the sympathetic support they have given to the Bill. I have also to thank Government for accepting it and for the kind references to those who have settled in this country and desire to become citizens of South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment, and read a third time.

I move—

It was introduced originally in 1925 and after the second reading was sent to a Select Committee for the taking of evidence. The Committee reported and the Bill was re-introduced last year, but unfortunately it could not reach the second reading stage. It is a very simple measure, its object being to amend Section 28 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1917. [No quorum.] The Bill was agreed to by the Select Committee and I have a letter from the Minister of Justice agreeing to the principle of the measure. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here to-day but I feel bound to proceed, and I cannot possibly agree to the adjournment of the debate. The idea of the Bill is to delete from paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 28 of the 1917 Act the words “cause of action arose wholly” and to substitute there for the words “cause of action claim or debt arose or was wholly or in part contracted.” The Bill is introduced at the request of the Newcastle Farmers’ Union. The effect of the measure is to increase slightly the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts. In future, if this Bill becomes law, a magistrate will be entitled to try a case whether the cause of action arose wholly or partly in his district. The Natal Act of 1896 contained a similar provision and the English County Courts Act also contains a similar provision. The Court of Appeal has held that if a contract is made in one district and is accepted in another the cause of action cannot be said wholly to arise in the first district. Some time ago the Smithfield Cold Storage Company through its agents sold a number of shares in the Free State. The agents misrepresented the position and one Miller brought an action in the Free State against the company. The court held that Miller and other farmers concerned would have to go to Maritzburg to sue because the cause of action had not wholly arisen in the Free State, as the acceptance of the shares was made at the head office of the company in Maritzburg. Members will realize, if the Bill which it is now sought to be passed, is accepted and passed by the House, it will facilitate and cheapen litigation. I would like to refer members to the evidence taken before the Select Committee. Mr. Lloyd, who was chief magistrate of Cape Town at the time, said that he entirely agreed with the Bill. He thought it was a necessary Bill and that to a certain extent it was going to cheapen litigation. He spoke from a wide experience, having had twenty-six years’ experience as a magistrate. The Select Committee had also the evidence of Mr. C. P. Robinson, who had a large experience in Natal, and he gave some very pertinent cases which had occurred only a few months before he gave his evidence to the Select Committee. He mentioned one case which had occurred in Durban where a farmer at Robertson had sold fruit to a man in Durban. The plaintiff had advertised in the papers that he had fruit to sell and the offer was accepted in Durban. The contract did not wholly arise in the Robertson district, and when a dispute arose the plaintiff found he had to sue the other man in Durban. Rather than do that he abandoned the case. I would like to mention that under section 35 of the Magistrate’s Court Act if, in any way, the effect of this Bill would cause hardship in any particular case, the magistrate has the discretion, with the consent of the parties, to change the venue. Or on an application by either party that the trial may result in undue expense or inconvenience, the magistrate may order the transfer of the case to another court. The principle involved is a very simple one, and the Select Committee have already accepted the principle and reported in favour of the Bill. All the evidence was in favour of the principle and I do not think it is necessary to take up the time of the House any longer. I therefore move.

I think the House will understand the position with the Minister of Justice not being here. If his intentions were, as the hon. member says, to accept the Bill, and he had communicated to one of us, I should have been delighted to facilitate the passage of it. It is impossible, in his absence, to accept the Bill.

Why not accept the second reading?

No, I cannot do that. I move—

I have not had time to consult my colleagues, but I will use my influence to see that you will have an opportunity of bringing this Bill forward. I cannot do more, and I am sure the House will see that it is inconvenient.

seconded.

In view of the promise of the hon. Minister I am prepared to accept the adjournment, the condition being that I shall get a special day.

I said I was prepared to use my influence.

I was a member of the Select Committee which dealt with this matter, and I can assure the Minister of Defence—I did not see the Minister of Justice— that all were agreed that the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) was desirable. The members of the Select Committee have no objection to the Bill.

One appreciates the position of the hon. Minister in the absence of the Minister of Justice, but one is entitled to make one or two observations on that. The first observation is that the matter was on the Order Paper for the day. The House has no right to complain if the Minister of Justice has to go away on urgent public duties, but the least he could have done was to intimate his wishes on the matter to one of his colleagues, so that the House might be told. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has been singularly unfortunate with regard to this Bill. There is no opposition here this afternoon, and the legal members of the House are agreed that it is a change in the right direction. Seeing the Minister of Justice did not intimate his disapproval and that one of his followers has told us that he had no objection and that the mover has told us that he has a letter from the Minister approving the Bill, there is no reason why we should not take the second reading now.

I have a letter from the Minister.

Then I ask the Minister to withdraw that motion for the adjournment.

If the hon. member has a letter from the Minister approving of the Bill and agreeing to the Bill, I have no objection to the second reading being taken now.

