On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before this matter is discussed, I would like to have your ruling as to whether it is competent for this House to give the instruction which is asked for. Rule 163 provides for an instruction to the committee, and Order 165 provides that amendments may be made to a clause or new clauses added provided same be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill or pursuant to any instruction. It is obvious that there must be some limit to Order 163 as to the nature of the instructions which the House is entitled to give to a committee, seeing that this rule is silent as to the limit. I submit we would have to act under Rule 286 and refer to the practice of the House of Commons on this question to find out whether there has been any interpretation there, or any rule, dealing with what the limitation is of instructions from the House to a committee. I submit that, according to “ May,” the limit that any instruction from the House to a committee must be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. I wish to refer to “ May,” on page 479, and this is what he says—

There is a decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons on this very point reported in “ May,” page 942, to which I wish to refer. He says—

I submit that if this instruction is possible, or both instructions are possible, it may restrict the rights of members very considerably. Where an hon. member is introducing a Bill, and amendments or instructions are allowed similar to those now under consideration, it has the effect of introducing a totally new principle, not discussed on the second reading. It is possible for an hon. member to introduce a Bill of which 120 members of the House are in favour, but 15 may be against him, and it would be competent, by introducing instructions to amend the Bill, to make it impossible for any hon. member to have the Bill passed. Under your own ruling, Mr. Speaker, in 1925, you held that it was possible to introduce separate Bills on the same subject-matter. I submit that it is open to my hon. friends to introduce these very instructions they have here, in the form of a Bill. I would like to give an illustration that has appealed to my mind. If the principle at issue is accepted and your ruling is against my contention, it would have been possible, when two sessions ago a short Bill was introduced to amend the Act of Union, declaring that “ Dutch ” in Section 137 shall include “ Afrikaans,” for any member of this House to have moved for an instruction to the committee to dispose of provincial councils or to restrict the number of members to represent any particular province. Under my Bill, I am dealing with the subject-matter of the magistrate’s jurisdiction, whilst the instruction asked by the hon. member is to deal with a totally different subject-matter. I would like your ruling on this important matter.

The hon. member has raised a very important point of procedure. I think that, according to the practice of the past, it would be considered that these instructions are permissible. The hon. member saw me about the matter this morning, but I think it of such importance that I should like to go further into the matter. If there are hon. members who would care to address me on the point, I would be glad to hear them. I am not satisfied that the hon. member is quite correct in his contention, because the practice in the past has been to allow such instructions. As to whether they conform with the practice of the House of Commons, that is a matter I want to go into further.

I quite agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that you should take time to consider the point. I always looked at the question in this light—that where an amendment of a specific section of an Act is proposed to be amended, the title, of course, only covers that particular point which is sought to be amended, and if afterwards you, by way of an instruction, introduce new principles, apparently you may defeat entirely the object which the hon. member has in view in endeavouring to gain a certain object by amending only one section of an existing Act. I am prepared to admit I am not now prepared fully to argue it. If it is possible, when it is sought to amend one section of the law, for that particular point to be amended by introducing other principles, you very much debar other hon. members from attaining a very useful purpose. I think Mr. Speaker will be following very correct procedure by giving the matter further consideration.

Pending Mr. Speaker’s decision, will the Bill itself stand over ? It is not much use to obtain a decision in our favour if, by that time, the Bill itself has been dealt with.

Will the hon. member move his instruction and then move the adjournment of the debate?

I have not gone into the matter, but I must say that it seems to me to be a very inconvenient procedure that when a private member introduces a Bill dealing with one special aspect of legislation, for amendments to be grafted on to it dealing with the admission of law agents and attorneys. I rather disagree with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) on that point. I can understand, in certain cases, that amendments are so cognate to the subject-matter of the Bill that they would be regarded as being in order. The principle of this Bill is to deal with the small, but important, question of jurisdiction, but hon. members seek to carry it very much further than that by introducing amendments not cognate to that issue. Whatever the practice may have been in the past this would be a very inconvenient procedure.

I am not prepared to argue the matter, but I would like to call attention to the fact that the admission of law agents was fully dealt with in the Law Society’s Act passed some years ago. If any amendments are to be made dealing with law agents they should be made to that Act.

I am in full accord with the Minister of Justice for I take the very same view that he does.

I misunderstood the hon. member.

Would it be possible for the House to have an opportunity of discussing the matter with a view to assisting Mr. Speaker before he gives his ruling ? Members are not ready to take part in a detailed discussion of the matter now.

I will consider that, and see whether it is possible. Personally, I would very much like it if it could be conveniently done.

(for Mr. B. J. Pienaar) moved, pursuant to notice—

seconded.

On the motion of Mr. J. J. Pienaar, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 11th March.

