I move—

2.

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Naturalization of Aliens Act, 1910, as so applied to the Territory, every adult European who, being a subject of any of the late enemy powers, was on the first day of January, 1924, domiciled in the Territory shall, at the expiry of six months after the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have become a British subject naturalized under the said Act of 1910, unless within that six months he signs a declaration that he is not desirous of becoming so naturalized. Such declaration shall be in a form prescribed by the Administrator of the Territory and shall be signed before a magistrate within the Territory or if such adult is absent therefrom, before a person specially approved by the Administrator.
2. (2) Every person naturalized as aforesaid shall, except as is otherwise provided by law, be entitled to all the rights, powers and privileges and be subject to all the obligations to which a British subject is entitled or subject, within the Union and the Territory.
3. (3) As soon as possible after the expiry of the said six months, lists shall be compiled, in accordance with the instructions of the Administrator, of those persons who have become naturalized under this section. Every such list, when complete, shall be published in the Gazette and in the Official Gazette of the Territory and shall, as so published, be conclusive evidence that the person whose name appears therein is a British subject naturalized under this section: Provided that if the Administrator is satisfied that a person’s name has been included in, or excluded from, any such list owing to error or that such person was unable to make the declaration aforesaid within the prescribed period and his name has been included in any such list the Administrator may cause the necessary alteration to be made therein.

I may just say shortly, what is the difference that this amendment will make. By the clause as it stands at present you will have two periods, first a period of six months after which the Act begins to operate, and then a second period during which any of the persons for whom this Bill is intended can divest himself of the rights which automatically accrue; to him, after the lapse of the first six months. I now suggest in the amendment, that immediately upon publication of this Act, or its coming into force, these persons will be called upon to say, within six months, whether they do or do not wish to become naturalized, so that only a period of six months, instead of a period of a year, will elapse before we shall know where we are. I may now add that I shall subsequently move another amendment in Clause 3, which is really a consequential amendment, should this motion be accepted.

I desire to ask for the reassurance of the Prime Minister in one respect. Does the acceptance of naturalization carry with it the forswearing of former allegiance?

I see from the papers there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this question. The fact is this, that according to German law, as according to the law of many other countries, a subject does not lose his nationality by becoming naturalized in any other country. That is a question, of course, of positive law in regard to which the subject can do nothing. As far as he is concerned personally, over against the country of his adoption he becomes fully a subject of that country, and he ceases to be a subject of his former land. In regard to the positive law of that former land, he can do nothing. If, afterwards, he should come into that country again, that country may claim his services as though he were still one of its subjects, but that does not affect his status as a citizen of the Union when once he has been naturalized. That is a question of intention of mind, and once he chooses to become a subject of this country, he is a subject of this country. It is something which we find even in English law. Even by English law to-day it is not quite clear whether a subject once an Englishman, can cease to be an Englishman. We can remember, even in our own history, when that principle was applied to the voortrekkers across the Orange River, into Natal and the Transvaal. But that is not a matter with which we have to do, and it is something which the subject himself cannot dispose of. All that we have seen in the papers as to the Germans reserving a double nationality is not true. There is nothing in that.

I want to accentuate that point which the Prime Minister has just made We went into the legal position very carefully when the original Bill was drafted under the late Government, and the position is this, that in the South-West or in the Union these people who are naturalized under this Act will be Union citizens. There is no dual citizenship in South-West or the Union. They are Union citizens here, and it is only when they go back to Germany that their original citizenship is revived, and they would be German citizens again. That is the position under German law, and it is the position which has been maintained under international law. I wish to suggest a small amendment to the new clause which the Prime Minister has moved. The clause as it stood originally and with the incorporation of this amendment on page 143, says that any German subject who was domiciled in South-West on January 1 last shall become naturalized under this Bill. It has been represented to me that there will be an appreciable number of cases of people who will still return to South-West Africa between the 1st January and the time this Bill comes into force. It has been suggested that the benefits of this Act shall be extended to them and not only to the people resident in South-West Africa on the 1st January. I move—

That seems to me to widen the scope somewhat.

I may say that I willingly accept this—I thought it was necessary but I did not want to make any change because my hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) had drafted the Bill, and I did not know his reason for fixing 1924.

Agreed to.

The new clause as amended was agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move here that all the words from “no” down to the word “Act” be deleted and there be substituted the amendment standing in my name. I move—

Agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

Agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

The preamble and title were agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill as amended adopted; third reading on 28th August.

I move—

In the first place I want to ask hon. members to study the report of the Railway Board, which is in two parts. The first was compiled early this year, and the second in July last. The bases for the construction of the line, according to the Railway Board, is two-fold. The first reason on which the board has based its recommendation is the agreement between the Railway Administration and the Department of Lands; the second is the nature of the country through which the proposed line will run and the suitability of the land for cotton growing. The second of the recommendations will remain, as will appear from the second report of the board, dated 29th July, 1924. The first recommendation falls away as the Government has decided not to go through with the agreement between the Departments of Lands and Railways. The agreement will be found on page 5 of the Railway Board’s report. The first clause of the agreement stipulates that it is entered into in terms or Clause 17 of the Railway Construction Act of 1922. The terms of that clause are permissive, consequently the Government was not bound to enter into such a contract. In this case, however, the two departments agreed to contract. When the Nationalist party was in opposition it protested against that particular clause. However, my predecessor and the Minister of Lands decided to enter into the agreement. It provides that the capital costs of the railway should be paid by the proceeds of the sale of these Crown lands. Secondly, the rent, etc., would be looked upon as interest on the purchase price. The agreement further stipulated that the Department of Lands should pay for the railway within 40 years. Clause 4 went further and provided that if the proposed line was extended from Pongola through South Swaziland to Komatipoort, the provisions of Clause 1 would become operative. That clause provides that the Department of Lands should also pay for the extension out of the revenue from Crown lands. Hon. members want to know why the Government has cancelled this agreement. Well, it was because the Government was of opinion that it affirmed a dangerous principle. We should bear in mind that revenue from Crown lands cannot be used for current expenditure, but has to be used for the redemption of debt and not in payment of services. But that agreement provided that the line should be paid out of revenue obtained from Crown lands. The consequence would be that within 40 years the capital sum which is used for construction of the railway will have to be repaid by the Department of Lands to the Railway Department. In that way the interest and other costs would be covered by the revenue. Is it reasonable, I ask, to provide that in 40 years the Railway Department will be free of debt in connection with the line, whilst the money is obtained at the expense of the general taxpayer? That is not fair. Hon. members may ask, what difference will it make, but I would like to point out that we must keep our accounts in order. The expenditure in connection with the construction of the line should be borne by the Railway Administration, by the people who use the railway and not by the general taxpayer as such—by people who do not use the railways. The Government thinks that a bad and unfair principle is embodied in the agreement, and so the Railway Board was requested to report on the construction, leaving the agreement out of consideration. Again the board has recommended the construction of the line, but that the loss on its exploitation during the first year should be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I want to point out that Clause 130 of the Act of Union is not applicable in this case, neither does the Railway Board allege that. Clause 130 provides that where the Railway Board reports that there will be a deficit on the exploitation of a proposed line, it will be borne by the General Revenue Fund. Here we have the position that the Railway Board recommends the construction of a certain line despite the fact that there will be a deficit of £25,000. It may be asked why the Government has vetoed the recommendation of the Railway Board, in favour of an agreement between the Department of Lands and Railways. The reply is that we shall create a dangerous precedent in the matter of railway construction, because the Railway Board might then report in future cases where the construction of lines are contemplated that there will be a loss which should be covered by the General Revenue Fund. That would be a dangerous principle in our railway system, and the Government decided to repudiate the agreement. I would also like to say a few words regarding the line itself and the area to be served by it. The distance will be 88 miles, and undoubtedly the intention is later to extend it to Komatipoort. It has therefore been decided to use 60 1b. rails with a view to heavy through traffic in the future. The present terminus is 160 miles from Durban. Komatipoort is 400 miles from Durban, and when the line runs right through there will be an eastern route. The line will cost £4,000 per mile, and the total is estimated at £419,000. It is expected that it will run as far as the Demkos River by the end of 1925, and be completed in 1926. The first 35 miles runs through sugar estates, which are also suitable for cattle and cotton. Unfortunately, that part is malarial, but people can easily live there if the necessary precautions are taken. Further it runs through level and good lands, and the prospects of those highlands are very good. From that point the land is highly developed for a distance of 72 miles, and amongst others we find there the estates of Mr. Rouillard, and in consequence the land values have risen considerably during the last few years. By constructing this line to Pongola the south of Swaziland is opened to traffic as is also the district of Piet Retief. It is not our intention to build a bridge over the Tugela River, as the station will be built on the south bank. It is a pity that the bridge cannot be built now, but it is a difficult and costly task which cannot be undertaken at present. There will, however, be a ferry for the conveyance of goods and persons to and from Swaziland. A large piece of Crown land is opened by the line for settlement purposes. An area of 894,276 acres of Crown land will be available for development. The possibilities are very great, especially in respect of cotton. However, the necessary precautions will have to be taken by all persons going there, be they of the planter type or South Africans, and the Government refuses to believe that the people of this country, however poor they may be, are not intelligent enough if they go there to take the proper measures. The Minister of Lands is prepared to give the people of South Africa of every section the fullest facilities for settlement in the parts opened up by the railway. It may also be pointed out that there are great possibilities in that part of Swaziland, north of the Pongola, for irrigation schemes. It is true that part of this territory is infected with “ngana,” but there are certain parts which have already been prepared for stock rearing, and as the country is being populated, the territory available for that will expand automatically. A loss is estimated for the first year of £24,307 on the working of the line and other items such as interest and expenditure of every kind. However, according to the available information, which is confirmed by the Railway Board, there is every indication that the loss will soon be changed to a profit. There is at present a large traffic to Zululand in connection with the development schemes which have been taken in hand there, and it is certain that many of them will benefit the railway when it is built. In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the Bill itself. Provision is made for a width of 3 ft. 6 in. and rails of 60 lbs. It will therefore be the usual type of railway, and this is with a view to an ultimate extension to Komatipoort. During the first few years it will be looked upon as one of the new agricultural lines, and we shall not go to great expense in erection of magnificent stations and such things. Clause 3 lays down that powers are granted which are required by the Natal laws regarding the expropriation of ground and water rights. Further I think the Bill speaks for itself, and I have pleasure in moving the second reading.

I think I am speaking for every member on this side of the House when I say that we welcome this Bill. It would be strange if we did not, because it is our railway, If, and when, this railway is completed, I shall look on it with pride as being in no inconsiderable measure my own handiwork. I am not going to touch on the why and wherefore of the new Government having jettisoned the agreement between the Lands Department and the Railway Department, but I think in the long run that will prove a handicap to the development of the new area, as it will mean higher railway rates. I think there is a far more important aspect, and that is the type and nature of the development to be undertaken concurrently with the building of the railway. In a country like Zululand without a railway there can be no development, and without development the railway will not be a success. The South African Party Government realized this to such an extent that for several years before the Railway Bill was drafted, we caused scientific examinations to be made into the question of malaria and the tsetse fly; we had soil analyses made, considered the question of cotton-growing and established experimental farms. We realize that with cotton looming large in the markets of the world, however unhealthy the climate might be, with such fertile soil as we have in Zululand we ought to go on with the scheme. Cotton is going to be the one factor in the future which may save South Africa; it may prove as valuable an asset as gold, or even more valuable. That being the case, we went into the matter very carefully, and also into the question of the type of man who could most beneficially occupy the land. We came to the conclusion that the only type of settler who could, with benefit to himself and the country, occupy the land, was the very highest type—the planter type. In default a better word I call him the planter type—that is a man with capital.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think that question should be more readily discussed on the Estimates or on the Land Settlement Acts Further Amendment Bill, the second reading of which is on the Order Paper for to-day.

I submit that seeing that the railway is to be built for the development of cotton lands, and it can only be by satisfactory development on the lines I have indicated, this matter is very germane to the issue.

I think the hon. member would do better if he discussed this either on the Estimates or the Bill.

If I am ruled out of order naturally I must submit, but may I remind you sir, that the Minister stated this as one of the chief objects he has in view, and it was not a mere passing reference. This House cannot adequately discuss the Bill without discussing the closely correlated factor of the type of man who is to supply that railway with traffic.

I am afraid I cannot allow a discussion on land settlement on this Bill, but the hon. member can make a passing reference to the matter, as the Minister has done. But I think it would be better to discuss the matter when the Lands Department Vote is discussed in Committee on the Estimates, or when the Bill is reached, but I cannot, on this Railway Bill, allow a discussion on the policy of the Land Department.

It goes without saying, sir, that I submit to your ruling, but I shall take another opportunity of discussing this very important matter.

I rise to a point of order. The Minister in introducing this Bill stated that it was justified by the land settlement policy; that this Bill is intended to serve the cotton development for which this land is eminently suited. I should have thought that under these circumstances the question of land settlement and the development of the area which this railway is to serve, is the very essence of the discussion. I submit with all due deference that this point of cotton prospects and the type of settlement that should be embarked on in order to justify the building of this railway, is eminently germane to the whole subject we are considering. If it were not a question of land settlement, and if there were no cotton prospects, nobody would dream of introducing this Bill. The only justification for this measure is the cotton situation in connection with it. I would ask you, sir, to consider very carefully before you definitely rule that this cannot be done, for the effect will be that in future when a railway Bill is being discussed we shall not be able to go into any detail into the policy, present or future, which will justify the building of that railway. It would make it impossible to show the prospects, the future development, or the real reasons, why a railway is to be constructed. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow this discussion to proceed, for if you were to rule that we cannot discuss the land settlement aspect now, you would make it impossible on this and future occasions to show any real justification for the introduction of a railway measure.

I think my hon. friend, although I sympathize very much with him, is not quite correct. The foremost question is the building of the railway, and the next question is what is the object of the railway. To develop the country—right. It is submitted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. D. Reitz) that the land is suitable for cotton, and that the line should be built, but the hon. member says, “I am going to criticize the policy which you are adopting as to how the cotton is to be grown.” He says it should be done by a certain class of man—the planter type. I think my hon. friend will see that that is a different question; it is a question of policy, the policy of development, not a question of the building of a line and the capabilities of the country for supporting that line either through cotton or otherwise. I cannot help feeling that, unless it is ruled that the question of the policy or not as to land settlement or how the land is to be developed cannot now be discussed, we should be roaming all over the country.