Two years ago I wrote to the Minister and pointed out to him the desirability of this change, and asked him if he would introduce a Bill to give effect to it. He wrote to me saying that he thought it was a, good change, but he did not think it was a Bill for the Government to bring in. I still have that letter at home and can produce it. His letter did not deal with the actual wording of the Bill but on the principle of the Bill, and he replied that he had no objection.

On that assurance I withdraw my motion.

I was a member of the Select Committee and they were all unanimous on the Bill. I suggest the second reading be taken and allow the committee stage to stand over, that will allow the Minister of Justice an opportunity to be present.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 18th February.

When the debate was adjourned I was dealing with the point raised by the right hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), and I put a question to him as to whether he proposed that no interest should be charged to the settlers whether they were on Government land or land bought under sections 10 or 11 of the Act. The hon. member replied “yes.” I want to put it seriously to the hon. member, whether he thinks it is possible to get that suggestion through this or any other Parliament; that the Union should borrow money for which the State pays interest and then not to charge interest on it. It is impossible to think that any Parliament would agree to that. In the discussion we tried to do our best from a national point of view, not to go off on side issues. I warned the House last year and again this year, when I said we must be careful not to introduce politics into the settlement question, because that would make it hopeless. Such a proposal coming from such an important member must necessarily lead to politics. It must make people think that if the party of which the hon. gentleman is a leader got into power again it would carry out this policy. I warned the House not to bring anything in the debate that might be misconstrued and that might cause people to be misled. If this sort of thing gets abroad that this or that political party would do this or that for them, then we had better give up land settlement altogether, and the sooner the better. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has told us something of the history of that part of the country. I want to amplify what he has said a little here and there and point out that the position is not altogether as gloomy and as dark as he has painted it. After all, it is only a portion of Zululand and not the whole of Zululand which is in such a bad condition. The hon. member critizised a departmental publication in which it was stated that the average rainfall was 35 inches per annum. I have figures before me which have been issued by the meteorological department which show that in different localities over a period of years the average rainfall has been about 35 inches. I would warn the House and hon. members that we should not cry stinking fish. Zululand is part of the Union and we must be careful not to exaggerate the position in any way. As far as farming operations are concerned, my view is that, making exceptions for certain parts where ngana is prevalent and other parts where East Coast fever occurs, you could not have a better country for cattle. Judging from what I have seen in my own district, I should say that Zululand is excellent for cotton. It is true that one year they were troubled with floods, and then they had a drought and now the price of cotton is low. I admit that in my own district we cannot go in for cotton at 6d. per lb., but if the price improves again it is probable that, with an ordinary year, they will be able to grow cotton as well in Zululand as in any part of the world. It is not a case of the country being no good. The settlers there have had unfortunate years, just as pioneers always have had in this country. We must not take this as an exceptional occurrence. I am not at all despondent in regard to the future of these settlements. I recognize that things have not turned out as well as we expected, but I think that there is still a chance that these people will be able to pull through. The idea of my predecessor was that three stations should be established in order to see whether the growing of sugar could be made a success or not, but public opinion was so strong that he was, as it were, swept off his feet and he then had to give out the land. He stipulated that the department would not supply these people with boreholes and the farms were advertized either as waterless or on the river. Advances were not mentioned at that time In order to meet the situation, I decided to depart from the position of my predecessor and agree to let these people have boreholes if they applied for them. I have had a telegram to-day saying that a fourth machine has been despatched to Zululand to bore for water for these people. As regards advances, hon. members know that, according to our Act, which is unfortunately worded, I can only make advances for certain specific objects and when recommended by the board. As far as improvements are concerned, I can only make advances for improvements to be made. If the improvements have already been carried out, I cannot grant any advances for such improvements. These people put their own money into these farms, from £1,000 to £2,000 each. When they came and explained their difficulties, I undertook to make advances to them to purchase dairy and other cattle. In the course of last year a sum of £11,000 was made available in order to help them through. I did everything that lay in my power to help them, and anything further I can do in order to assist them I shall do. I also told the board that the land, in my opinion, is very much over-valued and in due course their report will be presented to me on this matter. The Treasury and myself have already approved of a certain amount of write-off. Our policy is that if a man applies for a farm, barring where there is fever or anything of that sort, occupation is one of the conditions that must be complied with, but I have told the board that I will give twelve months’ exemption to anybody on these settlements. If the position does not improve sufficiently in that time, we may give them an extension. It has been suggested that a commission should be appointed to go into the whole question. If I thought a commission would do any good I would be the first to agree to it, but I cannot see what good can be done by an enquiry of that kind. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) complained that there had been no co-ordination between the departments. That is a mistake made in the past and I have tried to rectify it as far as possible. Whenever a large tract of ground is given out now, the first thing I do is to approach all the other departments and ask them to assist me as far as possible. Since last year, when I made representations, various improvements have been made, so that we try to do what we can. As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Agriculture has sent one of his experts down there to establish an experimental plot and see what can be done. I do not know what more can be done. I really do not see what good a commission could do. If I thought it would be the slightest good I would certainly accept it. Then there are the Land Boards. These men are practical farmers, and some have been years in the Department. Take a man like Mr. Mackenzie, the chairman of the board in Natal for a very long time. He is a practical farmer and so are the men associated with him. In the Transvaal, the Cape and the Free State it is the same. These men are constantly in touch with the settlers, and if they think of anything which would improve the position of the settlers, they let me know at once, and wherever practicable I follow their advice. They are more useful than a commission consisting of men not so acquainted with the work of the department and the past history of the settlements. I have told the House that I have given instructions that until I have received the reports, the settlers must not be pressed in the meantime for payment. I have had the reports, and these are the areas which should be treated very leniently: Mkuzi, Hluhluwe, Lydenburg, Middelburg Bushveld, Pietersburg, Zoutpansberg, Waterberg Bushveld, Rustenburg Bushveld, Marico Bushveld. Of course, even in these parts, there may be men who can pay, but these are the areas which require special consideration. The others are more or less normal, and some are very good. Take the case my hon. friend mentioned. I pointed out that the price of the land has nothing to do with his present difficulties. So far he has only paid £20 over a period of 7½ years.