There is no doubt that the proposer of the motion and the movers of the amendment, as well as those who took part in the debate, have very good intentions with the hints they have suggested. Land settlement is a national problem, and, as such, deserves the attention of any Government. The greatness of any country rests on a sound progressive and characteristic countryside population, because, as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has rightly said, it is an accepted fact that the people are maintained by those persons who come from the countryside, or whose ancestors came from the countryside. The characteristics of independence, liberty, industry and perseverance always unite us to the countryside people and are necessary for the building up of the character of the people. It is people with those characteristics who make a people great, and as we are now debating what must be done for those people on the countryside, I think we ought, in the first place, to be careful and not to do anything by which possibly the particular characteristics of the countryside folk, referred to by me, shall be undermined. There is no doubt that if we are going to make a certain section of the countryside people think that they are a favoured class, or that they can always calculate on being pampered by the Government, that we shall, in that very way, undermine the particular characteristics of the countryside and, therefore, the character of the people. I do not doubt for a mement that if we are going to exempt and favour the settlers that it will not only be demoralizing to them, but also will influence other persons on the countryside. Unwillingly if the farmers see what assistance the one portion obtained under the Land Settlement Act that they are particularly favoured, and that every time they are in difficulty they go to the Government and are assisted, they will feel that they are not receiving like treatment, and will also commence to depend on the assistance, and, therefore, ye must be careful that we do not select a particular section of the people, and in that way injure the countryside people in general. We must not permit that in some way or other the germ shall be planted which will gnaw at the roots of our national existence. We can say that in general the settler in the country has been, and is being, treated in a particularly fair manner. There can be no doubt that the Land Settlement Act, as amended by the present Government, offers the settler the most liberal conditions. And, therefore, if with such liberal terms the utmost success cannot be made of land settlement, I think we ought to seriously consider the question why settlement has not been the success here that could reasonably have been expected. I have already said that if the settler is particularly spoilt, the other countryside people also will hasten to the Government and ask for protection. It is certain that on the countryside to-day there are other farmers besides the settlers who are in a difficult position. There are people on irrigation schemes who are in an entirely uneconomic position. Other parts have been severely tried by drought and other things. All the people will be just as much entiled to assistance as the settlers. If there is one thing which we must avoid then I think it is to prefer one part of the population and to particularly benefit them while neglecting another part. If assistance is given it must be done so that the persons do not feel that they are being pampered, but an attempt must be made rather to put them on a sound economic basis, instead of the reverse position in which many of them are to-day. The Government can make enquiries and give assistance where the people are not on an economic basis through, e.g., the Government having, in the first instance, sold them the ground at too high a price. Such people can be assisted reasonably and put on an economic basis, and the Government is taking steps in this direction, and I trust and hope that in the future the Government will also assist people who are involved in non-economic schemes through no fault of their own. But if there is one thing we must do it is to enable the people on the countryside to help themselves, because self-help is the best assistance we can give them. We must create conditions by which the settler is enabled to help himself. Then those very characteristics I have named of independence and perseverence, which are so necessary to build up a healthy people, will be maintained. We must stir up those characteristics, and maintain them, and I want to make a few suggestions which, in my opinion, will enable our farming population to help themselves. In the first place the Government must give its attention to the question whether an effective system of insurance of the farmers cannot be created, so that they are insured against bad harvests, drought and similar difficulties with which they have to contend, and by which they will be enabled to carry on their farming more economically, and to make calculations so that farming shall no longer, to a great extent, be such a gamble. In the second place, I should like to see a sounder agricultural credit system. It is, indeed, true that we have a good Land Bank to-day, but I think the system of giving loans should be elaborated. To-day the amount which can be borrowed is limited to £2,000, and only certain farmers can obtain a loan. But in South Africa we find that farms are not so small as in other countries, and the farmers often require large loans to carry on their business. They often require more than the Land Bank with its limitations can grant, and I think that, in this respect, an effective alteration can be made. Last session an Agricultural Credits Act, with very good intentions, was passed, but in this respect I feel that that Act has not yet been such a great success as it ought to be, and that in practice it will not do such good work as was intended. We feel that the Act should be re-drawn and elaborated. We thought that the Agricultural Credits Act would give the kind of credit the farmers needed. The Land Settlement Act and the Land Bank Act made provision for long term credits to buy farms, but we always feel that the farmer also requires credit for production, and we cherished the hope that the Agricultural Credits Act would meet that need. But, unfortunately, experience has shown that the Agricultural Credits Act does not quite meet that need. I want to urge that a distinction is made in that Act between short and long term loans. As the Act reads to-day, a farmer can not yet get the necessary credit to produce his crops. The loans which he can obtain under the Act are only short term loans, but they ought also to be provision for long term loans, because a farmer has often to wait long for the results of his work. If we regard such loans as short term loans, it will have an injurious effect on the population, because if a farmer incurs such a liability then he will find that he cannot repay it, and he will have to run to the Government and ask for an extension. The loans ought rather to be given for a long term, so that the farmers will have sufficient opportunity to pay them off and will not find it necessary every year to ask the Government for assistance. That is injurious and demoralizing to the character of our farming population and, therefore, I think that an alteration should be made. There is the further difficulty in connection with the establishment of credit societies that the farmers have to guarantee each other. The joint responsibility which is laid down in the Act on agricultural credit, especially finds no favour with the Cape Province farmers. We must take account of that. It is no good saying that they must become reconciled to it, because the objection to it is once for all in the temperament of the people. Thirty or forty years ago the Cape farmers had experiences with the banks which frightened them out of that idea. Consequently, they are careful to-day, and it cannot be taken amiss in them. Another way in which a countryside dweller can be assisted is that he ought to get more assistance in marketing his produce in an organized way. The present Government and Minister of Agriculture deserve hearty thanks for the assistance given to co-operative societies. This Government more than any other has given help in the past to co-operative agricultural societies, so that to-day they are a success and in this way they are assisting the farming people. More organization is, however, necessary to make the farmers understand that they can only prevent their industry having the nature of a gamble by organized marketing. The Government must enable the farmers to get acquainted with scientific methods which can be applied in farming. The farmers in South Africa may be proud that they are good farmers as regards energy, but common sense must be coupled with industry. Many of our farmers are still to-day carrying on their business by the old methods, and I think more attempts should be made to give the farmers the necessary information about modern and scientific methods of farming. With reference to irrigation, e.g. many of us think that we know everything, but, actually, the basic principle is not yet generally applied, viz., to loosen the ground after it has been wet. Many farmers think that the irrigation work is ended after the ground has been wet, but the most important requirement that the ground should be loosened is not yet generally complied with. The Government must see to it that the people have practical examples to be imitated. As for sowing and the cultivation of grain, I think that we are following the principle of dry-land farming too little. When we see the result obtained in other countries, then the conditions in South Africa can be much improved. In this respect also the Government should provide demonstrations, so that the farmers can notice the practical results of them in their neighbourhood, and can accordingly be encouraged to apply the same methods on their own farms. Demonstrations ought also to be given of the best kinds of agricultural machinery; our farmers are not all able to travel and to visit other countries and the farms of scientific farmers, and, therefore, there ought to be more demonstrations given in the various districts about the best agricultural machinery. Our country is not very rich agriculturally. As the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has said, our good ground is in patches, and we have not large outstretched pieces of good, pure soil as Australia and America have. Consequently, some of the good patches ought to be used in the best possible way and we ought to see that scientific methods are applied, so that as much as possible may be produced, and the country can carry as large a population as possible. As for our settlement schemes, I think that the Government ought to make an enquiry in order to make a better success of them. Before a settlement in a certain area is decided upon, I think Government experts ought to be appointed to analyze the soil. Often the settlers do not know what produce will give the best results, nor precisely what the nature of their ground is. Further, I think the Minister of Lands should confine settlement farms to certain parts where produce, which can be sold at a profit can be produced. It is no good having schemes spread throughout the country, because that means the raising of a small crop at various spots, and more difficulty with marketing. I am thinking particularly about fruit farming. That could be much more widely undertaken, and there need be no fear of competition. There are other products in which Australia and Canada can effectively compete, but in fruit we have the opportunity of winning a permanent market. If there is a permanent market then land settlement can be made a success of. Greater attention should also be paid to the choice of settlers, and the first requirement is character, as the hon. member for East London (North) has said. A settler must be someone who will persevere and work industriously and economically, and who can be depended upon not to give in when he meets with difficulties. When applications are received, I think the Department should place persons on the settlements who have already come from the land. We are too much inclined to-day to put anybody on the land. Many persons in the country, who have a knowledge of farming conditions, are, without any fault of their own, unable to find the necessary capital to buy ground. There may, e.g., be quite a number of farmers’ sons growing up on a farm, but possibly they have not sufficient capital to acquire their own ground. That is the kind of boy who, in my opinion, would make a successful settler. Young men who originally come from the land should be given preference in being placed on settlements. Then I think the Minister should also give preference to the young men of the agricultural schools. They have studied agricultural principles and can apply them. It is not sufficient that a young fellow should be industrious, but he must also use his head and acquire the elements of agriculture to reasonably expect to be a success on a settlement. I hope, therefore, that we shall go to work in such a way with reference to settlements that the particular characteristics of the countryside which are necessary for the raising of a healthy people will not be wasted.

I would like to say that we very much appreciate the broad-minded view that the Minister of Lands took when he spoke on this subject the other day. He showed that not only had he understanding of the farmers’ needs, but he also had sympathy and breadth of outlook. I could not help contrasting that with the attitude taken by the hon. member for Pretoria District (North) (Mr. Oost), who sets himself up as a champion of the farmers of the Transvaal. He used the distress of the farmers of the country as a political weapon—not much consolation to those poor ruined farmers! He said that it was “ the fault of the South African party,” but that does not help the farmers to recover from the hardships that they are undergoing at present. All governments have been at fault, if there is a fault, ever since agricultural land settlement has been undertaken in this country. All governments have been groping and experimenting in a way, and that is why I am sorry that my hon. friend the member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has tacked on to this motion his amendment. I would like to see the subject of the amendment dealt with as a substantive motion, quite apart from the question of the relief of settlers who are in distress. I regret exceedingly that the two subjects have been mixed up. I think one of the faults that the South African party committed was that of operating under Clause 10 of the Act, which proved to be a disastrous failure. I would like also to refer to what the Minister, and I think the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), said with regard to the 1820 Settlers’ Association. Those remarks were called for by what appears to be a rather ill-informed attack by a certain section of the press of the country. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out the distressful state of the settlers, especially in northern Zululand. That is unfortunately only too true; the picture they painted was a very heart-rending one, but I am sorry to say it is very near the mark. But there is an impression—and I feel it is my duty to clear this matter up—that the failures among settlers in South Africa are, if not wholly, very largely those of men brought out recently to the country by the 1820 Settlers’ Association. A certain paper in Natal, the “ Natal Witness,” of February 2nd, published an article, the subject-matter of which we all very largely agree with. But they then took us to task for issuing propaganda which they said was inducing men to come to this country under false pretences. They also accused the Government of doing the same thing. The advertisement in question states—

I submit there is not one syllable in that advertisement that we need withdraw. We do not say that men with £1,500 can come out and make good in all circumstances. We lay emphasis on the fact that they must be hard-working and energetic. With regard to South Africa particularly, to make a success of land settlement, the question of character must every time take precedence of capital. Character, hard work and determination are going to make good where thousands of pounds would be useless. The second advertisement is—