I am surprised at the Prime Minister raising this delicate legal distinction, because here we are asked to vote a matter of over £400,000 for the construction of this railway and the Prime Minister argues that we should be debarred from discussing the class of settler who is to be placed on the land in order to make the line pay. I consider that the whole essence of the question is the purpose for which that line is to be used and the class of people who are to cultivate that land in order to make the line pay. Now the Prime Minister says that the class of settler is not to be discussed. I think it is the very essence of the discussion, and that the House has a perfect right to discuss the whole question in connection with the settlement which is to make that line pay or which may cause the line not to pay. If we cannot discuss that principle, I am afraid we shall have to move that the debate be adjourned until that other question which you have mentioned is disposed of.

Does the hon. member consider that the land policy of the Government can be discussed on this Bill?

I say we are not dealing now with the general policy of land settlement of the Government, but we are dealing with a specific settlement for which we have to vote over £400,000 for railway construction, and I submit we can discuss that particular settlement in its full details.

May I put a point? I am asked together with hon. members of this House to vote for or against the second reading of this Bill. We are discussing an important question; we are not discussing merely the question of this Bill, but we are discussing the privileges of members of this House. It is on that account that I have presumed to rise to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take into full consideration the position in which I and other members may be placed. I and other members of this House are asked by the Minister to vote for the second reading of this Bill. His justification for bringing this Bill before Parliament and his justification for altering the proposals that his predecessor had for introducing the railway into Zululand, is that he has in mind the settlement of a particular class on the land. The Prime Minister may assure me as regards the class of settler which he intends to put on the soil and I may be justified and the House may be justified in voting the £400,000 which the House is asked to vote. But I may also feel, if the Minister is not able to assure me as to the class of settler that he is going to place on the soil, that I am not in a position to vote for the second reading of this Bill. When you have got before this House the second reading of a Bill, you discuss the principles of that Bill and the reasons which justify you in bringing it forward. Under these circumstances, I would have thought that, it is impossible for the House and members of the House to make up their minds how they are going to vote, unless they are going to vote as a party machine, without knowing what is really going to take place, and what is the fundamental principle for which this Bill has been introduced, and that is the settlement of Zululand and the development of the cotton industry. Under the circumstances I would ask you in all earnestness to weigh very carefully in any decision you may consider it your duty to come to whether that will in any way interfere with the prerogatives of any member of this House.

I would like to ask whether I would be in order in moving the adjournment of the debate on the second reading of this Bill until Order No. 6 has been disposed of? I think it is very essential that we should have further information on this matter and, if I am in order. I would like to move the adjournment of the debate until Order No. 6 has been disposed of.

We are dealing at the present moment with a point of order.

As one who is entirely in support of the construction of this railway and in the shortest possible time, it seems to me impossible to dissociate in one’s mind the building of this railway apart from the policy for the development of the adjacent soil. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to know and to discuss the question as to how this land is going to be developed. Are the people whom it is proposed to put there likely to be a success? Are they being specially selected with a view to that object?

You may as well ask what class of labour they are going to use.

Probably, for the question of suitable labour is important; and a good deal of other information is also required. The whole matter is one of the greatest importance to South Africa and of first-class importance to Natal. We do not know whether the Government have come to any decision at all as regards placing settlers on this land; they have only hinted at it but never said so. They have given us no indication as to who they intend to put there, how they are to be selected or when or under what conditions they are to be established. The country has already received a very serious set-back owing to the holding up of these lands, and we are thereby losing a very valuable year.

Order; the hon. member must not discuss the merits.

I repeat again, then, sir, that I think we are entitled to a little more information before we proceed with the discussion of this Bill.

In view of what hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) have pointed out, viz., that the votes of hon. members may be influenced in regard to this matter, I think the hon. member (Col. D. Reitz) can proceed.

As I was pointing out, the previous Government fully realized that in Zululand we had an asset of vast potential value, but we realized, too, that it behoved us to go very warily and very carefully in order to make no preliminary mistakes that could be avoided. That being the case, we investigated the matter from start to finish; we investigated the incidence of malaria, of the tsetse fly and the qualities of the soil, and we came to the conclusion that, although two out of three of the people we had put there on experimental farms had died from black-water, Zululand was going to prove of such vast importance to the Union that developments should be proceeded with. We decided that the surveys should be carried out. Up till last winter we had surveyed something over 200,000 acres of cotton soil. These surveys were not completed during the present year, but in May or June of this year we were so far advanced that I was able to have a large number of the farms gazetted and allotted, and shortly before the elections I was able to allot something over 100 of these farms running to over 100,000 acres. It is my one regret that I was not able to allot all these farms.

Were they all allotted to the planter type?

I will come to that presently. I may say that the term “planter type” is one that I invented myself in default of a better description. It was my view that only the highest type of settler would succeed in Zululand. The Minister of Railways made a little party appeal, a theatrical appeal, that the Afrikander is good enough, that he will succeed anywhere, and he tried to make out as if we were adversely discriminating against one section or the other. I think we on this side of the House can claim that we have done as much and more for the poor white, the sunken element amongst our people, than any number of gentlemen on the opposite side. That being the case, our attitude in regard to Zululand was not in any way dictated by any antagonistic spirit to the poor white. There is no doubt in my mind, and there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind, that to put what we call the poor white in an area like this would be a crime and a blunder.

Who wants to put him there?

We have had the Minister’s statement. The Minister glossed it over. He gave a dialectical twist, but we have it on record.

I challenge you to repeat what I said.

The Minister said they are not going to discriminate, they are going to put all sections on and especially, as far as I remember, he pointed at the poor white section. We have had it from the Prime Minister’s election speeches, and we have it from the Minister of Lands that the idea is to make Zululand a dumping ground for the unfortunate class whom we call poor whites. If the hon. the Minister of Lands will stand up and tell us that they are not going to do so—

I have said so.

A week after the elections a Mr. Mostert, whom I came across in the Heidelberg district during the elections as a Nationalist agent, was sent down to Zululand to report on its colonization by poor whites. More than a year ago I heard rumours which have been growing in volume ever since, that if a Nationalist party got into power they were going to give Zululand to henchmen of their own. All the indications point that way.

Is that why you gave your ground away so quickly?

It was because we had hundreds of excellent applicants. In fact, in no period of South Africa’s history have we had such a splendid type coming forward for land. The hundred odd that I put into Zululand brought with them half a million in cash and that money is being used at present to develop Zululand. There are, at the present moment, as many more applicants waiting with roughly another half a million in cash which is ready to be put into the land. Let me read a letter which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South (Mr. O’Brien) handed to me yesterday; it is a letter of the average type of settler that I have been putting into Zululand. “I thought it might be of interest to you to know that I am now starting on my farm, equipped with a motor car, a lorry and a tractor, and I have been far more expeditious in my transport than I expected ….” Now that is the type of man that can settle in Zululand, a man who has enterprise and capital. The letter goes on to say that he is building his mosquito-proof house, etc. The type of man the Prime Minister is going to put into Zululand is the type of man who will have to borrow, whose house they will have to build, stock his land with cattle, find labour for him; they will have to do every mortal thing for him at the expense of the taxpayer, and then he will die. If I thought the poor white would be saved by putting him in Zululand, if I thought that by settling him there the problem would be solved, I would say go ahead. Let me remind the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Lands that we have already tried this experiment in malarial areas—in the Zoutpansberg area—with disastrous results. We had to take these people off the land when they had been there for several years, and we found that 80 per cent. of their children were malarial. That is the same type the Prime Minister now intends to settle in Zululand. I see by the civil engineer’s report quoted by the Minister of Railways, that in view of the malarial conditions the employment of white labour is out of the question, and yet this is the country where the Prime Minister wants to settle poor whites. It may be said that if the poor white cannot live there how could any other Europpean. The only man who can live there is the man who will take adequate precautions, who will mosquito proof his house, keep away from water, and send his wife and family to the high country in the summer months—the man who has enough money and intelligence to do that is the man who can live there. It is no use saying that I am discriminating against one section, but the fact is that the average type known as the poor white is incapable of self-direction. He has no directing fáculties, and here let me quote from the Transvaal Education Department’s report. “In all previous reports medical in spec-tors have pointed out that one of the most frequent and far-reaching causes of mental and physical deterioration amongst Transvaal school children is the presence of endemic malaria. ….” Here, sir, I have a survey map of the Union and the whole of Zululand is marked as serious and endemic malaria, and that is from the official malaria survey map of the Union. All the northern part of the Zoutpansberg on the Portuguese border and the whole of Zululand are the only areas marked serious endemic malaria. The poor white we are discussing today is already suffering from physical and mental deterioration, and he is living in a healthy climate. I am not speaking with any lack of sympathy for them, because 99 per cent. of these people belong to the stock to which I have the honour to come from myself, and I would be the last man to speak disparagingly of them. The effect of the disease on the children is deplorable. In every malarial district we meet the chronic malarial child and its mental capabilities invariably corresponds with its appearance. Its strength is decreased by two-fifths compared to the child reared in non-malarial districts.” This is an official medical report which I hope the Minister of Lands will ponder on seriously—this canker, this running sore from which a portion of our population is deteriorating physically and mentally every year. “Malarial children,” the report goes on, “are incapable of sustained physical or mental effort. They are almost invariably mentally deficient, but when taken away from malarial areas they usually recover.” The Minister of Lands wants to do the converse. The report also says the second generation of a malarial family is nearly always deteriorated mentally, and the feeblemindedness of a malarial child is due to its chronic fatigue. The report goes on to urge that public attention is urgently needed to concentrate on this matter, because we are breeding in these districts a generation of degenerates. That is what will be the net result of the process now set in train by the new Government. Chronic malarial children will never get a chance to recover if removed from their environment. In the Zoutpansberg district 80 per cent. of the children are malarial, and this report shows what a futile plan it would be to put the poor white into Zululand. I have worked out what I may call a law to the effect that if you put 30 successful men on the land these 30 will carry on their backs and provide employment for 15 others at the very least. In Australia the ratio is said to be one in five. It is less here, but I do hold that, roughly speaking, if you settle 30 men successfully in South Africa you will provide avenues of employment for 15 others. Thirty successful men mean an additional clerk at the bank, in the stores, an additional guard at the station, additional men to look after transport, etc. This is the process. If you put 30 poor whites on the land they do not provide employment for anyone except an official who has to be put there by the taxpayer to look after them. So that if you put men of the right stamp in Zululand, men who will make good, they will provide far more avenues of employment, they will provide work in decent conditions for other men. Their chance of survival is infinitely greater than any in favour of the poor white. I am quite sure that the hon. member (Mr. Munnik) who is interrupting me would not like to see a single poor white put in Zululand. Take Southern Zululand, which we have developed by this very planter type upon which these gentlemen look down so much. This planter type belongs to no particular race—they are South Africans, English and Dutch-speaking. They are ordinary South Africans, but men of education and with capital. Now, in Southern Zululand you find a progressive, highly developed area—thanks to the railway and the planter settlers; and these successful planter settlers, let us say there are 700 of them, carry several thousand other Europeans on their backs. This means extra employment in the way of brokers, clerks and the like in Durban and elsewhere, so that if you put a planter type on a piece of ground it will mean extra work for poor whites. If you put a poor white on the ground, it means nothing.

What do you mean by a poor white?

That is a very delicate question to put. I do not mean a white man who is poor; I am one myself. I mean a white man who is poor in spiritual qualities—a man who has lost his soul. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) knows exactly what I mean by a poor white—the man who, because he has lost hope, has lost all. He is an unfortunate individual belonging to a submerged class, who must be helped, but he must not be helped in a malarial area. That would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. He can be helped on the railways and by afforestation and the like, but certainly not in Zululand. There is another aspect of the matter. I hold that it is not right for any Government to dump the inhabitants of one province on those of another province. If Natal were to make an attempt to dump its poor and unemployed on the Transvaal, there would be trouble.

They have been trying to dump Indians on us for years.

And does the hon. member favour that system? The members of Natal would change and take one poor white for several Asiatics any time; but I do think it is a very bad principle for any Government to dump its poor and unemployed from one province on to another, without consulting the province concerned.

We dumped you into Port Elizabeth.

And Durban dumped the Minister of Defence on to Denver, and the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries was dumped on to Edenburg, and the hon. Prime Minister, who lives in Bloemfontein, was dumped on Smithfield—quite a usual process in this country.

Why object to it?

Let us go on with the business. The next order is a harmless-looking sort of land settlement, but I think it is aimed at Zululand, and the Minister of Lands will be able to tell us presently whether it is so. We have a Land Settlement Amendment Bill on the Order Paper which does away with the principle of consulting the public at all. Before the new Government can dump poor whites, in Zululand it has either to do it under this new Act or to initiate special legislation. But the Government is deliberately ignoring the Land Board and the officials of the Land Department and the people of Zululand. A gentleman who is acting as an agent of the Nationalist party is touring Zululand a week after the elections and making reports over the heads of the officials and public of Natal. I think if the converse process were taking place in any other province there would be tremendous indignation, and I can assure the Government that before their new policy is going to be put into effect in Zululand, there will be trouble. That I guarantee; and we will see that this process is not put into execution for three reasons; firstly, because it will be disastrous to the men themselves; secondly, it will be disastrous to the development of Zululand; and thirdly, it will be disastrous to the future of cotton. We have Manchester and Liverpool! looking to us and there is untold capital ready to be brought into this country, but it is not coming in at the present moment on account of the step taken by the new Government putting a stop to the allotment of land. Without a single member of the Cabinet knowing the conditions of Zululand and without a single one of them having, so fár as I know, ever been there, the Government, without having made any special study or having any special knowledge of the subject, at one swoop cancelled the valuable work done by the previous. Government. They did it with one stroke of the pen. They are now working in the direction of a new policy which is going to ruin Zululand and going to create a great deal of very bad feeling in the Union. The people of Natal do not hold for one moment that they regard Zululand as a close preserve;

It looks like it.

There is no question of Natal getting any preferential treatment if you look at the allotments. The Natal people, I am sure, would never adopt that attitude—they have never done so in the past, and they will not do so in the future; but they do hold that Zululand, being a geographical portion of Natal and close to their borders, and Durban being so vitally interested in the railway, that they have a right to be consulted before the Government alters a policy that has proved a triumphant success for the past 14 years. Although we have had heartbreaking disappointments and failures elsewhere, we have had none in Natal and Zululand. If the system of the Land Board had broken down there would be something to be said for the Government’s experiment, and if the Natal Land Board had not justified its existence; but the evidence is all the other way. The Natal Land Board has done magnificent work in the past and especially in Zululand. The whole policy was proving a splendid success, and so it was going to react to the benefit of the entire Union; but all that is stopped. There is another aspect. The Natal people in their land settlement are entrenched under the Act of 1912, and the new Government, without consulting anyone and knowing anything about the conditions, have done away with all that and arbitrarily initiated a new policy—a policy of their own. We on this side of the House welcome the railway and are heartily in favour of it, but only on condition that the policy which has been followed up to now in Zululand be continued. They should make clear to us exactly what they are doing and why they have stopped land which is surveyed and advertised, and for which there are hundreds of applicants with a vast amount of capital waiting.