He never intended to pay.

No, I do not think he did.

You ought not to say that; it is quite wrong.

I am responsible to this House to get in the money which the settlers owe, and if we allow things to go on like that, and allow people who have no intention of paying to go free, then eventually in a year or two we may come to the position when the House may say, “We are not going to spend any more money on settlements, because the thing is becoming hopeless and we cannot spend the taxpayers’ money like that.” I presume from my knowledge of the late right hon. J. X. Merriman that he had a hand in it—in 1879 or one of those years—they stopped land settlement and sold the Government farms to the highest bidders. I am perfectly certain this is the reason. If we cannot get these people to comply with their obligations, we may come to the same state of affairs again. It is costing us a great deal of money. Therefore, my intention is that in a case like the one mentioned, I am going to tell him to pay, and if he does not pay I am going to cancel his lease. I want to make it clear to the House, because there was an idea that I was pressing these people, what the extent of these cancellations is. The number of surrenders and cancellations for the whole Union in the past year was about 160. Of those only 37 were cancelled on account of non-payment of arrears, so that hon. members will see I have not been too harsh at all; in fact, in many cases, where the Board passed a resolution that the contract should be cancelled, I still gave the man time. Of course, if eventually the lessee will not pay, there is no help for it. I cannot go on like that, but most of the cancellations took place because of other causes such as breach of contract and so on. I do not say our legislation is perfect— far from it. From 1912 we have repeatedly altered the Act. I can see now that we will have to bring in another amending Act. We have learned from experience, and we can see where the thing is not working smoothly. I may bring in legislation next year which may make it easier. Where I can make things easier for the settlers without jeopardising the public interest, I will certainly do so. In the meantime I do not think I can do more than I have done, and that is generally to have a sympathetic attitude towards these men, and to tell them to try and meet their obligations where possible and to carry, out my duty where people will not do anything. We have had so many cases of two men living next to each other, and one meets his obligations, or part of them, and the other does not. Well that shows clearly that the other man was unfit, or does not want to do so. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) put a question to me as to section 11. The arrears of purchase price, that is, instalments that had to be repaid on purchase price, are £37,306, arrears of advances made to these people, £13,701, and on bonds £123, making a total of £51,130. As my hon. friend and the House know, after a certain period of time a lessee can get his transfer; the Government passes a bond on whatever he still owes, and he pays interest on the bond. The arrears are £36,360 interest, £3,136 advances, and £90 bonds; surrendered farms—this is, money due as interest and instalments of farms surrendered or cancelled—is £10,654, or altogether £101,470. We have capitalized £84,980.

How many of these settlers are in replacement of new settlers?

I am sorry to say that as far as I have gone into the matter it seems that the majority of the people who start either as settlers on a Government farm or purchase under section 11 are failures, and a successor or a third man makes a success.

Under section 10 or 11?

Sections 10, 11 and 16. Speaking from memory over the period 1921-’24 the applications under section 11 were 1,111, and from 1924-’26, 4,808. Now that there is such a large increase under section 11 we may expect in the future the same mistakes to be made again, but not to such a large extent, and therefore I expect later on that the figures will not be so favourable as hitherto under section 11, and I must say that this is the safest form of land settlement because the lessee is responsible for the purchase of the land, makes the selection himself, and makes an agreement with the owner and pays a certain amount of his capital into it, so he has a stake from the very start. If my officers can find time, a very interesting thing would be from 1912 onwards to make a list of all the people who have been settled on the land under the three sections—how many were successes and how many were failures. The 1820 people have given me figures as far as they were concerned, and I may say they are very favourable. Altogether they have put so far 623 settlers on the land, and only 38 have been failures. That was very good indeed, and one could not wish for better. I think it is exceptionally good. But naturally these people as a rule have so far had more capital than the rest of our settlers, and that may be one of the reasons for their success. If you go on the land with a small capital it is a hard struggle to get through. If you can look through the applications, make a selection, and not pay too much for the land, the chances of success are all the greater. We may not be so successful as far as the general settlers are concerned as the 1820 people were. I am glad this motion was tabled, because it has enabled me to explain the policy followed so far with regard to land settlement. If there was an impression that I have dealt harshly with settlers I may flatter myself, I think, that I have removed that suspicion—if anything, we have been too lenient. I cannot follow any other policy in the future, and I will try to assist to get on to the land all those who want to settle on it, but the people I have no time for are those who do not want to work or are sluggards.