There again I agree. I, for one, feel that South Africa, for the present at any rate, cannot absorb a large number of men who depend on the work of their hands for a livelihood. That is why we feel that we must ask the men to be able to support themselves through the first two or three years. I remember when the South African party Government were in office, when I was in England during and just after the war, there was a complaint raised that the Government of the day was decrying the value of South Africa, and were painting too gloomy a picture of the possibilities. That is not the case, though it warned them of the difficulties. I say it is unfair to bring one solitary man into this country unless he knows what he is in for, and the association endeavours to inform men accurately in that regard. I do trust that in the High Commissioner’s office nothing but the truth is told to prospective settlers before they come. I do know that in the past men were not sent out to this country and told that such and such a scheme was good; they were told to come out and see it before they purchased their land. I wish to say that before these men are sent out to the country, this is what I think should be done with them, and this is what I know and can vouch for is done when they come to the 1820 Settlers’ Association for advice. We say to them—and they are told this personally, and given this Settlers’ Guide from which I shall quote, which advice and Guide must be taken in conjunction with the advertisement first referred to—

I think these paragraphs illustrate that they are not told that this is a country of golden opportunity where golden apples are harvested from trees without attending to the growth of the crop. We say—

That is one of the things that has put men down in this country. Is this misleading ?—

They are told the truth from the day they apply to the day they are settled here, and subsequently we keep in touch with them as far as they will allow us to do so. We say—

and I ask the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) if that is not the case? That is why I advocate mixed farming—

That is what I tell settlers throughout the Union to-day; that is what I tell farmers. I tell them to “ stick it.”

The settler does not stick it.

The settler does stick it. The hon. member would be proud if he had seen some of the men I have seen sticking it in the back blocks, not among the amenities of life, sticking it in a way that many of his compatriots fail to do.

They have been nursed too long.

Let us nurse them on the right food. We also tell them that farming is 75 per cent. the farm and 25 per cent. the settler. We tell them not to take all the advice they are offered, as often it is not dis-interested. That is at the bottom of much of the trouble in the country. I have said enough to show that the association I represent at least has done its level best not to mislead any man brought to this country. The propaganda we have gone in for we intend to stick to. There is not one word we intend to withdraw, not one action of which we are ashamed. I would appeal to our friends, the press, in this country, to exercise caution in giving credence to stories and rumours which come to their notice. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) made a speech which disconcerted people very much. The speech of the hon. member for Zululand the other day, if you read it to apply to the whole country, would be even more disconcerting; but we do know our country, and we know that where you have perhaps a most terrible state of things, like you have had in the last few years, in a certain area or areas, on the other hand they have bumper crops and good seasons in other parts. I do not want to minimize, but do not let us exaggerate. I make the invitation openly— if there is anything that anyone hears against the 1820 Settlers’ Association, let them come to us, and they will get the truth, whether it is for or against us. We have nothing to hide, and nothing will be suppressed that ought to be made public. The question of land settlement is one which bristles with difficulties. I would like to point out that this association has, in the last five years, introduced 1,658 men, apart from their wives and families; 623 of those men have bought their farms. The number that have failed out of this are 38, of whom 27 have lost all their money; 11 of them have lost sufficiently to make them give up farming. In regard to the causes of failure, we have gone carefully into this, and the Minister might take it to heart. If he probes into the causes he may find that sometimes more sympathy is required and sometimes very little sympathy is called for. We find that out of 38 failures there were 9 who failed through going in for cotton growing, entirely in North Zululand. There was nothing else to grow there. Cotton growing was at that time what every man said he was going in for. There was a period when you could scarcely get any man, whether he was a South African or from overseas, to listen about anything but cotton, just as when there was a period, when there was a wool boom on, when everyone wanted to go in for sheep. To some extent the cotton-growing association did some harm there, and were premature in their strong advocacy of cotton growing. Twelve of our settlers were put there, and three of them are all right. Men with experience of cotton-growing in other countries also went under there.

How many were South African bred?

Nine, I know, were from overseas, and I should say that nine-tenths of the total number of 140 or 150 were South Africans. But to proceed. Four failed through pure, needless extravagance, and three failed in the ordinary course of farming. We have nothing to be ashamed of there, although we regret it exceedingly. Fifteen went down owing to purchasing land without consulting disinterested people. There is too much land speculation, irrespective of its effect on the settler. We want to see successful settlers— not successful land-selling companies.

You have reached the point now.

One of the points. I have many. Five failed on an irrigation settlement in this country, and there is something to be said on both sides in that case. Two failed because they invested their money in overseas securities. The money petered out, and they could not continue farming. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that record. One hundred and sixty-eight have returned to the United Kingdom. We said to these men—

These men who returned are not failures. They have gone home before they could possibly have become failures. Two hundred and four have been put in employment other than farming, having found out that farming is not suited to them. We all think farming is a delightful and easy life, until we go in for it! Twenty-two have died. About 640 are still pupils on farms, at agricultural colleges, or training farms, and looking round the country. We try to give them two years’ training before they go on the land. I think from that it is shown that there is at least one body that tries to safeguard others from making mistakes, and to prevent men from being let down as others have been let down, as farmers, from bitter experience, know. The farmer has the hardest and toughest job of any man. He has to fight his fellow-man, as we all have to do, and beyond that, powers we cannot control. But I say South Africa is a good country, and I do not retract one word I have said in encouraging others to come to this country. I have now finished with the 1820 people. It is most unfortunate that I have such an obstinate friend alongside me, as the subject of settlement generally should have been dealt with alone, and not with the motion. We recognize some of the difficulties the Minister has to face. One of the real mistakes we have made is that men were put on the land, either by the Minister or by his predecessor, who were unsuitable. So many men think it is an easy life, and easier than quill-driving. They were badly selected and untrained. I quite sympathize with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) for interjecting his remark, and for being obsessed with the idea that Zululand is the only part that matters, seeing that he has seen their dire distress, but I would assure him that there are bad times in other parts of the Union as well. With regard to the unsuitability of these men, I am not referring to their moral character, but before a man is put on the land he should be tried out in some form. I have seen the Minister’s “proef-plase,” which I give my unqualified approval. They are successful up to a point, and to a degree are doing what was expected of them, but I think the Minister himself will admit that they are not doing all that was expected of them. Practical training farms should be established. Put the settlers there and make them do the work of the farm, and see that they learn how to perform all the operations of farming. Give them not only practical, but also theoretical, instruction. That, I know, is the intention of the agricultural schools, and there is reorganization taking place which will more nearly give that than has been the case in the past. Another point is that one of the cruel provisions of the Land Settlement Act is that a man makes payments of instalments, things have gone wrong, and when he wants to give up his holding, he has to forfeit his payments. I admit the Minister is tied by the Act. There ought to be some means of giving a man a trial, and he should get a refund without having to wait until a new man comes along who will take over his holding. Then there is the question of the suitability of the land. What is wrong with half our irrigation schemes? Land has been scheduled as irrigable far in excess of the area suitable to be irrigated. There is a cursed phrase, “Under the furrow,” and whether the soil is six inches or 60 feet deep, it is“under the furrow,” and therefore considered valuable irrigable land! If the hon. member for Pretoria District (North) (Mr. Oost) were here, he would at once accuse the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) of being responsible for these faults. It was not the Government, but the farmers, who were mainly responsible, and I told the farmers concerned so. In clamouring for these expensive schemes based on areas which were largely unsuitable from the irrigation point of view, they courted disaster. Over half a million pounds have been written off, and we will be lucky if it is not far more.

It is not all we will still have to write off.

We are lucky compared with other countries with reference to these losses, but we may have to double it. We have written off over half a million, and will probably have to write off a great deal more. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) asked why the motion stopped at the Zululand cotton-growers? Well, where shall we end if we come to the relief of all the farmers who are suffering all over the Union? In that event, we shall get very near to the dictum of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), who the other day said he would like to see farmers come under the benefits of a scheme of nationalization such as the Iron and Steel Bill.

The hon. member should not refer to a previous debate.