The hon. member who has just spoken was of course absolutely right when he stated that it was the intention of the Slate Government to introduce this Bill; in fact, the Bill was all ready when the prorogation took place in April last. We were just waiting for a few days to introduce it; but the conditions attached to that Bill were very different from the conditions attached to this one—very different indeed. We considered it was desirable to build the line to promote cotton cultivation in Zululand, but we had to recognize that there are other parts of South Africa also calling for railways, parts which have already been developed. Now this part of the country has not been developed, and we agreed to this Bill only on special conditions, which were that the Railway Department should get a grant of land in that district.

What about the South-West Africa line?

That is altogether different. This line, according to the report of the board, is going to entail a loss of something like £2,400 on working. Therefore we considered that the Government would be justified in making this line at this particular time only if it got special consideration or special advantages from the line. Because, as I have said, there are other lines in the country in districts which are already developed. I can mention at least four places in the Cape Province to-day calling for railways where development has already taken place; there are a couple in the Free State and others in Natal and the Transvaal. Development has taken place there and the traffic is waiting for you as soon as you put down the lines. Therefore I say the Railway Department is entitled to special consideration in making this line in priority to others.

Is there no development there at all now?

Well, development is taking place, but as I say, we were asked to make this line, and my answer was: There are a good many other places in the Union where dines are necessary and development is taking place. Unless you can show me some special reason I cannot construct this line. Now the Government agreed that this grant of land should be made to the department. Then there was another consideration. As a rule, in the past, when a railway was made the land always went up in value. The department never gets a sixpence from that rise in value. The landowner gets the benefit and so does the Government in the case of Crown land. The Railway Department, though it has to bear the burden of the loss of thousands of pounds annually, never benefits.

What is the difference?

The difference is very material. We put a higher price on this land, we raised its value I think 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. and we were entitled to put into effect Clause 17 of the Railway Construction Act of 1922. This principle of giving land for railway construction has been put into practice in other countries repeatedly. In the United States millions of acres of land have been given away for railway construction. Also in Canada land was given away for the purpose of prompting the construction of the Canadian-Pacific railway. Why should not we do the same? Why should not the department which has to pay its way and cannot come on the taxpayer to make up deficits, get some benefit from the increased value of the land which the department makes valuable? That is the principle on which we went in regard to this Bill. As I say, the department has to make these branch lines and suffer the loss when it accrues, and it usually does accrue, from the branch lines—so much so that the Minister announced the other day that he is not going to allow the public to know in the future what the loss is. Yet, when we make a plan for the department to get some benefit from these lines it is turned down. I foresee the day when the department will not be able to bear the loss of these lines. I can mention scores of places where branch lines are necessary and would advance the good of the country, but I doubt whether they would pay. Can the department carry the whole of these? At the beginning of this session we had lines put forward which would cost upwards of £15,000,000 and would not return the cost of working and interest. The burden is getting too big and at the same time you want to reduce rates. When I was in office I was coming to the opinion that the Railway Department should get the proceeds of all Crown lands sold in order to enable them to build new lines. That is turned down by the present Government and to my mind it is extremely unsatisfactory. I want to deal now with the recommendations of the railway board. The recommendation of the board is that the construction of the line shall be proceeded with and that any loss on working shall be made up from general revenue. That is not in accordance with the law. In the Act of Union it is laid down what the duties of the board are in this matter. Any scheme for the construction of railway lines or works before being submitted to Parliament, it is laid down, shall be submitted to the board, which shall report thereon and say whether the line or works shall or shall not be constructed. If such line be constructed contrary to the recommendation of the board, the board shall frame an estimate of the annual loss which in its opinion there will be. The loss must be paid for from the consolidated revenue. In this case they recommend the construction, but they add the pious opinion—it is only a pious opinion—that loss of working shall be made up from general revenue. That is only an opinion, and the Minister says quite frankly that he does not intend to take any notice of it. In my opinion the Railway Board from the point of view of the department has not done its duty. It was for the board to say whether the line was or was not to be made. If the board recommends it they can keep their pious opinion to themselves, we do not need it. If they do not recommend it, then the onus is on the Government. Now they have found a way out. They have practically thrown the burden on the department whose interests they are supposed to represent, a burden of £23,000 a year. In my opinion this would easily have been avoided had the Government kept to the agreement which was made between the Railway Department and the Lands Department. There is no reason why this Bill should not have gone through the House with the agreement and the line been made and no interests would have suffered. My hon. friend asked what was the difference. It is a very big difference. In the realization of this land, if the money had been paid to the department it would have gone to their capital account, they would have been able to use it for making this railway, and they would have had no interest to pay. The whole difference, in short, is that the department would have saved £23,000 a year. Under the agreement the Lands Department would have realized the land and handed the money to the Railway Department. There are two results of the Minister’s policy. In the first place it hampers the department in future from making branch lines—we cannot go on indefinitely—and secondly, it hampers the department from reducing rates because the more losses you have the less you can reduce rates. I want to see the line made, but I think it would have been fairer to the department had the agreement been kept to. If we do not get the increased value the landowners would get it, and the railway department might just as well have its share of the increase as the landowners. I think the Minister has taken a retrograde step. Certainly he has not studied the interests of his department, and I do not think he has studied the interests of the country.

From the confident manner in which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) got up, I felt hon. members were entitled to expect he would not deal with this subject in such a slipshod manner. Seeing that he was discussing the kind of settler necessary for Zululand, one would have imagined he would have gone a little further and would also have discussed the kind of fertilizer a settler would require for his cotton farm. Apparently, however, the hon. member was merely concerned with making this whole debate, if possible, one on the poor white question. When he spoke of the poor whites there was a tone of self-satisfaction in connection with what the late Government was supposed to have done, but I think if one listened carefully one could not refrain from coming to the conclusion that this was a very artificial satisfaction created for the purpose of getting the public mind off such other little matters as, for instance, the grain elevator scandal. I think that the hon. member might very well have refrained from adopting that attitude. It was entirely different from the attitude of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways when they introduced their Budgets. They showed that they were quite chivalrous enough to give honour where honour was due. If the share of the late Government conceiving the idea of this railway was so great, he might quite safely have left it to the Ministers to say so. The hon. member referred to the type of settler. When one looks at the list one finds that there are quite a number of people to whom farms were allotted who had no experience at all. I do not know what the hon. member exactly means by the planter type, nor does he apparently know himself. An attempt has been made to divert the debate into a discussion of the poor white problem. It would have been as well if the hon. member had mentioned the Rand strike, which created more poor whites than any other action of the late Government ever did. The remarks I take the strongest possible exception to are those in which the hon. member referred to the fact that people suffering from malaria are on the same footing as congenital syphilitics.

The report says so.

Why did the hon. member quote the report to substantiate his argument if he disapproves of the report? The hon. member went on to say that the northern Zoutpansberg showed what a fallacy these land settlements were. The late member for Zoutpansberg proclaimed the fact that this very land settlement behind the mountain of Zoutpansberg was his greatest achievement, and that he was entitled to be proud of it. I want to repudiate the suggestion that the settlers north of Zoutpansberg—they are both English and Dutch and are not very well off owing to the-neglect they have sustained from the late Government—are on the level of congenital syphilitics.

I never said that the-people behind the mountain in Zoutpansberg were on a level with congenital syphilitics. I was quoting from an official report published by the Provincial Government of the Transvaal, which says that the average malaria child resembles a congenital syphilitic. The hon. member is putting words in my mouth. If he objects to the report he must object to his own people in the Transvaal—i.e., the Provincial Government, who published the official report.

The hon. member has now succeeded in making his statement very involved indeed. He quotes from a report apparently with approval, but later on he disassociates himself from it, and tries to explain that it is the report of an official of the National Transvaal Provincial Council, knowing full well that the gentleman who wrote it was a strong supporter of the late Government. It would be much better if the hon. gentleman admitted that he should never have referred to the report, and that by referring to it he was casting a serious imputation on a large section of the population in the Northern Transvaal. The hon. member also referred to dumping a section of the population of one province on to another province. There was nothing said by the Minister of Railways to suggest that any such policy may be even remotely involved in the building of the Zululand railway. We should certainly not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that because Crown lands are situated in one particular province, people from another province should have no right to have allotted to them any portion of such Crown lands. That is carrying provincialism to art extreme. One suspects that there is something behind it, and that because the late Government was incapable of taking up a strong attitude in connection with the Asiatic invasion, that they are trying to get on the good side of Natal by taking up a cry about the cotton lands of Zululand. One knows that official reports are very often tainted with party bias, and it would be better to get a report from somebody outside the official domain altogether. The Minister of Lands has not yet laid down his policy on that particular report, and I should advise the hon. member to wait a bit with his criticism. On the whole, therefore, one can only come to the conclusion that the dragging of poor whites into this debate is purely for the purpose of obstruction, and this is in ill accord with the statement made by the Opposition that the duty of an Opposition is to indulge only in constructive criticism.

Since the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) discovered Zululand he has been writing excellent articles on that subject from a journalistic point of view, but I do not know whether they are quite true. Our friend is a little bit sore because his Zululand policy has been stopped, but I congratulate the Government on stopping it, because it has been given a command to stop most of the policies of the late Government, and there will be an awful row if they don’t stop them. We are discussing the Zululand railway, but the hon. member gets off the railway into the mud, and talks about the poor white question. It is just a cry to upset the English-speaking people in Zululand and to turn them against any Dutch-speaking settlers. It is the old racialistic cry on which gentlemen on the other side of the House came such a cropper two months ago. The hon. member (Col. Reitz) knows well enough that there are large numbers of Dutch-speaking South Africans—friends of his and friends of mine—who have no money but who could be put in Zululand to-morrow and who would make the best planter type in the world. I do hope that this Government is going to send South Africans to settle South Africa first. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has said that the Government is stopping development in Zululand. There is no development there yet. Of the 285 farms which were advertised 115 were applied for, but there is no development in that area yet. Who is the type of man that has applied for these farms? He is the man with a big bank balance. There is one man with £20,000—

No.

My hon. friend (Col. D. Reitz) said just now that these men have money. It seems to me that the wind is blowing both north by south on the South African Party side. If you look through the list you will find who the men are. There is one man with £20,000, but with no experience. A man with £20,000 may die from malaria just as well as a man with no money at all. Has not my hon. friend (Col. D. Reitz) been drawing a lot of people from the Transvaal and settling them on land which his department paid £10 per morgen for and which was only worth 10s.?

Where is this?

Did not my hon. friend’s department buy a farm on the Modder River for £25,000 to settle people there and bring them from other parts of South Africa?

There is not a soul settled there.

You brought the men down, but they had the sense when they saw the spot to go back, because they found it was not worth 5s.

It was never advertised.

No, the S.A.P. must not talk to us about settling people; they have settled more people under the land than on it. What right has my hon. friend to talk of the people of Natal and say the people of Natal do not want this? It may be that the S.A.P. in Natal do not want it. My hon. friend the member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) assures me that the working classes are particularly pleased about what the Government have done because they hope now that they will have a chance to get farms. In the past the farms went to the rich men in Natal. The planter type; who is the planter type? Is he the man who runs the Chamber of Mines? Is he the man who sits on the front bench on the other side? Who is your planter type? The man you want down there is the man that is going to vote South African Party. You are afraid that under this scheme men will go down there who will vote on the there side. It is a very good thing for the Dutch South African and the English South African to settle down side by side in Zululand. Natal will have to wake up a bit. Natal does not belong to Natal alone. I trust we shall not hear much more from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) about the planter type. We have the same old hollow cry from the same old hollow party. I hope the Government will carry on and the Prime Minister will carry on this policy of settling South Africans in South Africa. When we have settled the South Africans in South Africa we will settle the “planter type.”

We all agree that there should be a railway and that those parts are specially suited to the growing of cotton. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) thinks that the area is not suitable for poor whites. I come from a malarial area myself and know something about it. There is much truth in Dr. Leipoldt’s report, but the late Government is to blame to a large extent for the conditions prevailing in the malarial areas. People have often been left there for 24 hours in the open, when they were on their way to one of these settlements, and in that way got malaria, and the children had to suffer because they had to travel over long distances to school. A few years ago the previous Government wanted to give out the lands between the Komati and the Lomati rivers to returned soldiers, and those parts are just as unhealthy as is Zululand. Everybody who does not take the usual precautions gets malaria. Years ago everybody in Barberton, rich or poor, got malaria, but to-day the people do not get it because they know how to take precautions. If the degeneration of our children was a natural consequence of people going to malarial areas, I should not like people to go there. If the previous Minister of Lands thinks that his type do not get malaria, why did he never go to those parts during the summer? The position with regard to this disease is simply if proper precautions are taken, you are free from risk.

I do not intend to discuss the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) because I am not acquainted with the circumstances of Zululand, but I will observe that it seems to me rather peculiar that the hon. members opposite who attacked the statement seem to have had to go to extraordinary lengths to find reason for doing so. I cannot congratulate the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) who seems to be unable to get up in this House without making an insinuation against somebody. I think it is rather unfortunate to find a new member, whom we hoped would add lustre to this House, should make insinuations every time he gets up to speak. He said the reason why the person, an entirely unofficial person, was sent to make this; report was because it was found that when officials of the Government went their reports were tinged with party views. I should like to know where he got his grounds for making that statement. He is making allegations against officials who are not here to defend themselves. The point I rose to speak about is one mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I do not know why the Government departed from the arrangement embodied in the agreement made between the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Minister of Lands that the cost of building the railway was to be provided by disposing of Crown lands which the railway has to serve. I suspect the reason is that the Government does not like the improved value of land being taken for the building and construction of railways. They do not like the principle that when a railway improves the land through which it passes that part of the improved value of the land should be devoted to paying the cost of construction. Their allies opposite do not say anything, they are very well disciplined. The difference that is now made is that the railway department will have to pay out of railway revenues for all time interest on this loan raised for the purpose of constructing this line. Had the principle adopted by the late Government been followed the Railway Administration would have been relieved of the responsibility of paying interest on the loan and the persons who would be relieved would be the users of the railway and not the taxpayers, as has been said. I suggest the Minister and his friends departed from this agreement because they do not like the principle that the increment coming to land through which a new railway runs should be used to any extent in financing the building of that line. The increments in any case come into loan funds, but the difference is that had that agreement been adhered to, the Railway Department would have been relieved from paying interest on capital expended on this line. The other point I wanted to bring out was this—that the Minister has rightly said that the Railway Board recommends the building of this line. That is true, and thereby of course they relieved the Government of the obligation which they would otherwise have been under of financing any loss which might be incurred on the line from the consolidated revenue fund. The board added a pious opinion that any loss on working on maintenance and interest charges should be replaced from the consolidated revenue fund. If that was their opinion they should not recommend the construction of the line except on that definite basis. It is clear under section 130 of the Act of Union that if the Railway Board come to the conclusion that a new line of railway is not going to be payable, it should not be built at the expense of the Railway and Harbour Fund. They should see in the operation of this clause that a loss on working automatically is payable out of consolidated revenue fund. They had evaded their duty in that respect in not giving the Minister a clear recommendation to see that any loss should be defrayed out of such fund. We are disappointed that the Government has departed from the agreement made with their predecessors on the method of financing the line which was embodied in that agreement.