I move, as a further amendment—

I hope the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) will accept my amendment. The only difference between his motion and my amendment is that he wants to have an independent enquiry made and has in view only persons who have bought ground from the Government, while my proposal also includes the large number of other people who are in the same unfortunate position. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) in his amendment asks for the appointment of a commission to investigate the matter. That commission may be never so impartial and representative, but it can never have the authority of the Land Boards in our country for instituting such an enquiry. I cannot support the proposal of the hon. member for Zululand. It is, in my opinion, not necessary to expend money on a special commission. I can, however, assure hon. members that I have warm sympathy with them. I want to avoid bringing party politics into this matter because they should not be introduced into a matter of this kind, but hon. members must not forget that it is not only the people who have bought land from the State who are in such a sad plight. Take the irrigation schemes. A reform association has been established which intends to go to the Government and ask that all capital costs (approximately £6,000,000) shall be written off, and that they shall only have to pay for the maintenance of furrows, etc. People are in a very unhappy position. Abnormal droughts have tried them and if rains fell then there was hardly any run-off. Take also the people who have obtained fencing loans. I do not know whether hon. members clearly understand the sad state of affairs throughout the country. The people who obtained fencing loans and are in arrear with their payments should also be considered because they are in great trouble. In my constituency there are many who have lost 90 per cent. of their sheep. Others again have obtained loans under the Agricultural Credits Act. Emergency loans have been granted for dipping tanks, etc. My motion includes all these people. I want, however, to say emphatically that if we permit the settlers to be pampered, as has been done during the past ten years, the position will be lamentable. A special case has been mentioned by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) for the particular consideration of the Government, and the Minister replied that the party had only paid £20 in seven years. Such persons should leave the land as soon as possible, and the person who is willing to work should be given a chance. Then we have the re-valuation. A man has bought ground, e.g., for £1,000, and not paid his interest for a number of years. The unfortunate man who succeeds him as purchaser of the ground with the heavy burden of accumulated and unpaid interest is in a hopeless position. I know of cases where people have been spoilt for twenty-six years, and they have got quite accustomed to such treatment from the Government. A few years ago the State established relief works to assist them, and the people would not build a road of six miles to their locality, but managed to obtain 6s. or 7s. a day for the eradication of weeds from their own ground. Such people should leave the land and other people be given an opportunity. All the other people are now excluded. There are thousands, who cannot get a loan, who have never borrowed from the Government, who have bonds on their land and cannot pay the interest. There is no way for them to get assistance from the Government. The Minister of Lands said that amounts are written off from time to time, and that this Government had written off £350,000. According to the figures I obtained in his office, the amounts are different, viz., £135,000 in 1925 and £272,000 in 1926, together far over £400,000. If land settlement does not answer let us return to the conditions referred to by the Minister when the Merriman Government stopped all settlement. Let us take care that people who are a failure get off the land, and that people who can make a success be placed on ground which can be made a success. If America can write off 27 million dollars in a year, and can also write off other public debt on settlement, South Africa also can write off certain sums.

I second the amendment. I am strongly in favour of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), but we are convinced that the Minister of Lands and his department have hitherto done their duty. I do not think there is a single case where a person can say that anyone has lost his ground on account of governmental action. At the same time we must understand that the Land Settlement Acts were not passed for philanthropic purposes, and that the settlements must be run on business lines. There are many of the settlers who will never make a success of farming and whom it would be useless to help. I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) in saying that a person who cannot make a success of farming should make room for another. I know from experience in my district and constituency that the Department of Lands and the land boards have made a mistake. Ground has, e.g., been bought which is not at all suitable for settlement—fortunately, not under this Government, but during the previous regime. In the Heilbron district land, quite unsuited for farming, was bought, but practically all the settlers are still there, because they are the right class of man who tried to make a success of their farming. However, some of the worst ground has been bought and settlers put on it. During the severe drought recently experienced there have been settlers who have battled hard to win through, but who will find it difficult to fulfil their obligations. I hope the Minister will exercise his discretion and assist these people so that they shall not lose their ground. I am convinced that the Minister and the Department of Lands will assist the people who have already shown that they can make a success of farming. I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that we cannot get a better body than the Land Board of the four provinces for making enquiries and, therefore, I can heartily support his amendment, and hope the House will pass it.