Owing to the severe drought the number of cattle in the Union has shown a very big decrease in the last few months. Quite recently 300 tons of bones were railed in one month from a station in the Northern Transvaal, that representing about 21,000 dead animals. I am entirely at one with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that we do require an impartial commission of inquiry into the whole subject of land settlement, but there are two ways of doing this— a right and a wrong way. I urge the Minister to appoint a strong and impartial commission of inquiry. In addition to that, let me again urge that, from the farmers’ point of view the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation should be under one Minister. When we passed the Irrigation Commission Act last year I quite understood that the Minister of Lands was going to take over irrigation, and that was stated, I think, by the Minister. I would never have agreed to the change unless I felt that at last the right thing was to be done, and that land and irrigation were to be worked together. When it comes to arable farming, in the long run irrigation is the most suitable form of agricultural farming in the Union, except for certain favoured parts of the Union. That is one reason I am anxious to see the Department of Lands taking over irrigation.

They should not have been separated.

The combination of irrigation and agriculture is certainly a better combination than irrigation and justice. We don’t want the success of any department of State depending on the charm or the reverse of any Minister. The third point is that annually we vote money for the purpose of the Land Settlement Act, most of which is spent under Clause 11.

All.

Last year that money was expended almost before it was actually voted. That was inevitable, there being such a scramble for this small sum from all sides in view of the uncertainty of funds being available over a reasonable period under the present system. When it comes to dividing that money, I would not be in the Minister’s shoes for anything. [Time limit.]

I move, as a further amendment—

I think I am justified in saying that there are more people on Crown land in my division than in any other. In any case, the Minister told me that he has had more trouble with my constituency than with the rest of the Union put together. During the last three years the people in the Zoutpansberg constituency have had a very difficult time. There are people there who, for the last three years, have not harvested a single mealie And yet, although I fully appreciate in the circumstances, how sadly those people are situated, I propose the amendment, because especially in a constituency like mine, where the people have to fight with great difficulties, they fully appreciate what the Government, and especially the present Minister of Lands have done. I do not say that I regret the motion, but it would be regrettable if that which is not the intention of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) were to happen, that with reference to his motion the settler should be dragged into party politics. Although in this House the debate has been carried on in a sympathetic manner, and there has been no attempt to make political capital, it has, unfortunately, been made outside this House. I am especially thinking of articles which appeared in the Natal papers—I hope the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) will listen—which have exactly the opposite tendency to that of the motion, and which might lead to the settler being made a political shuttlecock. Those so-called friends of the settler make impossible demands on the Government which would cost millions of pounds. I am convinced that not only this House in general, but especially those of us who represent constituencies with many people on Crown lands, will act wisely in looking into such foolish articles, and, when necessary, to challenge them in this House. Everybody cannot be satisfied, of course, but in general the settlers are thankful for what the present Minister of Lands has done for them, and they know that he will be a friend of theirs in the future as in the past, a much better friend than the Natal newspapers with their foolish representations. It is represented by the newspapers that those people ought to be given jobs as farm managers, and that the Government ought to pay out to them every penny which they have spent in improving the ground. Such foolish proposals can only lead to the people coming to a wrong view about the matter, and the excellent relations which today exist between the Minister and the settlers being broken off. We all know what has already been done. The motion proposes that the Government shall continue its past policy. We know that Acts have been passed to give the settlers relief with respect to the arrear interest, and to enable them to own the ground. If certain failure can possibly be laid to the charge of this Government, then it is at least, and in just as great a measure, due to the former Government, and similarly just as much credit for relief by statutes is due to the former Government as to the present one, because a great part of the law has been taken over from work done by the previous Minister of Lands. We know, further, that in connection with East Coast fever there were people in difficulties who had to be helped. We know that before the House met, the Minister stated that he would give further relief where there were difficulties, as in Zoutspanberg, Pietersburg, Waterberg, and other places with relation to occupation, where such relief could in any way be justified. We know that, as regards arrear instalments, much assistance has been given, and the farmers have been given time so that they have an opportunity of meeting their payments. The Minister has shown that he is fully acquainted with everything that is happening in connection with settlement schemes, and with the position of each individual settler in all parts of the Union. Therefore, there is no reason for a general enquiry by a commission, which would cost a good deal of money and be quite superfluous. In connection with the poverty and unfortunate position at present existing, the commission anyhow would be able to do nothing else but sympathize, and public money would be wasted. Their report would be of little value, because the Minister of Lands, through the Land Board and inspectors, has practical experience of affairs, and is able to give help where it is necessary as far as he can. This shows the policy which has been followed hitherto, and which, I hope, will be continued, that is to say, there must not be a general revaluation and writing off on a large scale, but a revaluation in individual cases which have been carefully looked into and in which the Minister has decided that the settler cannot exist on that piece of ground at the price at which it was sold to him. I ask that the assistance which has been given in the past with regard to exemption of occupation, writing off from the purchase price and postponement of arrear interest, shall be further continued in the same way as hitherto. As proposals are being made from all sides to assist the settlers, I want to ask the Minister to consider another thing. It is that the Minister should consider the question of getting instructions as soon as possible from the House, by the passing of a Bill which would enable him to write off in bad years in connection with the Crown lands the interest, which farms we have inherited (which were Government property in the republican time and other former Governments). This ought only to be done in individual cases and not generally, and the Minister ought to have the same right to write off the interest in such circumstances as he has to have the land revalued. I hope this hint will not fall on deaf ears, and that the Minister will further provide in the Bill that after a number of years of occupation, and the making of certain improvements, he shall have the right to completely write off the interest and to cancel it. I hope that the Minister will soon consider the hint in my amendment, possibly this year, and I hope that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) will be able to accept my amendment. As I understood his speech from the newspapers (because I did not have the opportunity of hearing it) my amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit of his motion, viz., that the Government shall apply the system of revaluation in individual cases as well, and, further, will grant the assistance, with discretion of course, which has hitherto been granted to the settlers. If the hon. member for Dundee will accept my amendment, I hope that the hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) will withdraw their amendments.

In seconding this motion, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) used such moderate terms in introducing this motion, and I want to compliment him that they have not been carried away by the attitude of the press in Natal. What has been the setting to the picture before this motion was brought to the House? The setting has been a very stormy one in Natal, and for the edification of members in this House I want to quote a few of those settings which the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) will know all about. I do not know whether he knows anything about these Natal newspapers’ leading articles, or how far he assisted in inspiring them. About June 8th the Natal papers suddenly thought it necessary to enlighten the public with regard to the settlers ordinances of the Union, and particularly as to how Natal was affected by them. Some of these gems are interesting, but I think the hon. members might have let the editor have some information concerning these laws before he went to the trouble of dealing with them in leading articles. On June 8th this is an illuminating article setting forth the land settlement ordinances of the Union, particularly regarding Natal. The “Natal Witness” says—

This is the class of stuff being dished out to the settlers of Natal by the hon. members who have brought forward this motion this afternoon, to incite the settlers, after their difficult position, to see whether they will not rise against the Government and see if they cannot rend them. Then we come to the “Natal Witness” of February 28th, and I am quoting from the press with which the hon. member is so well acquainted. The leading article is too long to quote, but they complain that the Government have not sufficient power, or say they have not, to give the settlers a remission or to give them the land for nothing. They say—

That is another of the gems with regard to land settlement. Now this is a curious part of it of the criticizm hurled against the Minister—

This is the sort of thing they introduce into the Natal press at the behest of the hon. member for Illovo.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to abuse me for inspiring statements about which I know nothing?

If the hon. member denies there is any inspiration, I accept it.

Inspiration for these statements? Certainly.

I am sorry if my information is wrong. To continue the article—

That is the intelligent suggestion you get from Natal.

They are doing it now. What about Doornkop?