In Natal we wish to approach this question without feeling or prejudice, but with a respect for any policy which the Government may propound which has for its object the elevation of the position of the unfortunate poor white, but what we cannot get away from is that no sooner had the elections passed over and the Government hardly seated in the saddle, than the Minister Designate of Lands made a statement which no doubt gave the impression that it was the intention of the Government to hold up the allotment of land in Zululand, which he has since done, which lands had been advertised for a considerable time, and which had been hitherto controlled by the Native Land Board, and that he proposed to take such personal powers as he considered would be necessary to place people of his own selection and apart from the control and advice of the established board, on that land in Zululand. This instituted a complete departure from the old policy which had obtained hitherto. It was a statement which created the greatest alarm throughout Natal, and very rightly so. It was not only that statement which he made, but he at once took active steps to show that that was his intention—to override the Natal Land Board and to seek information which would justify him in carrying out his policy by means which were regarded by us as entirely irregular—he sent down a gentleman of no previous experience as regards this particular country or the growing and cultivation of cotton, the object it had been intended to develop it for. On the strength of the report of that gentleman he now brings forward a measure for the establishment of these people, whoever they may be. The Natal Land Board bas special reasons to feel grievously hurt at this ignoring of their position and responsibility. They are, I think I may say without any fear of contradiction, the most successful institution in connection with handling of Crown land that has been instituted in South Africa, and they would necessarily be so. They comprise an institution established soon after Natal adopted responsible Government, and if there is one thing on which the Natal people were determined it is that they would take out of the arena of party politics and the influence of politicians the distribution of the Crown land of that country. The personnel of that board was most carefully selected. They were all men of wide experience and practical knowledge, with a personal acquaintance of the requirements of the country and of every inch of the lands which they would have to administer, and what they were best adapted for. In 1908 or thereabouts, the Natal Land Board turned its attention to the development of the Zululand coast lands. Up to that period those lands were regarded as almost unfit for white occupation. However, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, they decided to develop them for the purpose of sugar growing, and have thereby established an industry of first class national importance. That was entirely the work of the Natal Land Board. Pushing their operations a stage further, sugar growing having been made a great success and cotton offering a new field of occupation, they turned their attention to the possibilities of cotton growing, and now I think there are something like 10,000 acres under cultivation on this railway which the Minister has introduced, and another 26,000 acres are ready for the plough and cultivation to-day, and these 26,000 acres will give a return of something like a quarter of a million net profit per annum. Now the grievous part of it all is that these lands are being held up, and we do* not know where we are or what is to happen next. We have had speeches made this afternoon stating that it is not the intention to select what are commonly known as “poor whites” for this land, and that it is the intention to give South Africans the first opportunity as regards occupation of these lands. To that I do not take the slightest exception, but these speeches do not come from the Government. That has been the policy of the Natal Land Board, and all things being equal, they have always given the choice to the local man. But if the distribution of these lands and the selection of the occupants is to be taken out of the hands of the Natal Land Board and transferred to the Minister, then we say that is a fundamentally unsound thing to do, and I hope that this House will not agree to anything of the kind. Just to show that Natal has nothing but the interests of the poor whites at heart I can give an illustration which is well within the knowledge of the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). In the hon. gentleman’s constituency is a block of land running into something like 4,000 acres under irrigation which has been highly developed and cultivated and planted with fruit trees by Natal men with Natal capital. There are to-day growing on this land something in the neighbourhood of 300,000 fruit trees, and by 18 months the number will reach close upon half a million. It is one of the largest orchards of its kind in the world.

The hon. member is wandering somewhat far.

No, sir, I think we can show that we in Natal are also assisting the Government in the solution of their poor white problem. It takes 200 men to look after, pick and handle the fruit from 1,000 fruit trees, principally apricots, and under full bearing that orchard will find employment for a great many more, running into many thousands. We have a right to demand that in giving out these lands in Zululand the process which has been followed hitherto shall be maintained; that these lands will be advertised and applied for in the usual way, that the final selection will remain in the hands of the Natal Land Board, and that this House will never consent to that power being taken away from the board and placed in the hands of any Minister.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who I am sorry to see is not in his seat, had occasion to have a tilt at Natal. I think it was very bad grace for him to come here and do so. He told us if the Free State had an opportunity of coming into Natal, they would teach us a thing or two. I would like to say we have taught the Free State a thing or two and are proud of having done so. We have gone into the Free State and introduced creameries—

The hon. member cannot discuss creameries now.

Well, the hon. member has told us they would teach us a thing or two. Natal has always been looked upon as one of the most progressive provinces in South Africa. Our land settlement schemes have been a success not only for the rich man’s son, but many a poor man’s son has been a successful settler in Natal. It is a reflection on the Natal Land Board to say that only rich men’s sons have been settled on the land in Natal.

He did not say so.

He did say so. The policy of the Land Board has been not to give out land to any applicant who is already an owner of rural land, and that policy has been so far as I know rigorously carried out. That is a good, sound policy, and the board has been most careful in selecting the right type of men to put on the land. The fundamental principle of the success of land settlement in Natal has been in the selection of the settlers. We in Natal have no objection to accepting any South African on any of the lands which are open for settlement there, provided the settler is a man who is capable of developing the land and working it to the best advantage. There seems to be some impression in the minds of hon. members on the other side, that we in Natal wish to reserve the land in Natal, only for the people in Natal. That is not correct. We are not so small-minded. We are quite ready to accept any South African, whether from the Free State or anywhere else. That is, provided you send us the right type of man. We naturally will object if you send us men who are going to retard the development of the Natal lands which are open for settlement. We are anxious for development, and I think we have demonstrated that we can and have developed more than other parts of South Africa, because we have adopted sound principles in our land settlement. I hope hon. members opposite will take it out of their minds altogether that we object to others coming in. One thing is sure, that if you are going to settle these lands in Zululand with a type of man who has not got sufficient initiative and grit, or has not got the necessary capital to develop the land, you are bound to make a fiasco of the settlement. This part of the country is highly infected with malaria, and from our own experience, many of the settlers there have had their health undermined, many of them have to send their children away to the high veld, and the majority of them find it necessary for three months of the year to go to the high veld otherwise their health becomes completely undermined. I wonder how many members opposite would go there?

Are you arguing against the building of the railway?

No, I am in favour of the railway, provided the Government see the settlers are the right type of men.

Are you the right type of men on that side of the House?

How many of you over there have been?

I would advise members to take a trip there, because it is only when you have seen the country that you will be able to judge for yourselves what the conditions are. You must have men there with capital and initiative.

What capital would be required?

A man should have at least £500 if he is going to make a success of those lands? but he must have more than capital, he must have character and brains, and initiative.

The hon. gentleman who has just sat down seems very desirous of teaching Free Staters, but he can learn from us not to talk about things he knows nothing about. That will be a useful lesson to him. Possibly he will then not be able to speak as it seems he knows very little. The Natalians only know what is going on in Natal, and the hon. member happened to settle at Newcastle, close to the Free State. He says that the Land Board of Natal never granted land to landowners, and he makes this solemn statement when, according to the lists of grants in. Zululand, only one out of five is not a land-owner. The hon. member can learn from the Free State first to investigate things before he makes such statements. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is much concerned over the fate of the poor white in Zululand, but does he want to make us believe that the planter type with a capital of perhaps £20,000 is himself going to develop the land. No, he will use coolies for it. They are the same people who are now coming into the country, and they ask us to assist them to get coolie labour from Natal. I doubt whether anybody who is still an S.A.P. man has a grain of commonsense left. That party has not yet learnt that it is not the business of an Opposition to talk nonsense. But I would like to ask the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) who should work on those cotton lands if not the poor people. I suppose kaffirs or coolies.

Have they got coolies there now?

Take the same people whom the Government now intends to settle there. But that is not what Natal wants. What they want there is cheap coolie labour. Why is only the poor man to be in danger in Zululand? I suppose if a mosquito knows that a certain poor man is working for himself, he will directly go and sting him! I believe that two poor white people died in Zululand, and no wonder. Probably they died of shock because the Government actually granted them land. I am sure this side of the House will take no notice of all this nonsense from the Opposition side of the House.

The question before the House is the Zululand Railway Bill, and I think members on this side of the House are unanimously in favour of its adoption. Reference has been made to the Natal Land Board, which was formed in 1904 under the Agricultural Development Act. That board has functioned in a splendid way, and we want to know why a gentleman like Mr. Mostert should be called in to override the decisions of a board of that kind. He was sent to Zululand to inform the Government as to the desirability or otherwise of placing poor whites in a certain area. I should like to know what his qualifications are, and how many members of the present Government have ever been in Zululand. I speak with some authority as chairman of the Natal Land Bank from its inception in 1907 until it was merged into the Union Land Bank in 1912. During that period £75,000 was advanced by the bank and not a penny was lost. A great portion of the money was used in settling suitable people in Zululand, and a good amount was expended in re-settling people in Vryheid district. It was only in 1905 or 1906 that the railways were extended from Tugela northwards, and it is there where settlement has taken place. It was a real malaria area in those days, and the Land Board and Land Bank of Natal settled men who have made good—men from all parts of South Africa. There is no question of isolation or any endeavour to retain Zululand as an appendage of Natal. These settlers made so far good that only last year 208,000 tons of sugar cane were carried by the railway. I want to warn the Government as to the risk of placing people on land which is entirely unsuitable to them. The railways should serve the right purpose of development, and I hope that will be borne in mind. If the land in Zululand was suitable for occupation by poor whites everybody on this side of the House would be in favour of putting them there, and I have no desire to deprecate any attempt to raise in the social scale those who are the under dogs to-day, but the Government should be very careful of what is done with regard to white settlement in Zululand.

The question of the poor whites has been brought up this afternoon in connection with this Bill, and it has been thrown in the teeth of members of this side of the House by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that we had dragged it up. I wish to deny that. The matter was first brought up by the Minister for Railways and Harbours, and, but for the fact that he raised the question, I very much doubt whether it would have been mentioned by this side of the House, at this stage, at any rate. Then the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said that he had been informed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) that the feeling in Durban was in favour of this poor white scheme for Zululand, though he qualified that by saying that, at any rate, the working people favoured it. Well, I don’t know what the feeling is in his constituency, but I think I am safe in saying that the feeling in Natal is very much opposed to settling this class of man, the poor white, as proposed in Zululand. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North) (Mr. Barlow) said that it is only the South African Party people in Natal who are opposed to it. That is the admission which conclusively proves that the majority in Natal is opposed to it because the South African Party has a substantial majority in that province. In view of this fact, I think you should call a halt and give due consideration to this proposal before you attempt to put it into force. What the people of Natal feel is that they have their Land Board in which they have the utmost confidence. That Land Board has been in existence long prior to Union, and what is alarming in regard to this proposal to settle-poor whites in Zululand, is the fact that it is proposed to reverse the policy of leaving these matters to the Land Board by settling poor whites on the land at the will of the Minister. I have no doubt whatever that Natal is not so narrow-minded as to object to the allotment of land in Zululand or anywhere else in Natal, so long as that allotment takes place in the ordinary orthodox way through the Land Board, as in the past. I want to say in regard to the proposal to reverse the policy of the past, and allow the Minister the increased powers which he would have under this Bill—

What is the hon. member referring to now?

I intend to refer just now, for a moment, to the Lands Act.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now.

In any case I do urge upon the Government the advisability of adhering to the practice which has been in vogue in Natal in the past, and of not adopting any settlement scheme except in the usual way through the Land Board in Natal so far as Zululand is concerned.

The Opposition has much to say about poor whites, but I would like to point out that anyone who will be taken into consideration for a grant of land in Zululand will have to have a certain: amount of capital. It seems as if the Opposition is under the impression that the Minister can grant lands at his own sweet will. Only the Land Board can do that, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) knows that very well. If malaria is worse in Zululand than it is in Waterberg and Zoutpansberg, the hon. member for Zululand certainly did not render it service by advertising the fact, as in that case no civilized people will be able to settle there. In the Burger” of to-day there appears an article stating that it would seem as if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) wants to get people from England and settle them in Zululand in order to cause their •death. The late Minister of Lands should not exaggerate. If malaria is so bad in Zululand, we have no right to build this line. I would like to know whether the settler of the planter type is perhaps one who only puts others there instead of doing the work himself. The aim of land settlement is not to give land to rich people. They can buy just as good ground in the northern Transvaal as in Zululand. It ought to be our aim to put the small man with little capital on the land. I am glad the new Minister has put a stop to the schemes of his predecessors.