I was saying this motion has the effect of showing the sympathy of the whole House with regard to the farmers and the settlers of Zululand who are in this predicament owing to dry seasons. I don’t think we should apply the term drought to South Africa. It is not a correct term. It should only apply when the whole country is affected. It is applied in Australia. When I was in Queensland, a territory one-third larger in area than the whole of the Union of South Africa, they were just coming to the end of a three years’ drought, during which time they lost six million sheep. I met Sir John Kidman, who told me that he had lost 18,000 head of cattle. That did not trouble him so much as the question of whether they would get rain the following year. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) did not wish to imply that he meant the whole of Zululand was stricken. He simply conveyed that one particular spot was affected. We get that in all parts of the Union. In the Transvaal we have a similar position at Zoutpansberg. These settlers in Zululand are in a bad way. In parts like Melmoth, Amatikulu, Eshowe, and Umfolozi and other places, they are in a flourishing condition. These settlers at Mkuzi and Hluhluwe number 150, and 80 per cent. are South African born. They are endowed with the characteristic of most South African farmers, with grit and enterprize. They have risked their health and capital on the advice of Government experts. ... I hope the Minister will pay attention to me. I will wait until he has finished his private conversation. . . . These settlers at Susui and Ngoma are cotton-growers, and they were advised by a Government expert to go there and grow cotton. It is a country that is notoriously dry. What would be the condition of these settlers if a private company had opened up the land and advised them to go there as cotton-growers? They would have had a good case for damages. We must remember these men are the right class of men. The Minister has been eulogized in this debate by various members, and I know the Minister’s hands are tied by the law. There are some things, however, the Minister can do. Things that he is in a position to do, especially when he has the backing of the whole House behind him. Every settler of the calibre of these men is an asset to the country, and unless something is done these men will drift to the position of “poor whites.”

What can I do in addition to what I have already done?

In Zoutpansberg similar dry land has been allotted at 2s. a morgen, and they have been allowed to leave their land and seek employment. They were not compelled to remain in residence, as the Zululand settler. In Zululand the land was sold at £2 an acre, and these men have spent a quarter of a million of their capital there. Put them on the same plane as the men in Zoutspansberg and let them have the land at 2s. a morgen. Quite possibly Susui might be richer land, but the other is not. We know they have the tsetse fly, and settlers have lost their stock in large numbers. That is one point I hope the Minister will make a note of. Unless something is done with these men, we are going to lose them. We have been told by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that some of these men are shooting game and selling the skins to the storekeepers in order to keep body and soul together. I can tell the hon. member what would happen in Western Australia if a case like this happened. The Government there spent £2,000 on every settler who gave indication of making good, and they regarded it as a good investment. In 1906, in the constituency of the hon. the Speaker—Vryheid—which, unlike Zululand, is a highland country where the principal occupation is sheep-farming and cattle, the farmers in the dry season of 1905 were in a similar condition to the men at Mkuzi and Hluhluwe, and the Minister of the day in the Natal Government helped them by advancing them stock, sheep and cattle, from 50 to 200 ewes, according to the area of the land. With very few exceptions the men fulfilled their obligations, and to-day, Mr. Speaker will bear me out, some of those men are the wealthy farmers of the Vryheid district. It just wanted that little help to save the situation. Let me appeal to the Minister to do the same for the men in Zululand. They are the right men who have had the pluck to go into the country where cattle will not live and malaria is rampant; they have tried and they have failed owing to no fault of theirs; they have proved themselves true pioneers, and should be looked after. From the debate which has taken place the Minister, I am sure, will realize that hon. members are desirous that these men should be helped. One does not want it to go forth from this House that South Africa is a bad country for settlement. I would like to give a few examples of successful settlement. In this very place, Zululand, I suppose from the Amatikulu to the Umfolozi, a distance of about 40 or 50 miles along the coast, I do not suppose you will find better land settlement in the whole world. I must point out that it was Crown land allotted on 99 years’ leasehold, with the right to convert. This was begun about 1908. At that time, which was in the palmy days of sugar-growing, there were many men who made their fortunes in that area. Let us leave the coast and go inland, and again I refer to Mr. Speaker’s constituency. We have the settlement there at Scheeper’s Nek. That was not Crown land, but land purchased by the Government. This land was sold to the settlers on easy terms for 25s. an acre. Through their industry in growing maize, wattle, etc., they have increased the value of that land until to-day it cannot be purchased for £4 per acre. Let us go further north, and we find in the Bergville district a settlement which, through maize-growing, etc., has been very successful. Coming further south, we find a settlement at Albert Falls where land was purchased and sold to the settlers at an average of £5 an acre. There again the settlement was successful. There is also another settlement, Muden, where as much as £175 per acre was paid. That ground was planted with citrus. Every one of these settlements which I have mentioned has never looked back from the word “go,” so that South Africa, so far as land settlement is concerned, can hold its own against any other part of the world. The hall-mark of all settlements is to see that the roads are laid out. That was done in every one of these cases. The success of land settlement is not governed by the price of land, but the question of suitability, and in no matter is caution and common-sense required to be exercised more than in this question of land settlement. We know that the Minister is doing his best, and I believe that in regard to Section 11 rapid strides are being made, but we are not going fast enough. We want to speed up much more. I am glad that the Minister has assured us that he will take these hard cases into consideration. My experience of South Africa is that we very rarely, in fact I cannot remember the time, when we have had in one district three seasons running of dry weather, and I am sure that in the coming year, according to the law of averages, Mkuzi and Hluplului will get their quota of rainfall, and if they get the help which is necessary and the Minister will bear in mind the instances which I have given to-day at Vryheid, we will have a very happy community and a great asset to the State.