—

These are bad enough, but not the worst. This campaign started on the 8th June, and went through the Natal press and culminated in the two motions before the House. If the hon. members have read these leading articles, I am surprized they used such moderate terms. In the “Natal Mercury” and “Commercial Advertiser” of February 28th, under the heading “Land Tragedies,” they say—

I ask where the Government has ever depicted land settlement in glowing terms. Then you have a number of articles with such headlines as “Settlers’ Plight in Zululand,”“Heart - breaking Struggle.” On the 26th February there is an article headed “Settlers’ Plight in Zululand,”“Living from Hand to Mouth,” “The Human Side,”“A Brave Struggle Against Odds,”“Collecting Old Bones for a Living.” We have these headlines to an article in the “Natal Witness” on February 28th: “The Zululand Settlement Solution,”“Must be employed as managers on their own farms,” “Test of good faith.” In face of these articles I was very much surprised that those who introduced this motion were able to employ such moderate terms. I can quite understand that the pressure from behind, after reading those articles, has incited them to bring this motion before the House. If you go through the Auditor-General’s report or attend the Public Accounts Committee you will find that the gentleman who deals in hard figures is always putting it up to the Government the amount of remissions granted, the amount of latitude given to these settlers and the amount of money written off. If we are to follow the amendment which has been moved, we should ask the Government to immediately embark upon a philanthropic business, cancel all leases and make a present of the ground. This class of motion coming into the House I look upon as dangerous, and, at all events, it unsettles the settler, because it gives him the impression that if the gentlemen in opposition to-day were in office, they would probably introduce a system of government that would remove all these conditions and treat the Natal settlers in such a way that the taxpayers’ money is going to be employed to bring settlers on to the land with the object of making them a present of the ground, and not at all dependent on whether they occupied the ground. The policy of this Government has been, and is to-day, to treat these settlers in a human spirit. They recognize that farming in South Africa, especially for this class of men, is very difficult. The records at the office to-day are a standing testimony of what has taken place under this Government. The Minister stated that the total outstandings on March 31st last were £583,000, and that the arrears on that date were £628,000. There was a substantial, increase in these arrears between April 1st, 1925, and March 31st, 1926. If we take the total capital account to-day on settlement, we have no less a figure than £6,248,000. If we take land leased mostly with an option of purchase, there is a total capital account of £6,600,000, and the arrears, including amounts capitalized, will be in the vicinity of £800,000. The number of debtors to the Government was 11,700, and of these about 10,000 represented actual agriculturists. Of 6,809 settlers, 2,139 are up to date in their payments. Yet we are told that this Government is grinding the settler down in this time of drought and distress. The capital expenditure on land settlement, including the cost of boring, etc., on March 31st, 1926, was £4,956,000. The receipts of all kinds amount to £6,065,000, and the capital recoveries were £3,813,000. There are some figures here which are very interesting, for instance, the figures regarding the Milner Settlement, as showing how these people were treated under the Milner Government, and how they are being treated under the present Government. The loss of capital under the Milner scheme was £170,000 against an expenditure of £1,427,000. This was quite apart from revenue. The loss involved, which included free water, bores and remissions amounted in 1912 to £181,000. In regard to the settlement in Zululand, a figure of £50,000 redemption has already been written off. There is another interesting table which I was able to obtain from the Lands Department. They told me that the cancellations under the Land Settlement Act amounted to 35. Then surrenders were four; leases lapsed by effluxion of time, twelve, and one through death, a total of sixty. Roughly, these figures indicate what the Government has done. I would not have referred to this propaganda had it not been for a mischievous speech made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) recently in Zoutpansberg. He is reported to have said—

A statement like that coming from a responsible leader, at Zoutpansberg, when drought was rampant, is particularly mischievous and inopportune. That is why I say this propaganda is ill-advised. After all, the country has to be administered on financial lines. We are not going to serve any good purpose by giving settlers the impression that they are never going to be expected to make a return for ground they have received free from the Government up to that time. It is best for the settler to let him understand what his commitments are, and if the conditions are such the settler should be expected to yield sufficient of the crops to cover his liability to the State.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

As far as the settlers are concerned, if they are allowed to understand that they have to pay this interest on the money, I think the Government would be well advised to amend the Act to such an extent that they do not bind themselves on a hard and fast yearly production. I have approached the Minister from time to time with regard to the settlers in Vredefort, and I have pointed out that in a particular year there has been no return, and it has been impossible for these people to meet their obligations. I think a little bit of relaxation in that direction would probably be extended by the Government, and it is necessary as far as settlement is concerned. I quite agree with hon. members that settlement under the climatic conditions of South Africa cannot be run on hard and fast lines where their interest has to be controlled by the Auditor-General annually. When he points out there has been a deficiency, it is our duty to point out there has been a shortage in that particular year, and that is what the Government has done. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) never loses the opportunity of rubbing home the amount outstanding on land account and settlement account. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Government is responsible for this remission of interest, or else the Government is collecting this interest, and from the figures the Government have put forward, and what I have given I contend the Government is treating settlers very leniently and humanely. I once more deplore the attitude taken up in getting this motion introduced in the way it has been introduced.

I think the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken is a most unfortunate one. Until he got up hon. members on both sides of the House had refrained from treating this motion on party lines, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). The debate continued in that spirit with the one exception mentioned until the last speaker intervened. The Minister, replying to the motion, emphasized, and very rightly so, that this House should avoid trying to make party capital out of a question of this sort, and he went so far as to say that to do so would be fatal, not only to this motion, but to the cause of land settlement in the Union. I endorse entirely his view, and I hope that the speakers who are going to follow will avoid the bad example which has been set by the last speaker, and that no further attempt will be made to make party capital out of this question. I do take the strongest exception to the statement made by the hon. member for Vredefort that this side of the House has accused the Government of grinding down the settler. I say, on the contrary, that this side of the House paid a tribute to the Minister and his department for the sympathetic manner in which they have dealt with the settlers, and it is a most unfair and unfounded remark for the hon. member to make in the circumstances. As the Minister knows, I represent a constituency which contains about the largest settlement area in Natal, settlements which vary in character probably more than any other part of Natal. I have Winterton, which is an irrigation settlement, and I have Bergville and a number of settlements which were established after the Great War and are on a different footing to the pre-war settlements, of which Bergville is one. I mix with the settlers in my constituency freely, and I have had no complaints of harsh or unsympathetic treatment from the Minister or any of his officials, and I am very glad indeed to be able to pay that tribute to his department. I, too, have always received a sympathetic hearing and prompt attention to my requirements and representations at the hands of the Minister and the officials of his department. I want to deal with the position as it appears to me in my own constituency, and to the disabilities which settlers there consider are bearing rather hardly on them, with a view to the possible amelioration of the position. The two great drawbacks are, firstly, the high price paid for the land, and, secondly, the smallness of the holdings, which are undoubtedly too small for the kind of farming which the district is well adapted to, namely, mixed farming. The Minister has attempted to explain that certain lands were purchased during the war at high prices, because returned soldiers were clamouring for land, and the Land Board were, so to speak, carried off their feet by the demand, and purchased land at prices which they would not otherwise have paid. I have one settlement in view which was purchased by the Land Board in Natal at that time—I refer to the Spitzkop settlement. This land was purchased under section 10. There is no question that the Land Board recommended prices which were far above the market prices and the intrinsic value of the land. It paid from £4 2s. 6d. to £4 5s. per acre for Spitzkop. When the revaluation took place the year before last, the value was reported to be from £2 to £2 2s. 6d. From my knowledge, I should say that is the outside value in this settlement. There are other settlements in my constituency, such as Walkershoek, which upon revaluation have been reduced by something like 50 per cent. I say there was no justification for the board purchasing this land at those prices, and the excuse that they did so because there were a large number of persons clamouring for land cannot be regarded as a good excuse. The board must have known that they were saddling these unfortunate settlers with a proposition which was bound to end in disaster. Many of the settlers were inexperienced men who placed themselves entirely in the hands of the Land Board, and looked to the board to give them value for their money.

At the time was that not the ruling price for land in Natal?

No. I think the price paid was a record in the Klip River district.

At that time?