I regret that a certain amount of reference has been made to the provincial aspect of this question and I am sorry that the debate has not been brought into a more useful channel by one of the Ministers. When there is so much discussion on land settlement it would have been appropriate for a statement to have been made by the responsible Minister with regard to the policy of the Government on this question. We are left to draw our own conclusions from the statements made by Ministers outside the House from time to time and the reference in the King’s speech to this question of the amendment of the present Land Settlement Act. In the King’s speech it was said that “legislation regulating the placing of settlers on land under conditions of supervision and control would be laid before you.” It seems to me that a drastic change in the Land Bill hitherto followed was announced. In this acrimonious debate I do think the Minister of Lands might have intervened and let us know what the policy of the Government is in connection with this matter. In the midst of the feeling stirred up by the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) as between the Free State and Natal, might I remind the House of the statement made by a prominent Free Stater on this question, a man who is no longer with us but one whose opinion is entitled to the greatest respect. I refer to the late the Rt. Hon. Abraham Fisher. In 1912, in this House, in reference to the settlements in Natal, he said: “The settlements in Natal had been most encouraging and had shown what willing hands, moved by determination, could do even in difficult circumstances. He had had the pleasure of going through Natal (I would commend his example to the Minister of Lands) and of addressing several meetings. He addressed one meeting which was unique in these circumstances. “A lot of men who were growing sugar and who were farmers in that sense and apparently getting on well had not been farmers three or four years before that—they were men from the towns, professional men, ex-civil servants and the like—but they had succeeded.” In dealing with the objects of the present Land Settlement Act of 1912, Mr. Fisher had said: “Owing to drought, or plague time might be given to the settler to work out his own salvation, and as far as could be prevented, there would be no chance of political jobbery. … The advice of the Land Board would be followed in every case. On the other hand, he saw the greatest difficulty in giving to the Land Board control to the extent that it would not be directly responsible to Parliament. The Act was designed to increase the number of those who would go to the land on conditions not only fair and reasonable, but even liberal, and to draw individuals who would be assets to the country, and not simply those who might be dumped down in numbers, only to increase the number of poor whites.” That was the statement of a man whose memory we hold in highest respect; it was a statement made with a desire to promote the progress of land settlement on sound lines. It is now feared that that policy is being departed from, and I appeal to the Minister to allay that fear in a straightforward manner. I should like him to make a statement which would dissipate the fear in Natal that poor whites are being pressed on the land with the probability of serious and inconvenient consequences to the people already settled there. It is not only the question of the failure of these people which will react on their fellow settlers, but in many cases where such failure takes place, they will be thrown upon their fellow settlers, who will be called upon, for the sake of humanity, to come to their assistance. I ask the hon. Minister to give us the truth in this matter and come forward in a responsible way and give us his policy. Up to the present we have had no statement in this House from anyone who can claim to be anything but irresponsible. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), with that superfluity of haughtiness which is peculiar to him, has made statements which have done nothing else except to arouse feeling in this House. As one who has a considerable knowledge of Zululand I welcome the Bill which the Minister has introduced, and I am only sorry for certain reasons that it has not been found possible to extend the railway line to the boundary of Union territory. I feel that it is most important that the railway should bridge the Pongola and carry the line across and so remove a considerable obstruction to Union trade with Swaziland. If we could carry trade across the Pongola the centre of gravity, so far as Swaziland trade is concerned, would be established in the Union instead of Delagoa Bay. I am afraid that, unless the line crosses the Pongola, a great deal of trade will go from Swaziland to Lourenco Marques to the serious detriment of Union ports. A comparatively small amount of expense would be incurred in erecting a bridge over the Pongola and it would be justified by the trade which we would attract by that extension. The potentialities of the area are likely to be considerably affected by the class of settlement which is to be instituted along the line. If it be the intention of the Government to foster a kind of settlement which involves the payment of wages to those placed on the land, the appreciable benefits so far as progress is concerned will be in no way comparable to the progress made along the line already built in Zululand, where settlers equipped with their own capital and plenty of drive opened up the land and made the railway pay handsomely. The line from Durban to Somkele traverses a country every mile of which has been cultivated and which is intensively productive from every acre. I do not want to expatiate upon the marvellous success that has attended land settlement in Zululand under most acute difficulties. Although the ex-Minister, the present hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), had been accused of depreciating land in Zululand because of his references to the malarial areas, I differ from that view and I think it is wise that those who go to Zululand should know the dangers of malaria, and not be lulled into a sense of false security and settle there in the belief that it is a healthy territory. The notices issued by the Land Board in recent years have been conditioned by the good sense to warn settlers of the cattle disease, nagane, and also malaria, and given advice in respect of the precautions to be taken in connection with these diseases. The ex-Minister’s statement which we have had is a warning not too light-heartedly to take up land allotment in Zululand, imagining that everything will be as happy as a marriage bell. We have the statement of the Minister of Railways that it is the policy of the Government to abandon the agreement between the Department of Railways and Harbours and the Department of Lands. This will involve some hardship on the settlers to whom land has been allotted at a relatively higher rate because of the intention to recover the proceeds from the sale of land. If it is the policy of the Government to abandon this agreement, I hope that some consideration will be shown to those settlers who have been induced to take land at the Higher rate occasioned by the agreement, because they also. I think, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). would suffer in another way. They, as users of the railway, will be bound to pay higher railway rates because of the added interest charges in respect of the capital appropriated for the building of this line. The whole Question of settlement is intimately related with the payability of the line, and no one will be more sorry than I to see the building of the line jeopardized by the hesitancy of the Government to decide noon a policy of progressive land settlement in that area. We must remember that it is not only the eves of South Africa that are on that area; the eyes of other people in the cotton world are also directed towards that particular area. Mr. Keatinge, who reported on cotton growing in South Africa for the “Empire Cotton Growing Association,” states: “The greatest aid to cotton growing would be a railway to link up the Durban—Somkele line with Komatipoort. Such a line would open up Zululand … and run right through what is probably the richest tract in South Africa and certainly the best cotton country.” I think it would be a thousand pities if the hesitancy of the Government to make up its mind and declare on a forward land settlement policy meant that the progress of the cotton industry was to be retarded, because that undoubtedly would be the result if we were to go in for an ill-considered experiment and hold up the land you are using for that experiment for an indeterminate time. The class of man so successful on the Candover Estate is not strictly a poor white at all, and the class of man who is working with such conspicuous success for Mr. Rouillard is the South African, who, through some temporary setback, lost his land in that area, and is full of resource and local knowledge. That is the type of man who has succeeded with Mr. Rouillard, not at all the type of poor white, who lacks initiative and who apparently under the legislation contemplated by the Government, would have to be under supervision and control. I maintain that the growing of cotton requires initiative and drive. The obstacles and difficulties are immense, the clearing of the land, a most disheartening and discouraging business, is the first matter to be undertaken. Unless you have a man there who is not only provided with capital to pay wages, but is also willing to see the matter through, you will realize that the amount of progress that is needed will be very much delayed. Without desiring to cast a great amount of blame upon the Government, I do maintain that their attitude towards the Natal Land Board has not been a very fair one. That board was appointed under the Land Settlement Act and as a guarantee of its non-political character, it is laid down in the Act that nobody shall be a member of that board who is either a member of the Legislative Assembly or Provincial Council, and members of that board are required to have a knowledge of agricultural conditions in that area. To send a gentleman like Mr. Mostert from the high veld who has never grown an acre of cotton in his life, who has no knowledge of the conditions of farming in the area referred to, to report specially to the Government, is in itself, to some extent, a reflection on the Land Board. I maintain from a very wide knowledge of the settlements not only in Zululand but throughout Natal, that no more patriotic or public-spirited body exists than the Natal Land Board. It is composed of gentlemen, both English and Dutch-speaking, whose one interest is to promote the settlement of Crown land in Natal on conditions that will be sound and satisfactory for the future of South Africa. On travelling round on a long tour with the chairman of the Land Board I was pleased to see the way in which a happy blend of varying types of settler had been Drought about. Not only were Dutch and English there an about equal proportions, but there were men from overseas, with their different experience and outlook, who were suited for settlement. I venture to say that no higher tribute could be paid to the work of that board than that from the late the right hon. Mr. Fischer. In referring to the board I am sorry that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) should have suggested that in superseding that board the Government did so because officials of the board were tinged with their political persuasions. I am absolutely certain that men of the type of Mr. George McKenzie and Mr. George Ross are above anything of that sort. I am only sorry that these attacks are becoming known as characteristic of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow). We have had some suggestions that the Lund Board is extremely partial to men from abroad. In 1922, out of a total of 190 allotments, 136 were given to South Africans. In 1921, out of a total of 359 allotments, 284 went to men born in South Africa. I feel that the time is ripe for a statement on this question from a responsible authority on the Government side. Unless the Government announces its policy and removes the fear from the minds of those of us who are exceedingly disturbed by the possibility of the settlement of poor whites in Zululand, I fear there is likely to be a very protracted debate. I hope the Government will see that this matter is causing what is natural concern, and I hope they will make a statement calculated to remove any false impressions that may exist as to the policy of the future.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

After the speech of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), one feels rather bashful to speak. He rapped the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) on the fingers and said he could not understand that anybody with brains could belong to the S.A.P. That is unworthy of anybody sitting on the Government benches. I do not want to make comparisons, but it would be interesting to put the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), who is a Nationalist and is proud of it, against the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who is a member of the S.A.P. This, however, is too serious a matter for us to reproach each other. I think differently on the “poor white” question than many members of the Opposition. I agree with the Minister that many of them could be a success if they could remain in Zululand, but just because they arc riot afraid, I am reluctant to send them there. We always make the mistake of being over confident.

Where do you want to send them then?

I do not want to send them to the low veld, as that will have a demoralizing effect on them. The women are courageous, they arc afraid of no dangers, but the poor people sent there will weaken and deteriorate. We know only too well what effect that will have on the children. If they cannot be sent away in summer to healthier parts, they weaken quickly. The people who go their need not all be capitalists, but the families should be sent away for at least three months in the year. We know what our people are. They will not do that. They do not easily realize that there is danger, and the consequence is that they will suffer. I warned the members of the late Cabinet not to send these people to the low veld. If we have to send people there, it should be people of another class. The Minister of Railways and Harbours proposes to build a line which will cost half a million pounds, and which will increase the value of the land through which it runs. Under these circumstances he would have done better to carry out the original plan and to let the line be paid for by the proceeds of the sale of the land. I am afraid that, when other lines are considered in parts where the products are waiting for transport, the Minister will say that money is scarce. That is a new principle which we can also apply when other lines are to be constructed. If the value of the land increases as the result of railway construction, we should pay the costs out of the proceeds of the sale of the land. I am in favour of the construction of this line.

While supporting this Bill, I would like to associate myself with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), namely, the extension of this line to the borders of Swaziland. I do so advisedly because I believe that if the Minister would consider the suggestion favourably we should be amply compensated for the additional expenditure. Swaziland, although little known to many people in South Africa, is a territory of vast resources; it possesses mineral wealth as well as agricultural wealth. The only reason why it has not been developed hitherto is because it has had no economical outlet for its products. The tract of land lying north of the Pongola and south of the Komati and bounded on the east by the Lebombo mountains and on the west by the middle veld is an area that is going to be extensively developed in the near future. At the present moment there is a scheme on hand to develop it from the cotton point of view. Cotton experts, who have recently been to Swaziland, have expressed the opinion that this area is of first-class importance to prospective cotton growers. The only outlet that there is from Swaziland is by way of Delagoa Bay, and if this line be extended, as has been suggested, it would mean that an opportunity would be given to Swaziland of sending its products through a Union port. Whatever our feelings may be as regards which Union port would benefit by the outlet, I am sure we would all agree that we would rather see a Union port benefit than see a foreign port benefit. In regard to the question of settlement in Zululand, I think that it is the duty of the Minister to consult with the Land Board of Natal on this particular question. That board consists of men who have a peculiar knowledge of the work that they have to undertake. The member for Zoutpansberg (Adv. Pirow) has made certain insinuations against the members of the Natal Land Board. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not too much to expect hon. members to try and reach a higher tone than casting aspersions against men who are, thank goodness, beyond the pale of political intrigue? In conclusion I feel that so far as the extension of this railway is concerned the initial expenditure would be well warranted, and I merely wish to associate myself with the views expressed by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and request that the Minister give this mater his most earnest consideration.

I would like to direct particular attention to the vital question of sympathetic treatment of the natives in order to secure a regular supply of the necessary labour. In Pondoland some few years back, I remember a trader planted about 100 acres of cotton. He obtained the first prize at the Manchester show for his cotton, and I believe it was the finest cotton that has ever been produced in this country. He planted cotton again the next year, but he could not get the labour to reap his crop. It seems to me that in regard to this cotton-growing industry which has been started in Natal, one of the most elementary factors is where to get your labour to reap your cotton. I was in America some years back, and I found there that the great difficulty which the planters had to face was the labour problem. It appears to me, looking at the position as one who has some little knowledge of natives, that if this is a malarial area—and it must be because there are no natives in that part of Natal—Natal will have to be very careful about the provision which is to be made for reaping the crops. I would make an appeal to the Minister again to be very careful in dealing with the native problem. I saw in a report a few days ago that Mr. Matabele Thompson, who, I believe, is associated in some way with cotton growing, had stated that he could get any amount of labour from Pondoland, and he spoke of children of thirteen or fourteen years going up to the cotton fields there and earning from £2 to £3 per month picking cotton. It may be that in times of drought, such as we are passing through, parents will allow their children to go up there to pick cotton, but in normal times they will not agree unless assured of good treatment. I would ask the Minister to remember that the industry is not dependent so much upon the man who ploughs the land and plants the cotton as it is upon getting the necessary labour at the particular period to reap that cotton. If the Government wish to make a success of cotton-planting in Zululand, it must realize if the necessary labour is to be obtained at the critical time, it must deal sympathetically with the natives of this country, and encourage them to place their labour at the disposal of the planters.

I want, first, to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) in regard to the extension of the line across the Pongola. I wish to say that the matter has been gone into. It would mean an extension of the line from ten to twelve miles and a very costly bridge. The Administration has approached the Administration in Swaziland and we found them not unsympathetic, but on account of financial difficulties they have not been able to give us the assistance which they would have cared to give us. I will, however, have the question of a point investigated. May I congratulate the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on his sudden conversion as regards the interests of the inland consumer? The hon. member has suddenly developed a concern for their interests, and he fears that a loss of £24,000 on this line is going to mean higher rates. Now I welcome the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) as a recruit to this side of the House on this point. But is he not the same hon. member who belonged to a Government which constructed the Nakob—Prieska line without referring the matter to the Railway Board, and on which a loss of £200,000 accrued? When this side of the House asked them to get special Parliamentary approval of this action he refused to act, and the loss fell on the users of the railway. I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) whether he did not as Minister introduce the Railway Construction Bill in 1922 and asked the House to pass the Lydenburg—Olifantspoortjie line on the recommendation of the Railway Board of 71 miles, which showed a loss of £17,536?

That was before I took office.

I question that, but we will take another. There is the case of the Touws River to Ladysmith line, 89 miles, and which showed a loss of £14,379. The hon. member at this stage finds that the rates are going to be increased if branch lines are constructed with an estimated loss.

Not at all.