I think it is unnecessary for me to bring the position in the northern Transvaal more clearly to the Minister’s notice, because he already knows it. Yet I want to tell him that this is not the first year drought has prevailed in that area. I want especially to call his attention to the conditions of the people living in those parts on land granted by the State, although it was not in the first place purchased by the State. I want to ask him if he cannot meet that class of man. I feel that something should be done for them, otherwise they will be ruined. Many of them are already leaving their farms for the diggings and other places and something must be done to assist them. I was very sorry to hear that the Minister said that it is not possible to reduce the interest temporarily. I cannot see why, because last year we came to the assistance of settlers by the provision in section 11 of the Land Settlement Act that persons who buy ground from the State need not pay interest for the first year. Why cannot provision be made here as well, seeing the Minister and everyone is aware that the conditions are not due to any fault on the part of the people. Many of them have practically already lost their capital and it is necessary to write off the interest.

The present Act does not permit it.

Then it is necessary that such legislation should be introduced because the Minister must admit that it is necessary. Some of the farmers are already three years in arrear with their interest and if they should have a harvest they will not be in a position to pay the amount due and to get quits with the Department. They consequently lose courage. I consider that the farmers are able to make a great success of farming, but in many cases the ground has been valued absolutely too high. If in some of these parts ground was given to the people gratis, provided they occupied it, then they are already doing a great thing by living on the ground. I will give the Minister the credit that he has greatly assisted the farmers and had many farms re-valued; the valuation has perhaps not been brought down sufficiently, but it has given considerable satisfaction. There are further cases which should be gone into, where the man cannot meet his obligations and where conditions are so bad. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has stated that there are people in Zululand who exterminate the game in order to sell the skins to keep body and soul together. In the northern Transvaal it is not so much game, but their cattle, which the people have to kill to prepare the skins and sell reims to make a living. As matters are so critical it is absolutely necessary for the people to receive sympathy and to have something done for them. Many of the reasons why they are in a bad way have not actually been named. Drought has been mentioned, locusts and natural difficulties, but there are other causes as well. The Department, e.g., has granted farms of from 3,000 to 4,000 morgen to people, and valued them at 8s. per morgen. A man getting land in this way can never hope to pay the interest. When they hear, however, that such pieces of land are granted they are anxious to obtain them and make application. They think that when once they have the ground they will have it, and they do not think of the future, and whether they can pay for it does not worry them. That is one of the reasons why some of these people get so much in arrear with their interest, and I hope it will not be done in future. The settlers must also be made to understand—it is not the case to-day—that the Department is their friend and that the inspectors who work there are their friends. They must not be under the impression that the Department exists to make and squeeze all it can out of them. There are also a number of small things which cause difficulties. I do not blame the inspectors and the Department for it, but I want to bring it to the notice of the Minister. A settler keeps cattle on his farm belonging to another man, because there are well-to-do people in the towns, e.g., who give a span of oxen to a settler for use. Now there is a regulation in this connection, and the inspector on his visit finds out that the regulation is not being complied with. Instead of finding out what the position is he reports this to the Department in Pretoria, who then sends a registered letter to the settler informing him that he has broken the contract. I know of a case where a man returned his only span of oxen because he thought the Department would not permit him to keep them. That is what worries the people. They ought to feel that the Department is there to help them and I know the Minister would give his approval in such a case. The inspector ought to tell the people that it is not against the law but merely that they should make an application. I only mention this because it is one of the settlers’ grievances.

Express instructions in this direction have already been given

I am glad that the Minister assures me of this because the inspectors report cases to the Department. When the letter arrives from headquarters the farmer sometimes has to go to an attorney to ask what the position is. It also occurs that one of the settlers has a man, one of his family, on the farm to assist him.

The position is the same as in the previous case.

Unfortunately the settler only finds it out when he receives a letter from Pretoria saying that he has a man on his ground, which is against the provisions of the agreement. Then there is the complaint that the settler has no right of letting pasturage. The farm is possibly a large one and he has not sufficient cattle. Why should he not let the pasturage? He surely pays the State for the land and it ought to be permitted. These are all matters which the people feel and which irritate them. It makes them think that the Department is not their friend. This feeling must be removed because they should feel exactly the opposite. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter of writing down interest to see in how far he can meet the people, otherwise it will be impossible for them to pay the arrear amount.