At any time. The soil is not very fertile, and I maintain that Spitzkop is still overvalued. There is another question, which is a burning one amongst the settlers, which calls for investigation by the Minister. These farms, Smitzkop, Walkershoek and others, were revalued two years ago, and the law provides that when there is a revaluation the instalments paid prior to the revaluation shall be deducted from the capital portion, and credit given to the settler for the balance. That, of course, is perfectly fair. But what about the interest the settler has paid on those instalments up to the time of revaluation? The department has retained that interest, and claims that the settler has no claim whatever to it, and there is no provision in the Land Settlement Act for the restoration of that interest, or any portion of it. The settler has to pay interest on instalments calculated on the original purchase price, which the Valuation Commission admits was excessive, to the extent of about 50 per cent. This is a genuine grievance which I would like the Minister to go into.

The complaint is that the revaluation is not retrospective?

Yes. The department retains the interest. My object in mentioning this is in the hope that the Minister will remedy that grievance. The position in my constituency, and, I think, generally, is that the position of settlers has been considerably eased since the passing of the Act of 1925. There is every indication that the position is more stable, that there is less discontent, and that a more hopeful spirit prevails. But I wish to emphasize that the expedient of extending the period of payment and the capitalization of instalments must not yet be taken as a solution of the problem, which is still in the experimental stage. As far as I can see, the settlers are, notwithstanding the concessions granted, having a very hard struggle, and it remains to be seen whether they will be able to win through. I now wish to say a few words regarding the Zululand settlers who are said to be down and out. The “Natal Witness” of February 28th states—

I think the Minister still has one remedy— he has the right to have the settlement land revalued.

I am doing that.

I am glad to hear it. I understand some of the settlers are still determined to carry on in the hope that next season things will improve. The land should be brought down to about 4s. or 5s. an acre when it is revalued. The hon. member for Umvoti alluded to certain settlement areas, such as Scheepers Nek and Bergville, as examples of successful settlements. As regards Scheepers Nek, that was a pre-war settlement, and I think all the settlers there have made good. During the war the price of farm produce was inflated for a number of years, which gave the settlers an opportunity to establish themselves. The ante-war settlers have never had the same opportunities of getting established, they have had to contend with a period of financial stringency and bad seasons.

They paid no interest.

They paid no interest. The prairie value of the unimproved portions of the Bergville settlement, which is also a pre-war settlement, was valued at from 24s. an acre. Bergville enjoys a very fair rainfall, and is a productive maize district. It does not follow, however, that because these two settlements have been a success that settlements established after the war should also be successful, the conditions being entirely different, and it would not he reasonable to expect the same results from the later settlements. According to the report of the Minister’s land inspectors, Northern Natal is supposed to be going on very well this season, and I agree that up to a short time ago that was so, but a spell of dry weather has since set in which, coming just as the mealies are cobbing, may still have an adverse effect on the crop. I don’t want the Minister to run away with the idea that the settlements in my constituency are all going to be a success. The settlers are making a bold fight, but it still remains to be seen whether the relief granted in 1925 by way of extension of period of payment and capitalization is going to enable them to win through.

I feel I should be neglecting my duty if I did not say something in connection with this matter. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) says that we must not prefer a certain section of the country before another. I want to associate myself with that, but we are faced by a fact which we cannot get past. We have the settlers once and for all, and they were put on the land at a very unfavourable time. The settlers in my constituency were put there when the prices of land and machinery were abnormal. Since that time things have got worse on account of drought and locusts, so that up to the present the attempt has been an absolute failure. The result is that they are in a hole out of which they cannot help themselves. We are glad of the concessions the Minister has already made to the settlers, and I believe that they also are grateful for the assistance they have had in the writing down of their land. The machinery which was at the time bought for the settlements was obtained at at least 75 per cent. above present value. I have before me a document which the settlers have sent me. They have passed certain resolutions and asked me to put them before the House. They express what they want the Government to do for them. I openly admit that they are here making requests which cannot possibly be complied with, but yet I consider that some of them are reasonable. In the case of their request regarding machinery, that is so. The second point in the document says—

We see from this that 50 to 75 per cent. above to-day’s prices was paid for the articles, and the settlers now request that there should be a writing down or machinery as well, so that they shall pay a fair price. Then they ask that the Minister, or his department, shall take over the debt to the Land Bank and add it to the hospital debt. The request is not exactly unfair in the circumstances which the settlers are in to-day. If there ever was a part of society which goes through the world with difficulty, then it is the farmers. They have had to battle against many difficulties during the past five years, such as drought and locusts, and since they have been established there they have only had one good year when they could make anything. It is said that there are some of the settlers to-day who have not proper food to eat and clothes to put on. They want to fulfil their obligations If they can, and therefore I think that it is advisable that the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) should be passed. There are many of us farmers in that neighbourhood who are in the greatest difficulty. The Emergency Loan Act had to be passed to assist the people who would otherwise have failed through drought and locusts. Those people are in the same difficulties to-day. In good years they duly fulfilled their obligations, and some have even paid all their debt to the State. Others have not, however, had the privilege of being able to pay their debt. I have numerous letters before me that ask me to see that they shall not be ruined, and that they shall not be called upon to pay their debt I know of various instances where the articles supplied have already been taken back and sold. I want to say that there were cases where it was necessary to do so, but that there were others which I consider were very hard. I think the farmers also are to some extent settlers, and that they ought to be assisted by the Government. We cannot allow them to get into the same position which they were in before they were assisted by the Emergency Loan Act. One very hard case is that of a person whose things were sold. He told me the reason, and when I mentioned it to the manager of the Land Bank he said that of course the sale would not have taken place if the person had laid those facts before the bank. He had already asked the Land Bank to be allowed to go and earn money with the stock which he had got out of the Emergency Loan Act, and in that way earned £21. On account of difficult circumstances, he was not able to pay the £21 to the bank, and the result was that his stock was sold. Then there is also the case of the bonds the Land Bank has on the property of landowners. Various people have had their bonds called up and their land sold. I admit that the Land Bank in many cases is within its rights, because if it is simply permitted for things to run on, then an undesirable state of affairs would be created. Yet we feel that careful action will have to be taken in the circumstances the farmers are placed in to-day. The Government ought to remember to assist such people, and to make provision, when they try to fulfil their obligations if they possibly can, that they shall not be sold up. Such a person ought to have a proper chance to meet his obligations. The settlers there are in very difficult circumstances on account of the high price paid for the ground, and the Government ought to meet them. If that is not done, then the settlers in my constituency will lose their ground. If the Government insists upon taking the ground away from them, then others who take their place will get into the same position. I therefore want to appeal to the Minister to continue in the way he has done, and to find means to assist the people as much as possible.

I was unfortunately not here on the first day of the debate, and if I repeat what others have said, I hope I shall be excused. I have carefully read the speech of the Minister and I cannot help praising him for the way in which he has dealt with the matter. I fear, however, that we must go further and possibly much further, if a success is to be made of the matter. I have often in my business come into touch with the Department of Lands, and with the previous Ministers, and with the present Minister, and I think that they also have earned much praise for the way they dealt with a very difficult and delicate matter. I do not agree with those people who always criticize, and I think the Committee on Public Accounts has not always acted correctly. From time to time it has been thrown at the departments that in this or the other transaction they have done bad business. It must not be forgotten that possibly the greatest development of settlement took place after the great war, when the department was called upon to buy ground for settlers. We know that the price of ground was very high, and the department had to buy the ground at market value or abandon the idea of settlement. There were other instructions to the department to place the returned soldiers on the land. I therefore do not think that the department has been treated fairly. I think that much of the loss which has been and will still have to be suffered is directly due to the results of the war. Where the department had definite instructions to place the people on the land, the expenses are just as much a part of our participation in the war as pensions are. I think the matter can easily be put on a better basis if a larger part of the loss is written off and is transferred to war accounts, i.e., loan funds.

That ought to have been done.