Well, let me give another case. The Magaliesburg line, of only 50 miles in length, showed an estimated loss of £12,500. Now, Sir, the hon. member knows perfectly well that this attack on the Government is unfair.

These were all recommended by the board.

So is the Zululand line. Hon. members have made a violent attack on members on the Railway Board and allege that they have not done their duty. In fact the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) goes further and says they have evaded their duty, Mr. Speaker. This is not correct. They have done their duty and have reported to the Government and given the estimated loss on this line. The recommendation made by them is explained by the agreement between the Lands and the Railway Departments which should never have been made and was absolutely against the interest of the State. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) taxes me and states I have made a bad bargain for the Railway Administration because I abandoned that agreement. The Government in doing so were acting in the interests of the. State. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) evidently subscribes to the same doctrine of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who talks of “our” and “my” railway which “we” were going to build. This Government is not building “our” railways but the State railways, and will deal with the question from the point of view of the interests of the State, and not that of the Railway Administration as standing by itself. This attack on the Railway Board is unwarranted.

(Interruption.)

I know you don’t like it. The hon. member this afternoon followed the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and never investigated the matter for himself, and so fell into the trap. He thought that it was only the interest that had to be paid

I never said that for a moment.

The hon. member laid all the stress on the “interest.” The point is this: that not only the interest, but the whole of the capital cost of construction, must be repaid by the Lands to the Railway Department. The Government were not prepared to agree to that agreement, and that is the position which they are taking up in the House at the present time. Many speeches have been made by hon. members dealing with the question of land settlement, and I must say that in a view to the fact that the second order after this deals with a Bill in which the whole question of land settlement is dealt with, I was rather surprised at this discussion. I do not want to deal with that to-night. My hon. friend, in the Bill which he is introducing, will make a full statement on that matter. But I should like to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) this afternoon.

Do not attach too much weight to it.

I cannot forget that this hon. member occupied a very important position a short time ago, and it is only fair to the people attacked by the hon. member that I should deal with the matter very shortly. The hon. member has accused a certain section of the community, commonly known as poor whites, of lack of intelligence and mental deficiency, and has gone so far as to say that they have lost hope and lost their soul. What is the real truth about this matter? The real truth is that what these people suffer from and they are not only of Dutch extraction but include many of English extraction, is not mental deficiency but lack of opportunity. Do you want proof? Go to Kakamas where you have many men of this type. Have they not made good? I challenge any hon. member on the other side of the House to say whether these poor whites at Kakamas have not made good. It is true that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) last year in a miserable attempt made that statement, but he was rapped over the knuckles by the official organ of the Dutch Reformed Church. He was told that he had made an inaccurate statement in this House, and proof was given of that. Without previous experience of agricultural development these people had made good. What these people want is, as I say, opportunities. This attack coming from a member who is of the same extraction as I am—of Dutch extraction—has pained us. Hon. members on this side of the House, and I am sure, hon. members on the other side of the House, must have felt ashamed this afternoon, and I make bold to say that not only the Dutch-speaking members but also the English-speaking members felt ashamed, that that class of South Africans should have been attacked, in that disgraceful manner.

This is melodrama. You are getting theatrical.

You attack the character of these people, and when they are defended call it melodrama. They may be poor; but they have more character than many a man sitting in your palaces or big houses. No; the hon. member does not understand this question. He blackguards these people because they are poor. What a contrast there was between his speech and that of some other hon. members on the other side. Listen to the testimony of Mr. Rouillard. “I firmly believe that a large percentage of the poor whites can make good on cotton farming if given a chance to farm under discipline, which would conquer the feeling or feelings which in the past have helped them to drift into the ranks of poor whites. … I go further; cotton growing gives them the greatest chance to make a commercial success. I cannot agree with Col. Reitz’ suggestion that the whites would all die of fever.” Here you have a man who has gone into this area, and has assisted the despised poor whites. I say that the condemnation which has fallen from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D; Reitz) does not befit him or any other hon. member of this House. This question of the poor whites, the sinking of a part of our people, is a national question, and I make bold to say that English-speaking as well as Dutch-speaking South Africans to-day realize that that question must be tackled as a national Question; and not dealt with in a party spirit. The whole future of South Africa depends on the solution of this question. You cannot allow a portion of your population to sink, Let us realize that it is a question that both English and Dutch-speaking South Africans wish to see solved. We have a duty in this matter. Where the Government are sincerely desirous of trying to solve a problem of this nature, I do ask hon. members opposite to help us and not deal with the problem as it has been dealt with by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). The hon. member has raised the question of malaria fever. I would be the last to deny that this is a serious matter, but do not let us over-state the danger. On the one hand the hon. member states that Mr. Rouillard is prepared to sink tens of thousands of pounds in a place which is infested with disease and on the other hand he calls Mr. Rouillard an astute financier. To say the least the hon. member is not logical. Would an astute financier sink tens of thousands of pounds in settlements which he knew could not be successful because the land is infested with malaria fever. Let hon. members mark this report: “thousands of cotton reapers come from every part of the Union … though the reaping starts in the fever season … the natives return year after year.” The position undoubtedly is serious but if the necessary precautions are taken, that area can be developed and it can be developed by any good South African if he is willing to work. The test is not what type of settler he is, but whether he is a settler who is willing to work. Let the State give them sympathetic assistance. I ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) whether he seriously suggests that his planter type of settler is not to get assistance under the Government Act? Why should not other settlers who are not of the so-called planter type get assistance? I could read you a number of reports of the Railway Department has received on this question of malaria. The Assistant Health Officer of the Union himself states that the risk of malaria is moderate and with the exception of a slight epidemic in 1923 there has been remarkable freedom from epidemics in recent years. I can bring a number of such reports showing that those lands can be settled by Europeans. Let us deal with this problem from the broad South African point of view. There has been some suggestion that we refuse to acknowledge that the late Government proposed the construction of this line. It is well-known to everyone in the country that the late Government in their last opening speech in Parliament announced that they were going to construct the line and we have never disputed it. Let me make this final appeal. Let us deal with this question on broad national lines, let us do the best we can for the people of South Africa, for every section of the people, and I feel sure that this line will not long show a deficit but will show a handsome profit.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 28th August.

I move—

The necessity for further amending the Land Bank laws and the urgency of doing it this session arise out of the fact that the Land Bank has to be authorized to write off advances to co-operative societies. The facts are fairly well known. The late Government mentioned is and the management of the Land Bank also pointed out the necessity of such a step in its annual reports of 1921, 1922 and 1923. The position is more or less as follows: In 1919-’20, when the price of mealies suddenly rose, big advances were made to the mealie co-operative societies. Then the price suddenly dropped, and when the societies had to repay the loans they got into difficulties. The money was advanced to them on easy terms, repayable in five annual instalments, beginning on 1st July, 1921. Most of the co-operative societies took advantage of it, but they still have a debt of £350,000. Unfortunately most members of the societies, owing to the depression, went bankrupt. Consequently the other members have not only to pay their own debts, but also those of their insolvent fellow-members. The Government felt that it would be a blow for agricultural co-operation if they tried to recover all this money. The interest was reduced to 4 per cent., but the demand for the repayment of the whole debt would do much harm to the cause of co-operation. Consequently the Government decided to authorize the Land Bank to write off the sums owed by the societies to a maximum of 60 per cent. Individual debts were not to be written off, but only those of the co-operative societies who then will write off the debts of their members. The clause of the Bill granting this authority is No. 10. Another matter of importance to the societies is the advances for the export of products, which will help in eliminating some of the middlemen. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) takes a great interest in this matter, because it is of importance to the export of fruit to cover the costs before the producer is paid for his products. It will be necessary for the Land Bank to establish a branch overseas in order to look after its interests, and Clause 13 makes provision for that. The position of the bank in respect of the local sale of the fruit is defined in Clause 11, which stipulates that advances cannot be made solely on products, but these in future will receive much more consideration as a security for an advance. A change is also made in the management of the bank because the work has increased so much. Its activities have grown to such an extent that the manager or chairman of the board cannot any longer do all the work. The Board consists of four members, one of whom acts as chairman and manager. It is now proposed to increase the number of members to five. The chairman, Mr. Herold, who rendered good services to the bank, will be managing director, and will be freed from many of his routine duties and be able to devote himself more exclusively to matters of management. Provision is also made for the matter referred to by the Transvaal Agricultural Union, namely that the Land Bank will make advances for fencing, dipping tanks and silos. At present we can only grant loans when the work is finished. Consequently the farmers have first to borrow the money elsewhere, where they are charged a high rate of interest, and then only they can come to the Land Bank. The bank will now be placed in a position to make advances as the work progresses. It will be able to make advances for fencing, camps, and not solely for the fencing of farms. Provision has also been made for granting loans for jackal-proof fences, which will be calculated on the size of the farm. Where there is a fideicommis on the land it will be accepted as a mortgage in respect of a loan for putting up a fence, and the loan will be noted on the title deeds. The bank will also have the right to reduce the rate of interest, the intention being that the rate of interest will be kept as low as possible. In the beginning, however, a small profit had to be made in order to create a reserve fund. The bank is in such a position now that the rate of interest can be reduced, and we hope it will always be in that position. It is only fair that this reduction should also be applied to loans previously. Then I want to say that I have made provision for such cases as the one quoted by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) so that the Registrar of Deeds can note on the title deeds that there is a fencing loan on the property, which can then be transferred to any new owner.

Will you make that optional?

If the farmer wants to repay it, we shall be only too pleased. The majority of trust companies are in favour of the transference of such loan to the new owner, if that is desired. The Government also intends to create machinery whereby loans can be granted for putting down boreholes and erecting windmills, which increase the value of the property. That point was raised by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit). Then there are also formal amendments which experience has shown us to be necessary for the better carrying out of the Act. These amendments will enable the Land Bank to do still more to assist agriculture. I hope there will not be a long discussion, as the Government only embodied the most urgent points in the Bill, points on which most members are probably agreed, but provision could not be made for all the other things raised from time to time. I trust therefore, that the measure will be carried after only a brief discussion.

This Bill does not raise any great question of principle—on most of the points which the Minister has mentioned, we are agreed that this Bill is desirable. There are one or two things, however, which will have to be dealt with in Committee, but they might as well be raised now on the second reading. The Minister does not refer to Clause 2, where I see the Bill provides that he is going to take over from the Land Bank any advances made to occupiers of Crown land or co-operative societies or companies composed of land holders where such holders are unable to repay. He is going to take over and repay the Land Bank from consolidated revenue fund, and in doing so he is taking over a considerable risk. I think it would be better to allow the advances to be dealt with by the Land Bank as business advances, and not saddle the Government with obligations from their settlers of that kind, which are sometimes made occasions of pressure not altogether of a business kind. The Land Bank is going to be perfectly free to make these advances because they know that in case of trouble the loss will not fall on them but on the Government. I would like to call the Minister’s attention to Clauses 4 and 5, which give the Land Bank powers of an extraordinary kind. The Land Bank has already powers in regard to recovering its debts, and they are of a very extraordinary kind, and I think that it is undesirable that these powers should be extended. It is undesirable that it should be put in a position so different from any other creditors in the country—under Clause 4 they can hand to the sheriff an order for ejectment, and their order can be carried out without reference to a Court of law. That is a serious departure from the ordinary laws of the land, and I do not see whether the Bank should be put in that position. Why should the Bank be put in the position of simply being able to hand an order to the sheriff, who can enforce it without going to Court, and possibly without giving notice to the man who was to be ejected. Under Clause 5 exactly the same principles apply, because the Bank can give written directions to the Messenger of the Magistrate’s Court, and he can go and levy execution on movable property without the authority of the Court. Undoubtedly it is a fine position for the Bank, but what about the other creditors, there is no notice taken of them, and they may not know that execution is being levied on their debtor, and without knowing what is going on the Messenger gets an order of execution on the debtor’s goods. I do not see why this Land Bank, although a State institution, I do not see why it should be put in a position different from any other creditor in the country, by being able on its own written instructions to levy execution on a debtor without notice to the other creditors, and without any legal process. If the Bill goes through as it stands the result will be that where a man incurs an obligation to the Land Bank, no one else will give him any credit. I think this clause, although putting the Land Bank in favourable position, is going to put the people who get money from the Land Bank, in an awkward situation. Under Clause 10 the Minister has explained why provision is made for writing off the debts of co-operative societies incurred in making advances to members in 1920. We entirely accept and agree with that position, and think it desirable, but I would call the Minister’s attention that there may be societies which have met their obligations in respect of these advances, and that being so, surely it is hard that they should be left to bear the burden which they have undertaken, and societies which have not done so should be relieved. If relief is to be given, it should not merely apply to societies which have failed to carry out their obligations, but should apply to those societies who have done their best to meet their obligations, and the writing down should apply to those societies who have met in whole or in part their obligations in respect of this matter. In regard to section 11, I understand from what the Minister has said, that the Land Bank is not prepared, in cases of a cooperative company or a limited company, it is not prepared to make advances on produce alone. But under Clause 11 the Bank will be in this position if co-operative company asks the Land Bank for an advance in respect of certain produce which it holds, the Land Bank can make such advances, but if it does so the whole of the produce held by that society or by that company, or which is in transit to the company, or which is subsequently held by the company, is bound to the Land Bank by that section. Supposing you have a co-operative company which deals in tobacco, cotton and dried fruits, and suppose it desires an advance in respect of a certain amount of tobacco which it holds, and it gets that advance, then under this clause the whole of the produce which the company holds, in addition to the tobacco, and which it may thereafter hold, becomes bound to the Bank in respect of this tobacco. Surely this as a provision which goes much further and is really necessary, and gives the Bank a security to which it is not really entitled, and which is going to cripple the company receiving the advance. I think it should be limited to the produce in respect of which the advance is given. The only other point I want to mention is in respect of the Land Bank Board. The Minister did not explain why it was necessary to add a member to that Board. I do not know if the work is to be much increased for the existing Board. However, the Bill provides not only for making the present general manager into a managing director, but adds one director to the Board, there will be a new general manager to take his place, and over and above that he has added another director to the board. So that the whole effect is to add two more directors to it. I do not know what the necessity for that is. These are all the points which I want to raise, but they are points which we can discuss in Committee. We have no antagonism to the Bill—instead we welcome it, and I merely mention these points because they are points of importance.