There are two very satisfactory features about this debate. The first is the general interest and sympathy expressed from all sides of the House with the position of farmers hard hit by the drought and other drawbacks of late; and secondly, it must be reassuring and must bring great hope and comfort to many of the settlers to find that the Minister is maintaining his sympathetic attitude towards them and their troubles. With regard to this motion, I must say I prefer the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) to that of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), but I hope that one or other of these amendments will be carried. The reason I prefer the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand is this. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet wishes the investigation to take place under the auspices of the Land Boards of the two provinces. The task is too big for these two boards, and another disadvantage is that these boards would be to a certain extent sitting in judgment on many of their own actions, because on the advice, and in some cases the recommendations, of these boards, many of the settlers ventured to take up the ground and engage in farming which has not proved a success. The matter is too big; it is of national importance, and therefore I hope any inquiry will go into the question of conditions of settlement in the country generally. There has never been a time in history when land settlement has received greater attention throughout the world. One of the reasons, I think, is the great scarcity of houses and homes in the cities everywhere; it is universal Another reason has been the enormous number of ex-soldiers, demobilized after the war, who had to be provided for, and as industry could not absorb them to any large extent, people adopted the old remedy of putting them on the land. It was felt in the case of these hundreds of thousands of demobilized soldiers that something ought to be done, and it usually happens that when something must be done something unwise or even foolish is done without due consideration, and I think this has been the case with regard to many of these schemes of land settlement. I do not know that any of these schemes for returned soldiers, speaking generally, have been a great success. There have been notable exceptions. I believe the settlements in western Australia are rather more successful than in other parts of the world If so, some of the principles which have guided them towards success might well be investigated with advantage to South Africa. What I want to emphasize particularly here is the peculiar difficulties of South Africa with regard to land settlement. I do not think it is generally recognized, however much we may flatter ourselves, that South Africa is not and never can be a great agricultural country in the same sense that Canada or Australia or even New Zealand can be. The reason is that the geological conditions which exist, and which of course cannot be altered, do not favour the theory or the belief or the hope that South Africa will ever be a great agricultural country. We cannot point in this country to vast areas of uniformly good land such as you find in Canada, Australia or elsewhere. The distinguishing thing about South Africa is the patchy nature of the country; it is very patchy. While there are areas of the most fertile soil in the world in South Africa, they are very limited in extent, and they are scattered about in small portions. Our climate affects the position, too. Our rainfall is very uncertain, limited in areas very often, and cannot be depended upon. Take the Cape Peninsula. The climate of that is different from that of any other part of South Africa. While in Australia or in Canada a man may feel justified in taking up land because he has heard and has good evidence for believing that people have been farming successfully in that neighbourhood, it does not follow in South Africa that a farm divided by a boundary fence from another farm which has done well will be as valuable. We may learn a great deal from the remarkable success of the 1820 Memorial Association. I speak advisedly when I say that in the whole history of land settlement, there is no organization or scheme which has produced 94 per cent. of successes, or rather only 6 per cent. of failures. The methods by which this extraordinarily good success has been obtained demand investigation. To have a successful settler, I would put character first, and following that, aptitude for the life; then health, industry, and distinctly last, capital. Usually the reverse has taken place. I do not wish to be misunderstood—capital is essential; but the other qualities I have mentioned are more essential. Capital can be found from outside sources; but I know of no means by which a man can be equipped with character if he is not already provided with it. I think that is largely—although I am not in the secrets of the association—why the 1820 Memorial Association has been so successful. First of all, there is a complete, comprehensive and rigid examination of all persons who wish to come out under their auspices. As far as an investigation can go into a man—his character, aptitude, history, health and the like—no man ex accepted unless, in the opinion of the committee that goes into these matters, he has those qualities and is likely to succeed. Since I have been in South Africa every drought has been described as the very worst that has happened. The seasons have not been particularly successful, and yet in spite of that we have the remarkable result of only 6 per cent. of failures, and most of these can be traced to definite causes. Hon. members have only to look up this evening’s “Argus,” and they will see that the 38 failures and the reasons for the failures are set out. Although, as I say, South Africa will never be a great agricultural country, there is much room still for agricultural expansion. We have by no means reached the limit, and by observing the causes of failure in the past we ought to be on the way to ensure success in the future. Another very important point, with regard to the success of this organization, is that the settlers are discouraged and practically prevented from embarking their fortune too soon in any particular area. It is desirable that for one year, and preferably for two years, a settler should get acquainted with the conditions of South Africa and the particular type of farming he favours before he embarks his capital. Although this association deliberately abstains from acting as land sellers in any shape or form, and, therefore, cannot have any axe to grind with regard to the sale of land, there is nothing to prevent them from offering advice, warning and assistance to settlers in the selection of land. I am glad that the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has alluded to roads. The provision of transportation is going to be more and more important, and never more important than at present, and it is not getting the attention it should. Getting supplies to and produce off from the farm by reliable and economical means is of great importance. No dominion offers better facilities to settlers as a whole as does South Africa, and I am not sure that that is sufficiently recognized, and producing the results that it should. There must be something lacking. Very little has been done with regard to the analysis of soils. A farm may look very well before cultivation, and may turn out a disappointment, because the character of the soil has not been scientifically ascertained—there must be a weak factor in the soil conditions which prevents success. The secret of successful land settlement may be put in a few words—