That is what I say. If it was a mistake on the part of the last Government, I hope it will be put right now. A large part of the money which is debited to lands ought to come under the war account, because it is just as much a part of what we have to pay as, e.g., pensions. As the hon. Minister said, much has been written off, but although we find to-day that that is so, a thing for which the settlers are thankful, the position of many is still such that they cannot make ends meet. Notwithstanding the writing off, many of the people do not yet see light. Many of them are dissatisfied, perhaps wrongly, but they think they have a grievance and that the sooner they get righted the better. It seems to me that it is not a question of favouritism or laxity, but of business. If a business man cannot collect a bad debt then he writes it off, and I say to the Minister that it will also be better for him to write off and to save the balance rather than lose the whole amount. I also say that a man should meet his obligations, but if he cannot, and the Minister drove him away off the farm for non-payment, then the Minister still has to write off, because the ground is so expensive that no one can make a success of it in the circumstances. Therefore, if another man gets the farm, unless he is a particularly capable farmer, or has considerable means and assets, and then he goes and buys on the one-fifth or one-tenth principle, the second man will make just as great a failure, and will also be driven off after a few years. The position is that people apply for any piece of ground, irrespective whether it costs £5 or £10 a morgen, they reckon that, in any case, they will be there a year. Perhaps they pay for a year and then remain another two or three years and are then driven away. It seems to me much better business to write off in favour of the man who is on the ground and to avoid his leaving the land and swelling the ranks of the unemployed. The State, in any case, has the advantage of the man’s presence on the land, and he is a great asset. Help the people who are on the ground so as to prevent them being driven to the towns and the diamond fields. Now another point—an old dispute between the Minister and myself—on which I hope he has altered his view on further experience, and that is the difference he makes between settlers under Section 10 and those under Section 11 of the Act. If I mistake not the Minister takes up the attitude that he does not go to look after the people who are put on the land under Section 11. There is no question under any circumstances of re-valuation for those people, but with the people under Section 10 each case is treated on its merits, and amounts are written off upon cause shown. That is unfair. The Minister will say that the man, under section 11, has asked to buy the ground, but I say that those who get ground under Section 10 have also inspected it. The man coming under the system provided in Section 11 buys the ground, and a few years ago paid one-fifth, and now one-tenth—possibly more than one-tenth. And then he possibly finds that he has to pay just as much as before on the ground. The Minister shakes his head. It is surely quite natural that when a man is under the one-fifth system and has purchased ground for £500 and paid off one-fifth, the amount of £400 remains. Then the State says that he must not pay £400, but £500.

The hon. member is wrong.

I do not want to take up the time of the House with this point. The fact is that the man, under Section 11, has given all he possesses. He has paid one-fifth and given his own cattle, etc. Those people in most cases have not asked support from the Government for as much as a penny. Under Section 10, he gets a house, possibly also cattle from the State. For the first year he pays nothing. For the second and third year a minimum rent, and is much better off. I think the distinction the Minister is making is not fair. If the man, under Section 10, is assisted on the merits of his case, then those under Section 11 should similarly be assisted. Why should the man under Section 11 be driven to the towns and diamond fields when he possibly could be a greater asset to the country than the man who remains on the ground under Section 10? It seems to me that the Minister is afraid of opening the door wider, that it will be better if he decides at once to meet these people as well. The only amendment which we probably ought to pass is that of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow). I should be in favour of a commission of enquiry, but by the time the commission reported, the people would all be off the land, or dead.

I shall be very short. I am particularly pleased that this debate has taken place, and has been of such a high standard, and also that the matter has been fully dealt with on the merits. It is not every day that we have an opportunity of discussing the farmers’ interests—I think we have only had the opportunity two or three days this session— and I am glad that such thorough use has been made of the opportunity. We have listened attentively to the instructive speeches on the subject, especially that of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). He spoke more about the way of avoiding undesirable conditions. We all appreciate that to-day it needs quite a clever man to be a farmer. Not everybody can be put on the ground to farm, and I want to ask the question if it is not one of the great causes of much of the failure in land settlement, that the persons put on to the land were never intended to be there. It is a little unfortunate that the question of the settlers is raised when the country is in an unfortunate position on account of abnormal drought. It is, consequently, difficult to treat the matter of the settlers on its merits, and to make an impartial enquiry. The discussion has so far chiefly concerned the settlers, and I do not know why more farmers have not spoken in order to discuss the matter from the point of view of the farming population as a whole. I intend supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). The motion of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) only embraces the buyers of ground from the Government, and asks that they should be met. The amendment of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) also refers to the position which the settlers are in on account of repeated failure and the tragic circumstances they are in to-day. His amendment aims at better co-operation between the settlers and the department. The motion and the last-named amendment deal solely with the settlers. We have the greatest sympathy with the settlers where they are competent, and we are sorry that those in Natal are in a difficult position. The question now is whether the Government will follow the advice of the “Natal Mercury” and appoint the settlers as managers on their own farms. I want the farming population also to be assisted, because the drought has resulted in many farmers not being able to meet their obligations. A special amount ought, in this connection, to be given to the Land Bank. We have the greatest sympathy with competent settlers and, as an enquiry is asked for, I also think it is necessary. It is not an enquiry as to the condition the people are in, but to see how many of them are capable settlers. Colonel G. A. Morris, of the 1820 Settlers’ Memorial Association, recently made a speech in Cape Town in which he says, with reference to the motion of the hon. member for Dundee, that the settlers could be divided into two classes, viz., those who were put on the ground under Section 11 of the Land Settlement Act (the majority are returned soldiers who came out under the aegis of the society and were given ground) and those who came out on their own account from overseas and made a start here. Colonel Morris said that only 5 or 6 per cent. of the settlers belonging to the society had been failures. When the hon. member for Zululand, therefore, speaks of repeated failures, I want to ask him under which group the settlers referred to come. Do they not possibly belong to the second group who possibly thought that farming was so pleasant and easy that it ran itself? We have heard a lot of socialism, but we see it in its true form in the writings-down demanded by settlers. I just want shortly to discuss another matter in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, which I support. There are many people in those severely tried parts who are in a hopeless position and yet the motion only speaks of settlers. We would like to bring the unhappy position of the people in those parts of our country before the House. There are men who have not been put on the land at Government expense, but who were always there, not men of straw, but people who, formerly, were well off, and who never received a penny from the Government. Many of them are still solvent to-day, but if they were to get an account for £100 or £200 they cannot pay, and they are ruined. Then there is another class of man who, to-day, owes money to the Land Bank. Those people must be met as much as possible. We know how much jackel-proof fencing has progressed, especially in the Cape Province. We see that fencing at every station at every spot. The people have obtained loans from the Land Bank for it, and, in my constituency, there are many cases where people were just going to start the fencing when the drought unfortunately came, and those are the particular people for whom we are pleading. They must be met in so far as their payments to the Land Bank are concerned. Have an enquiry made if necessary by the magistrates, and in those cases the people must be treated with every consideration. Unfortunately, we have no statement of the losses which have been suffered through the drought, but I learn from a person who is well informed that in two, at any rate, of the districts in my constituency, people have lost from 50 to 75 per cent. of their stock through the drought. The people require assistance, and we are pleading for them.

The rules of the House, of course, prevent me again replying to the debate, but I just want to say something about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow), which I accept. At the same time, I hope that the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) and the hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) will respectively withdraw their motion and amendments. The matter has now been fully discussed on three different occasions, and I can accept the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. That is to the effect that I shall continue the policy I have hitherto followed, and will meet the settlers as much as possible under the Act and regulations. That is to say, as regards writing off the price of the ground, and in relation to Crown lands, assistance from the Treasury, and that in general I will grant the settlers the assistance which they have received in the past, and that we will meet people when necessary in the building of houses, payments on account, etc. We have always in the past taken up a sympathetic attitude towards settlements, and have not pressed settlers if that could at all be avoided. When people have been put off the land, it was usually not only because they had not paid their accounts, but a combination of circumstances. Then only— except in extraordinary cases—did we resort to cancellation. In this connection, however, I want to say that I always insist on a man occupying his plot. If there are arrear instalments, and the man, in addition, does not occupy his ground, I favour cancellation, except where the man in extraordinary cases has asked and obtained permission on furnishing reasons why he does not occupy his ground. In individual cases, however, cancellation has also taken place in hopeless cases. There are people who have never yet paid the Government anything, not even in the good years, and who have thus clearly proved that they do not want to pay. I have no time for them, and other people can have a chance on that ground if they are prepared to fulfil their obligations. The other matters which have been brought to my notice I will go into and consider, but cannot now discuss in detail. I therefore request the hon. members to withdraw their motion and amendments.