There seems to be a lot of hurry with this Bill. There are some objections which can be dealt with in committee. I do not agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in regard to Clause 2. It is only fair that the Treasury should refund to the Land Bank any irrecoverable sum advanced with the consent of the Minister to a holder of Crown land, because the Minister has the land as a security. Clause 4 is fairly drastic, but it is an inevitable result of the existing provision that the Land Bank can liquidate a man’s estate without going to the courts. As regards Clause 5, however, I think the Minister should withdraw that. There is no reason why the Land Bank should have the right to make without notice an inventory of a man’s movable property. The Land Bank has no mortgage on a man’s movable property. Many business people even object—possibly without any grounds—to helping a man who is mortgaged to the Land Bank, and we should not unnecessarily encourage that attitude. Regarding Clause 11 I shall move later on that only those products in respect of which a loan had been granted, should become the property of the Bank. Concerning Clause 40, I admit it will facilitate the work to make the present general manager the managing director, and to appoint another general manager in his place. But that is no argument for adding another member to the Board. A body consisting of three members often works more speedily than one consisting of five. I would like to know whether the manager of the Land Bank or the Land Board asked for the addition. I do not want to accuse the Minister of helping another man “who has done his duty.” I welcome the Bill and shall support it.

I wish to thank the Minister. An hon. member asks whether I shall not speak Dutch. I speak English because I think everyone understands me, and I address the House through the medium in which I desire to address it, and I am not narrow-minded in that respect. I am very thankful to the Minister, and I think I am expressing the views of the sheep farmers when I thank him for the facilities be has given them in regard to fencing. I am glad that the Minister has accepted certain of the amendments on the lines suggested by me and discussed by me with Mr. Herold, and if these amendments are agreed to, I think that would meet the difficulty which we have to-day, where bondholders do refuse farmers to take loans. I do think that if a system is adopted whereby if a property is sold the loan goes with the property he will not find bondholders refusing a case like that, and the bank is secured in this way. It will not allow a transfer to take place before arrear rates have been paid, operating in a similar manner to that of a municipality where properties are not allowed to be transferred unless arrear rates have been paid. I hope also that this may be made optional; that where a farmer takes a loan he will be allowed to carry on the same basis as to-day, not necessarily making a charge on the property, that is, if the bondholder is satisfied and if he prefers to pay in the ordinary way. He can choose between the two. Some farmers may refuse to have an encumbrance on the property. I hope that the Minister has made that quite clear in the amendment he is moving. In regard to Clause 8, the Minister stated if I understood him correctly, that the Bill as it stands to-day provides for paddock fencing.

I will make it perfectly clear.

I am glad to hear it. It has been recommended by the Drought Commission that these facilities should be granted. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward a Bill on these lines.

The Bill does not affect my constituency as far as co-operative societies are concerned, but my constituency is interested in the fencing provision. The Bill contains provisions which I urged before. It will be a good thing if a loan for fencing or for a dipping tank on a farm under fidei-commis is noted against the property and not against the owner. Under the present system it leads to many difficulties, but under the new law I want the Minister to go further. I want to see the Bill so amended that in all cases, even where the farmer is entirely the owner of the land, the loan shall be a debt against the land and not against the person. Where for instance he goes bankrupt, the debt should not be brought into the estate, but should pass with the land to the new owner. There are people who get loans from the Land Bank who do not require them. From the bank’s standpoint, provided the security is good, there is no harm in that, but people who have to be saved from ruin have a first claim on the resources of the bank. Where the bondholder refuses to give his assent the bond should be taken over. It should help the small farmers. I do not see the necessity for an additional director, because experience has taught us that a small board works better than a big one. The additional director will have to be paid from the funds of the bank, and possibly that may hamper the proposed reduction in the rate of interest. Whether the bank has worked well with four directors, and another one seems to me to be redundant.

I am sure my hon. friend opposite has no reason to object to the sympathetic manner in which this Bill has been adopted by both sides of the House, and I would like to congratulate my friend on introducing the Bill so soon, because there is no doubt that so far as the Co-operative Societies Act of 1922 was concerned it was very difficult for a limited liability society to get advances on certain produce and for certain purposes. I am sure my hon. friend will agree to the necessary amendments in committee. It will be clear that the Bill will materially assist the limited liability co-operative companies, and it was to do that that representations were made by the companies to the late Government, and for which I gave a pledge that these changes should be introduced at the earliest possible time. There has been a certain amount of difficulty in making advances, but so far as the manager of the Land Bank was concerned, on every occasion when the matter was brought to his notice he went out of his way to do everything he possibly could, while maintaining the security of the bank, to assist the farming population. Under those circumstances I am extremely pleased to hear that it is my hon. friend’s intention to make Mr. Herold the first manager of this bigger institution. Nobody has done more to assist the farming population of this country in every legitimate manner than the manager of the Land Bank has done, and I think that is the opinion of farmers of all shades of political opinion in the Union. There was a time when the manager of the Land Bank was blamed because he would not break the law and give certain advances. This Bill will give the bank the power to give those limited liability co-operative companies throughout the country the advances they required. I think the Minister is wise in making provision for the export of produce, because there is no doubt that where produce has to be exported the members of the co-operative societies are not always in a position to pay the necessary extra charges such as freight, and so on that occur, and if produce is to go to overseas markets of course it increases in value. In Committee there will be one or two amendments, and I am glad my hon. friend is prepared to accept those amendments. There is only one other matter I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. There is no doubt, making provision for the Land Bank advances against produce, is going to increase the work of the bank, and I am one of those who believe that a much larger amount of produce will be exported direct by the co-operative societies. The position will arise where the Minister will have to consider the advisability of having a representative of the Land Bank in London who will be able to take possession of the money and repay the bank the advances which had been made and hand over the balance to the farmers.

Let him be a South African.

Surely my hon. friend has not so soon lost all his trust in the Minister that he thinks he will place a foreign adventurer instead of a true son of the soil there. But I think this question will be well worthy of consideration by my hon. friend.

Clause 13 provides for it.

Well, I am certainly glad there is a provision which will facilitate the work, and the way in which the exchange takes place, as at present it bears very heavily on the farming population. I can only again congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill, and I am sure it will very soon go through all its stages.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions in connection with the schedule. A general manager will be appointed by the board of directors with wide powers. He will act as chairman of the board in the absence of the managing director, and so on. I would like to ask the Minister whether the powers given to the board of directors are not too great, especially as that body also fixes the salary of the managing director. The Land Bank is a State institution, and in all modesty I want to ask whether the Government should not reserve that power. The bank is under the Government, and we must not give the board of directors an opportunity to escape that authority.

There is no question whatever about the usefulness of the Land Bank, and I have no doubt the eulogy passed on Mr. Herold, the manager, by the right hon. the Member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), is thoroughly deserved. I am glad to see that another director is to be added to the Board, and the Government will be well advised to investigate some of the transactions with regard to the Bank, and particularly the use that was made of it by an ex-Minister of this country, a member of the late Cabinet, who is no longer a member of the House. That matter requires very close investigation. If I am informed rightly—as I believe I am—and I have taken pains to verify the information as far as an outsider can, the Bank made advances beyond the ordinary regulations to a Minister of the late Government. I am fully aware that is a very serious charge to make. If the Bank has been used to such a purpose there should be investigation, and I trust if that investigation is made, then if the directorate and not the management is to blame—

Give us facts—don’t insinuate.

Regulations should be made that such a thing should not occur again.

It is absolutely untrue.

I hope that every effort will be made to probe it to the bottom.

Probe what?

The Government should also satisfy itself that there has been no destruction of papers in connection with the transaction.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Everyone welcomes this measure, but section 11 should be amended so that the Bank’s security is limited to the actual produce against which an advance is made. The Minister should assist the co-operative societies to sell through one channel on the other side, because now we have societies co-operating here, but when they export they are competing in the same market against one another. While we do that we shall never obtain the price which we would get for our produce if we sold through one channel.

I am glad of the reception which the Bill has obtained from all members, and the evident determination from all parts that the Bill should pass into law as soon as possible. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) raised a question regarding the provisions of sections 2, 4 and 5. In regard to section 2, at present provision is made that where an advance is made to the lessees of Crown lands the Consolidated Revenue Fund shall be liable for any default in regard to the advance, but no provision is made for any deficiency in regard to costs. The Land Bank is averse to taking proceedings against any debtor by selling his movable property, where no provision is made that the costs will be paid by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It will be made legal not only that the capital but that the costs be refunded out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The hon. member is quite right when he says that very extraordinary powers are given to the Land Bank, but this principle is already on the Statute Book. What I propose doing is just the logical result of the action previously taken.

You give power to eject.

At present the Bank has the right to sell the property, and it has to give possession to the purchaser. Surely it has the legal power to order the ejectment of the person in possession. The Bank must give possession to the purchaser, and if it has to go through the ordinary legal procedure that will swell the bill. The whole policy is to keep down the costs. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) suggest that the security should be limited to the produce in respect of which advances are made. We can consider that point in committee. We come to the constitution of the Land Bank Board. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) need not be so suspicious. The proposed amendment is made on the suggestion of the general manager, and it is to meet a difficulty that has arisen in finding a quorum, as the work of the Bank has increased to an enormous extent. The Board sits every week from Tuesday to Friday, and sometimes it is very difficult to obtain a quorum.

Is the general manager also a member of the Board?

No, The managing director will be the chairman. Then the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has mentioned this question about fencing loans. What I propose doing, as the hon. member will see from my amendment on the Order Paper to-morrow, is that provision shall be made that these advances will be annotated against the title deeds of the property. At present the annotation is merely made in the books of the Registrar of Deeds. A future purchaser will thus have notice of this liability attaching to the ground. The alteration we propose to make is this, that at present the bank can consent to these loans being taken over, but under this proposed amendment the bank will have to agree if this advance goes with the property. The owner will not be placed in a worse position. If we want the liability to go with the property, an innocent purchaser must know that this liability attaches. Then about paddock fencing, I agree that this matter is not quite clear, but the hon. member will find on the Order Paper that I propose to make it perfectly clear that the advances will be in respect of paddock fencing also. Then the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) and also the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) raised a question about the appointment of an overseas agent to deal with the disposal of the produce of exporters. As I have said, under section 13, I propose to take this power and if the bank find it necessary they can make this appointment The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) has made certain allegations. Of course, I do not know anything about them and it would be rather difficult to investigate a matter like that unless some substantive charge is made.

Why do you not ask him to make a definite charge?

Of course that is a question for the hon. member.

Libel and lie low.

He makes a charge against the general manager of the bank also.

I do not think he has made a charge. I do not know anything about the facts and there is nothing for me to defend. If a charge is made I will investigate it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 28th August.

I move—

This Bill is really part of a much larger piece of legislation which I hope to introduce next session. My predecessor has already given notice of his intentions to introduce legislation regarding settlements, and I have only added one or two things to it. I am introducing this Bill now because the work below the Hartebestpoort dam has made so much progress that a beginning can be made with the settlement, and I did not want to wait with it until next session. I want to be able to proceed with it during the recess, and that necessitates the introduction of this Bill. Its object is to put on the land a certain class of people who up till now had no chance under our settlement laws. Under the existing laws there are two classes of people who can be put on the land with the assistance of the State. One is the class which has a little capital, and such persons apply to the Land Board for a farm and are recommended by that body. Then there is the class who has a certain amount of capital and wishes to buy a farm and if the purchase is sanctioned by the Land Board, a man of that class can get a loan from the Government to a maximum of four-fifths of the value. Both these classes must have capital and experience. But there are also people who have neither capital nor experience of farming, or at least not sufficient experience. Those people may, however, be fit to be trained in agriculture and to be placed on the land later on. If they can be assisted in that way, then they will not have to pass on to the Minister of Labour. They should have the necessary training and be under supervision. They cannot be placed on a piece of land and left to themselves. They should be carefully trained and remain thereafter under State supervision. This Bill makes provision for the selection of these people. The engineers who are doing the work on the canals at the Hartebeestpoort dam have been instructed to pick out those who are best suited for such a settlement. The Forest Department have similar instructions in respect of the afforestation workers. When these people have been picked out, they will be placed under the supervision of a committee of control, which in turn will select the people who can be placed on the land. They will be under continual supervision, and only after a successful probationary period will they be recommended for the settlements. In order to establish this settlement the Bill gives the Minister certain powers to develop the lands properly, to build houses, etc., and in short, to look after the welfare of these people. A number can be placed on the land below the Hartebeestpoort dam, and the settlement will be supervised by a committee of control. It would appear that there is a certain amount of misapprehension regarding the functions of the committee and those of the Land Board. It seems that the Opposition suspects me of wanting to curtail the powers of the Land Boards. That is not so. The Bill stipulates clearly that the powers given to the Land Board will be given to the committee of control over the settlements. That is done in the first place because the Land Board is not the suitable body to supervise a settlement, and in the second place because it would be a wrong principle to let a Land Board supervise every settlement. It would not be possible to appoint one land board for a settlement below the Hartebeestpoort dam and another for the settlement in the Sunday’s River Valley with the same powers as the provincial land boards. It would be quite wrong. Up to now the Land Boards have done very good work. They consist of men of character and means and are a necessary link in the work for, as hon. members know, the Minister can only act on their advice. As they are so important it would be wrong to divide their functions in connection with settlements. The Land Boards cannot supervise the settlements, and therefore the area of the Hartebeestpoort dam will not fall under the jurisdiction of the Land Board, but of a separate body for that area. The chairman of this Board will be the superintendent of the settlement. He will be assisted by a farmer from the neighbourhood, who will have a good knowledge of local conditions, and in order to maintain the connection between the committee and the Provincial Land Board, a member of the Land Board will serve on the committee. The committee therefore will consist of three members. And these, briefly, are the principles on which this Bill is based. It will not solve the “poor white” and unemployment problems, but it will help, with a little training and assistance, to make certain people successful farmers. It will at least have the effect of taking away from the army of unemployed a number of people who can and want to work. It is the best way to make these people landowners again. It is necessary for me to reply to what has been said here this afternoon in connection with the construction of a railway line through Zululand.

I would like to point out to the Minister that he cannot refer to a past debate. He can deal with the subject, but cannot refer to the debate.

It has been asserted that the Government intends to overrun Zululand with “poor whites.” Of course that is absurd. Shortly after I took over the Department and put a stop to the granting of land in Zululand, I issued a statement in which I said that the Government would not do such a thing. We are confronted, however, with the big questions of the “poor whites” and the unemployed, and one of the methods of solving those questions is to settle people who are fit for it on the land. There seems to be an erroneous idea that there is a large area of Crown Land available. That is quite a mistake. Only in Zululand and Barberton is there good Crown land available for settlement. Under the circumstances I felt it was necessary not to open any more land until it was determined whether settlements could be established under proper supervision such as is intended by this Bill. I am still investigating the matter, and for that reason stopped the granting of further allotments I have authorized a person who has had a good deal of experience of settlements to report about the land, because if I left it to the Land Board I should have had two different reports. Naturally it is not the intention, when these settlements are established, to leave these people to their own fate. In the past people were settled in malarial areas and left there, but that was not a success, as might well be expected. When a settlement is started as contemplated in this Bill, the ground will be prepared and houses built and a good deal will be done for the people. There will also be a medical officer so that the necessary measures can be taken in regard to health conditions. Perhaps a part of Zululand will be suitable for such a settlement, but the Government will not utilize all the ground for that purpose. The land was only allotted a month or so ago. There has been no development whatsoever yet, and consequently none has been stopped. There are 235 farms. 103 of which have been granted, and 12 applications are still being considered. But then there are still 100 farms for which no applications have been received, and they are still available. How then can it be said that their development is retarded? The members of the Opposition have no cause whatever to get excited. Somebody remarked that people from the one Province should not get land in the other, but I cannot agree with that at all. Hon. members should bear in mind that all the land belongs to the Union, that we are all citizens of the Union, and that all are entitled to apply for the land which will be granted without considering the Provinces.

This Bill either says too much or it says too little. If the hon. Minister is sincere in telling us that he is going to apply this Bill in the Hartebeestpoort and kindred settlements then, with certain reservations, we have no great objections, and I would ask the hon. Minister to accept an amendment that this Bill is to be applied to such settlements or areas as have been approved of by Parliament. If he is not prepared to accept that, it will alter our attitude on this side of the House considerably. This Bill very obviously has taken its origin from certain measures we took with regard to Hartebeestpoort, but reading this Bill as it stands, it says nothing about Hartebeestpoort or closer settlement or settlements kindred to Hartebeestpoort, but says “in respect of Crown holdings.” What the Minister has said of his intentions to Zululand and the Komati areas, frightens me, because this Bill is subversive of every basic principle of our land settlement laws. The primal law regarding our Crown lands has up to now been this, the Crown lands of the Union belong to every citizen in the Union, Crown lands shall not be the perquisite of any cabinet or Minister, above all that if and when the Government decide that Crown lands shall be issued to the public, every member of the public shall be entitled to come forward and claim the right to apply for land. That is the basic principle of our Crown lands and that basic principle is done away with in this Bill, because the principle of gazetting this land, and advertising it, and notifying the public that these lands are available, and the public can apply for them is done away with at one fell swoop. The sole arbiter is the Minister. Under the present law no Government has had the right to dispose of a single square inch of Crown land unless the Government has first advertised it and given the public a chance to appear before a Land Boad and make applications for it. So jealous have the Government and the House been as to this principle that the only instance where the Minister was allowed to dispose of Crown land out of hand was in the case of “Uitvalgrond.” Such land was disposed of under a certificate from the Surveyor-General, such land could be sold to the adjoining owner. That has been the one solitary instance where the Minister or the Government was entitled to dispose of Crown lands without giving the public notice that the land was available. Let us look at this Bill. I agree with the Minister that with a settlement like Hartebeestpoort or Kopjes this probationary principle should be introduced. The Minister of Railways this afternoon became almost melodramatic about—

Order.

Let me deal with the poor white aspect of this question, because the Minister has stressed that. There seems to be a tendency as soon as I say anything about the poor white to accuse me of being a traitor to my people.

Hear, hear.

Hon. members admit it. Well let me read what no less a person than the Minister of the Interior says about the poor whites. Apparently to them the man who tells the truth about the poor whites is a traitor, but the real traitor is the man who uses the poor white to catch votes. For years I sweated blood to help the poor whites while the Minister of Railways’ sole contribution to the question was a series of demands to hold political meetings in the relief camps. The hon. member calls me a traitor for having the courage to tell the truth about the poor white. Well, now the Minister of the Interior took the trouble to write a pamphlet about the poor whites. You can buy it for sixpence at the Burger office. In this the Minister of the Interior says this about the poor whites: “Everyone knows the oft-seen phenomenon: Anyone acquainted with South Africa knows of the recurring phenomenon to be seen on our roads—the dilapidated donkey waggon—the listless driver with his slovenly wife and the half dozen unkempt and unwashed children—no need to ask whether they are poor whites—no need to enquire whether they are members of a church—or whether they can read or write—or whether the children have even set foot in a church—here you have the typical poor white family. They are all of Dutch descent, for there are no poor whites worth mentioning among the English-speaking people of this country. Such a family as I have described is typical of the whole class of poor whites. They are nomads and wanderers. They know nothing of everything and everything about nothing. They can do nothing well—they trek from farm to farm and grumble and complain whenever anyone tries to help them while the farmer in turn declares he would a hundred times sooner have coloured people working for him. They sink deeper and deeper in the mire and drift to some hovel in a town where only when driven by hunger will they make uncertain efforts at getting a job or otherwise try to keep body and soul together by begging. How great this class of mendicent has become in our country only those of us who have done social work in the cities and towns can have any idea. The poor white has become a spiritual weakling and an underling. He bears on his brow the curse of Gibeon … no need to ask if they are poor whites … or whether their children have ever seen the inside of a church.” This is not myself, but the hon. Minister of the Interior.

What are you quoting from?

From this book, you can get it for sixpence. If the hon. member sitting there would rather study his facts before making these stupid statements, insinuations and innuendos and would substantiate the charges he made in this House instead of interrupting me, he would do better. The hon. Minister of the Interior says: “Here you have the typical poor white family. They are all of Dutch descent, because there are no poor whites among the English speaking people.” When I say that I am a renegade and a traitor to my people, but the Minister can say it with impunity. The point I am stressing is whenever I say anything about the poor white I am traduced as a traitor to my own stock. He goes on to say: “They drift into hovels in the towns. … the poor white has become a spiritual weakling.” I said they had lost their souls. The Minister puts it in different words and says: “they have become spiritual weaklings.”

Well there is some difference, isn’t there?

He says: “He bears on his brow the curse of Gibeon.” I do not know what the curse of Gibeon is. The Bill applies to all Crown land in the Union. The Minister of Lands in his sole discretion can put probationers on any Crown land. Does the Minister of Lands know all the people in the country who want to be assisted on to the land? Up to the present no land can be allotted by a Minister unless it has been advertised for ten weeks in the Gazette, but that condition goes by the board and the Minister in his sole discretion can say “you are probationers and I will recognize no one else.” These people having been put on the land as probationers no other poor whites are consulted. How would the Minister be able to get hold of would-be probationers living in the Calvinia district? The Minister says the Land Board will ultimately step in. I am not questioning the bona fides of the Minister, but let me cite Zululand as a typical instance of how the law could operate. Supposing there are 600,000 acres available, the Minister will look for ten thousand probationers and he advises 10,000 of his own personal friends. An unscrupulous Minister could say “I have 10,000 friends and I am going to camouflage them as probationers. Next month I shall tell them that they are no longer probationers, but permanent land settlers.” In the meantime the Minister can lend them money, build houses for them and spend hundreds and hundreds of pounds on them, and only then need he ask the Land Board to say whether they are going to be permanent tenants. No Land Board after all this money has been spent on these people could say to the Minister “We must eject these men and call for permanent settlers.” In that way our whole Crown land system could go by the board. I do not say the Minister will do it, but the loophole is there and what has been said about the intention of the Government to put poor whites in Zululand and the Komati area, both malarial, frightens me. I have the Official Health Officer’s report on malaria.

Would a Minister put his personal friends in a malarial area to wipe them out?

Out of ignorance he might, I am trying to save the Minister from making this blunder. The Union Health Officer says “The incidence of malaria depends on the class of persons it occurs amongst; plant a colony of poor whites on a water furrow and they will get more fever than a colony of intelligent settlers will contract in the Umfolozi swamps.” I dare not say these things. It would be unpatriotic on my part to do so. I repeat that we must take the law as it stands. The Minister says that the Land Boards retain control. They do not obtain control, because the Land Settlement Act says that the Land Board comes in in connection with land that has been allotted after gazettal, whereas this land under the new Bill is not gazetted and the clause therefore does not operate. The Minister says he has made certain exceptions. The exceptions he has made, however, do not cure the matter. The fact remains that these Committees of Control are not under the Land Boards at all. If the Minister had looked up the various sections of the Lands Act he would find that Clause 3 does not apply. It applies only in the case of land that has been properly allotted after gazettal. It looks as if the Minister is limiting the rights of the Committees and putting them back under he Land Board, but it is not so in fact. Take sub-section (a) which says it shall not be competent for these Committees of Control to exercise any functions entrusted to a Land Board under section 20 of the Act. Section 20 gives the Land Board the right to allot land which has been gazetted. This Bill provides for land which shall not be allotted at all, so that the Land Boards will be functus officio in this matter. If the Minister looks at these five clauses he will find that the nett result of his Bill is to supersede the Land Boards and not put the Committees of Control in charge, but to put himself in charge.

You have not studied the Bill. Read sub-section (2) of section 1.

Oh yes, I have read it. I have already pointed out that that clause is a bit of camouflage or may work out so in practice. Sub-section (1) allows the Minister without gazettal, without notice to the public, without consulting anyone, to allot Crown land to what he may call probationers.

There is the Committee of Control.

The Committee of Control is a mere puppet. The sub-section says that the Committee of Control shall deal with such matters as the Minister shall ask them to deal with, and then it says that the Committee of Control shall have nothing whatever to do with allotments. I am inclined to think that the Minister has acted in perfect good faith, but he has not made sufficient study of the Land Settlement Acts. This sub-section gives the Minister the right to allot land to whom he likes and without consulting a soul. Section 2 seems to modify that to a certain extent by saying that may not be converted into permanent settlers without consulting the Land Board but all that again is vitiated by section 3. As I pointed out just now, once the Minister has put a lot of probationers on the land, given them wages, awards and loans and built their houses for them, there is no limit to what he can spend on them, no Land Board can say they will not make these men permanent settlers. Their hands are tied. Then we come to sub-section 4. The Minister may make regulations as to the principles and methods on which grants of probationary land can be made to settlers. I drafted the original Bill but I would not have the face to come to the House with a clause like that and that is why I have a suspicion as to the bona fides of this Act, There seems to be an attempt to slip through a broader principle than appears on the surface. When I drafted the Bill there was no attempt to usurp the authority not only of the Land Board but of the fundamental rights of the people of this country. This Bill which we have here says the Minister can make regulations as to the principles and methods upon which he can allot Crown lands and we are now faced with the principle that this Bill gives to whoever happens to be Minister at the time sole dominion, sole lordship and sole say in the granting of Crown lands in this Union, Crown lands which do not belong to the Minister, to any Government or any particular Cabinet but is the property of every person in the Union. That principle is done away with under this Bill. Another danger I see is that in the Land Settlement Act as it stands, the Minister of Lands must within a month after the commencement of each parliament place on the Table a statement of every bit of Crown land allotted. That has been done up to the present and every member of the public is in a position to see and become acquainted with all details of land settlement. But this Bill does not provide for anything of the sort, the Minister can work in the dark, he can leave the public completely in the dark because this land will not be allotted by the Board but by the Minister. The term here used is “allotment after gazettal” Every shred of Crown land may be allotted without gazettal according to this, and no papers need be laid on the Table of the House. The public of the Union and this House will know nothing of what is going on with its own land and will be left in the dark, and the Land Board may or may not know. It all depends on what Land Board you have I believe in the system of land boards, and up to now they have worked well, and you have had men of the highest standing. When I see, however, some of the appointments made by the Minister of Agriculture, about which he will hear much more before he is much older, I have my doubts as to the type of Land Board we will get in future. The Land Board has never been given such authority that it is to be the sole arbiter. It is merely a board keeping in touch with the public so that the public knows what is going on. The Land Board has no control at all here. I hold, that a probationary settlement of this sort is required—I drew up the bulk of these clauses, and the hon. Minister found them in his desk; but I would not have the face to ask the House to give me the power to say who should be the probationers. Why should the Minister have the sole say as to who is to be a probationer and who is not? Why should he get the right to say who shall be the favoured few and how long; how many millions he is going to spend, and how many thousands he is going to lend, and to perpetuate a man as a lessee. I go further, and hold that the bulk of this Bill, if applied to Hartebeestpoort, will be sound. It is my own idea. Hartebeestpoort is not Crown land in the ordinary sense, but land purchased for the purpose; and if hon. members will look into the old Hansard when Hartebeestpoort was passed they will see that it was private land purchased for a special purpose—to put a portion of the land under poor whites. Probationary settlers must also be selected by public competition, and not by any Minister. I ask again how is he going to get any probationers? Take poor whites living in Port Elizabeth, in the Transkei and so on. How is he going to get into touch with them except by notifying the public? The Minister is going to sit in his office, I suppose, and perhaps ask his friend Mr. Mostert to compile a list of probables.

Why don’t you ask your friend Mr. Bothes?

I do not know the gentleman. That remark shows the House, and I hope it will show the public, the danger of this Bill, and the unseemly levity with which this matter is being dealt with, particularly by the Labour Party, of all people. Let me remind the Labour Party that this is not State ownership. It is the negation of State ownership. It is giving a Minister the sole right to deal with Crown land as he likes. My friends have the digestion of ostriches lately, they seem to be swallowing everything.

They will not swallow you.

No, I am a bit too tough for them. I am surprised at the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) treating a matter which is against the principles of the Labour Party in such a jocular manner, and I suppose he is going to vote for it. I would also remind the Minister of Labour that he will not solve this poor while question with platitudes, or with conferences with trade unionists. The Minister of Labour reminds me of the ship’s captain who passed a vessel in distress and on arriving in harbour he reported that he had rendered what help he could with a speaking trumpet, but in spite of his efforts with that instrument the crew perished. The Minister is helping the poor whites to his utmost limit through a speaking trumpet, a loud speaker. I would like to remind the Labour Members of the fact that they are not going to help the poor whites by holding conferences and making flowery speeches.

Leave it to us.

This country cannot afford to leave it to you—you will bungle it. What we have seen of the Labour Party and the Nationalists, shows that their sole interest in the poor whites is to help them to catch votes. But I know the Minister of Lands personally, and I know he, at any rate, feels strongly on the matter, and as far as he intends to apply the Bill to Hartebeestpoort it is a genuine attempt to take over the work we left him. But if he is going to deal properly with this House he should tell us this is a Hartebeestpoort Bill, or a Kopjes Bill—he should tell us to what centres he intends applying this Bill. Large sums of money are involved—why should not the Minister take the House into his confidence?

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.