You put a settler on the ground to cultivate the soil and to turn earth, air and water into saleable products—the settler is a manufacturer of food. What chance does he have, as a rule, to enter upon his proper duties? Hitherto he is often put on an area of ground which is called a farm, but which is not—no more than an area of ground in a city is a factory. Who would dream of putting a shoemaker on to a vacant plot of ground and telling him to carry on his business of shoemaking? A farmer put on an area of ground has no facilities for carrying out his business until he has erected a homestead, sheds and fences, has secured a water supply, and his roads are in a reasonably good condition. In other words, a man who may know all about farming may not know much about building or water boring or fencing, but if a man who is a good agriculturist is placed on a farm properly equipped he is far advanced on his business of producing things from the soil.

What would the cost be if the Government had to do that?

It would vary with the size of the farm and the nature of the houses. It would, however, be a very good investment for the Government, for if the money were wisely spent the value of the security would be enhanced considerably. By the time a settler has put himself into the position of carrying out his real business as an agriculturist he may, under present circumstances, find that all his money is gone, and that he has nothing left with which to stock his farm. Again, a farmer may suffer from drought or excessive rainfall before he has had time to gain the necessary experience to enable him to face these drawbacks. It takes from three to five years for an experienced agriculturist to know his farm, and to know how to work it to the best advantage. He is probably unaware of the crops which he can grow most economically, and if he has devoted his energies, time and money to building and fencing he may find that even after five years he has not made very much progress as a producer from the soil. Arrangements should be made to enable a farmer to start at once to carry on his business of farming. Even if a man has got his ground without a very large cash payment he may find that the high cost of wages and implements have left him with very little money, and that, consequently, he is unable to stock his farm completely, or to carry on until receipts begin to come in. Two classes of farmers are in distress—the old-established and the new settler. In the case of the former pecuniary facilities would, in most instances, tide them over their difficulties, and it should not be long before they are in a position to regain their former prosperity. There should not be any great objection to Government advancing or guaranteeing sufficient money to enable them to tide over the bad times. No reduction of the debt, however, should be demanded for from three to five or seven years according to the particular circumstances of each individual case. The security would be ample. In any case, Government should strive to put more people on to the land for, in that respect, our position is not at all a good one. Our population is deteriorating in physique to an alarming extent. The rush of people to the towns is going on faster and faster, and will continue until more prosperity comes to the farmers, when the natural instinct to get back to the land will once more assert itself. For the present people prefer to flock to the towns and take advantage of the better organization of other industries to enable them to keep their heads above water. We have either to renew our agricultural population or die. Unfortunately, our agricultural population is deteriorating very rapidly. A nation is recruited from people who have come from the soil, or whose forbears have come from the soil. We should do all in our power to increase the population on the land, and I hope the Minister, if he carries his sympathetic desires into practice, will see that it is not a matter of £.s.d., but will realize that we are threatened with national deterioration, leading eventually to disaster. It will be a wise investment, and the whole matter should be investigated thoroughly from start to finish. Circumstances suitable for one settlement may not be applicable to another. I hope the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) will not think I am adverse to his motion, which is better than nothing, but I do not think the machinery he suggests is the one best adapted to deal with the problem. It was a very big subject, and we must, for our future guidance, be warned by the errors we have made in the past. We must try and seek their cause. While we have instances of success to guide us, we have many instances of failure, and they must guide us too. On settlers’ land we must, in future, carefully select the soil, and I hope the Department will push on with soil survey, not after settlement, but before. There are many already settled whose failure can be accounted for because of the neglect to do this. It is also important that settlers should be carefully selected. It is no use putting a class of people there whom, experience has taught us, cannot maintain themselves. They will only add in due course to the alarming proportion of poor whites and bring farming into discredit while we want to enhance the value of it. More must be done in selecting farms for the settlers. First select the soil and then the settler, and then select the farms. We have got a lot to learn about dealing with the size of farms. There is no country where the economic size of farms has received less consideration than in South Africa. The big area has filled the mental vision. It may be more economical to deal with an area less in size. The careful selection of the farm and the size of the farm are, therefore, two essentials for the success of the experiment. We have very generous terms for financing settlers. We have reached the stage in civilization when it is no longer possible for settlers to live on the land unless they have some of the amenities of life, in addition to roads and transportation. I think this debate will convey a good deal of comfort to people who deserve our assistance, not in words, but in deeds, and I hope the Minister’s words will be eagerly read by those in distress, and they will find that this Parliament and the country is in earnest about it, alive to their difficulties, and will do all that is reasonably possible to put them on the way to success.

On the motion of Mr. le Roux, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 25th February.