This is a matter of great importance to the country in general, and especially to the farming population. I agree with the motion to give the settlers a chance, and we all feel that the settlers who are on the ground and have had difficult years must not be driven off the land, and all be turned into poor whites. I am therefore glad that the Minister has already given an extension of time. It seems to me, however, that certain hon. members and certain persons outside are now inclined to agitate that the Government should give them gratis the ground which was bought in abnormal times at high prices for the returned soldiers. I have every sympathy with the settlers, and I think that if we wish to fight bolshevism and socialism, we must look after the people in the country who are able to remain on the ground. At the same time, however, I think that it is not fair towards the taxpayers to write off everything for a certain group of people, and then to put it on the shoulders of the taxpayers. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has told us about the agitation in “loyal” Natal. When you open the Natal newspapers, you read almost exclusively about the flag, and not much about the settlers. It is a great pity that the agitation has been set on foot and party capital made out of it. I think the farmers opposite will agree that farming affairs should be kept out of party politics.

Why, then, do you not do so?

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Louw) only knows about wine, and nothing about other farming matters. I thank the Minister for the assistance he has given the settlers, but I want to urge him to always be very careful. If the Minister of Finance can find the money, I shall be prepared to vote £2,000,000 for settlement, but at the same time we must do our duty as representatives of the taxpayers and not lose sight of it. £272,000 was written off last year and put on the taxpayers’ shoulders. The failure of the past must not discourage as, and I think that this Government is looking after things properly. The difficult position has chiefly been caused by the ridiculous prices the former Government paid for the ground. In that way hundreds of thousands of pounds of the taxpayers’ money was wasted. The Minister of Lands has, however, shown that he is a business man, and there is no reason for any agitation. If the Minister is convinced by the Land Board that too much was paid, then there is fortunately only one thing to do, and that is to put the burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers.

The last speaker has again gone to excess, and I am sorry about it. We have here to do with a very delicate matter of general interest, and must do everything possible to avoid party politics. I just want to bring the settlers in my constituency specially to the notice of the Minister. He knows there are many of them, but I also know that the Minister has not a free hand in the matter, but is bound by the Act. That is the difficulty. If Parliament were to give the Minister a free hand, the Minister would be able to comply with the wishes expressed in the speeches, but to-day he cannot comply with all the wishes. I think he should only show as much sympathy as the law permits in order to keep the people on the ground. In my constituency people have been put on settlements where the ground was purchased in the dear time, and the plots are too small to provide an existence. They can manage in good years, but when we have two years of drought, as has just been the case, these people have a very hard time. Most of them are farmers’ sons, and many from my district, but owing to the drought they have not been able to meet their obligations. There was one hard case where a man asked for time. I brought the matter to the Minister’s notice, but unfortunately the Minister did not assist him. To-day he is on the diamond fields, and his wife is in a hopeless position, I do not know where. In such cases the Minister ought to go a little further and give assistance.

I have. I know the case. The man left on his own account. I gave him eight months’ time.

I think I know our cases better than the Minister. Recently the members of the Land Board came to Liebenberg in my district. What was their advice to the people? They told the people to pay the arrear tax. They replied that they could not possibly do it, pointing out that they had had no mealie crop (and the only thing people can live from there is mealies). And what did the members of the board say? You had better give up entirely and go away. I told the people that they were telling me a serious thing, and that they must not talk nonsense. They said that they were prepared to make an affidavit that the members of the Land Board did say so. The members further told them that they had better go away, otherwise they would shortly be chased away. The position is that the S.A.P. supporters have not had a chance of remaining on the ground when they are in arrear. There are many Nationalists at Liebenberg, and they are assisted there as much as possible, but it is different at Hendrikspan. The Minister has been in that neighbourhood himself. I have a letter before me from Topfontein, in my district. A man writes me that he has to pay £498 10s., or otherwise leave the ground. He asks for another chance, and he will do his best to win through. He expects shortly, so he writes, to harvest 250 bags, and will make all of them available for payment. I think in such cases the Minister ought to make a concession.

I really cannot help saying a few words, even if there are only a few minutes left. We know that if one presses on the sore on a horse’s back, he kicks, and hon. members opposite do not now like to hear that they wasted money and bought expensive ground. They ought to congratulate the Government that we now have such a sympathetic Minister. It is therefore peculiar that they should now introduce a motion for sympathetic treatment of the settlers by the Minister, especially as the former Government was the cause of the settlers being in such a difficult position. I have settlers in my constituency, and I do not object to the Minister treating them sympathetically. He is going to make writings-off for them as well, but it is at the cost of the taxpayers. Who has the money to-day? It is the people who sold their ground to the Government, and now live in the village in nice houses on their interest. Hon. members opposite are now so sympathetic, but they are not really so, but only wish to make up the people, who are in difficulties, against the Government. Then they say that they do not want to bring party politics in. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler), however, said that the settlers were driven off because they belonged to the S.A. party.

It is your own people who say that.

In my constituency ground was bought at £60 a morgen, and the settlers cannot pay that. I challenge any farmer to buy ground at that price to pay the interest and to maintain his wife and children. I appreciate the writings-off by the Minister. Where does the ground, however, come from? The previous member of the Assembly for my constituency saw that it was bought from himself and his brothers. Now hon. members opposite, however, come and say that they are sympathetic towards the settlers. Here is the party that has a heart for the settlers and the farmers. How many actual farmers are there on the opposite side of the House? They are townsmen, but the farmers are on this side. We are the people who go into their houses and sit down to meals with them and see what a difficult time the wife has. Hon. members opposite remain in the large towns and know nothing of the troubles of life.

Did the last Government buy ground in your constituency because the owners were Saps?

Yes, that is so. Now, however, they say that politics must not be dragged in, yet they want to prove to the country that they are telling the Government what to do. Why did they not do that during their fifteen years’ office? They are guilty before posterity. The people who are now in such trouble were made poor by the South African party, but now they want the people to be assisted. We, fortunately, have a Minister in charge who does not need such a motion, because he is sympathetic enough.

I have taken a good many notes on points raised in this debate, but I do not intend to hold the House up at this late hour. I would like, in the first place, to thank the Minister for the way he has received this motion, and the notice he has given to the various land boards and his officers to exercise patience and not press the settlers for money due at the present time. I hope he will extend that leniency to the man whose case I brought before the House. The Minister is rather down on him and said that he only paid £20 16s. in seven years, but he has put £700 of his own money in the holding in improvements; he bought seventy-five head of cattle; year after year he ploughed the land; fertilized it and planted mealies, and he has had nothing but failure. I hope this debate will not do this man’s case any harm. I told him there was no use coming before the House with a general statement, and that I wanted a concrete case, and I got his case and, in order that the Minister should not be taken aback, I gave him the name of the settler.

He has not had failures for seven years surely.

He has been putting his money into this land, which was held out as agricultural land, and is only suitable for grazing. Most of the land in the upper part of Natal has been over-valued. There must be some reduction if the settlers are to succeed. I want to say a word to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) who thought the Natal members had primed the “Natal Witness” to write the articles he read. The Natal members have had no communication with the “Natal Witness” except that they deprecated the attacks made by the “Natal Witness” on the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association, and it was intimated to the “Natal Witness” that they were doing land settlement no good by their statements. Some of the suggestions, however, are well worth considering. The Zululand settler should be kept on their holdings. The Government ought not to wait until they fail and leave. I hope the Minister will consider the suggestions, because the Minister of Labour at the present time is paying wages to men who are out of work in order that they may be trained as settlers. He is teaching them agriculture in order that they may get land and get further assistance, and out of the £391,000 which was voted last year to the Minister of Labour for this and other purposes, a good deal of money has been spent in that direction, and, if the Minister of Lands could bring some pressure to bear upon his colleague, and extend some of the assistance to these settlers in Zululand and elsewhere, I think he would be doing a good piece of business. I will not say any more at present, but I will withdraw my motion in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow), and I hope the other amendments will be withdrawn and that we shall agree upon this amendment.

With leave of the House. I withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow).