With the permission of the House, I would like to make a statement with regard to the motion standing in my name.

If there is no objection.

There being no objection,

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is still in the Hof Street Nursing Home, being attended by Drs. Sandes, Simpson-wells and Cohen. In consultation, these doctors have issued instructions that the hon. member must have absolute quiet and rest for the present. Some of his friends have, however, with the permission of his medical advisers, been able to ascertain his wishes, and I understand that he prefers taking legal action. I think I ought also to add that from authoritative statements received from eye-witnesses, it appears that this was no fight, as has been represented, but a case of assault, the facts of which will no doubt be fully elicited by a competent criminal court. Under these circumstances, I do not now intend moving the motion which stands in my name.

I move—

Since the introduction of this Bill about 12 days ago, the measure has given rise to widespread discussion in the country, being the cause, in some quarters, of a good deal of concern and even dissatisfaction. On the other hand, I feel myself in a very fortunate position, because to my mind this Bill, perhaps more than any other Bill which has been before this House for many a day, lends itself to an approach from all sides of the House on non-party lines. I think it is common cause that the Government has nothing to gain from the party political point of view by the introduction of this measure. It may even, although perhaps not to a very large extent, stand to lose. I also think it is common cause that the Opposition stand to gain nothing by its opposition to this measure, and if I am informed aright, I think there is even a possibility that by opposing this Bill they may, from a party political point of view, also stand to lose, and in some quarters, stand to lose heavily. The party newspapers have, with a very few exceptions, greeted this Bill as one which is long overdue, and not only in principle but also as far as particular provisions are concerned, they have, to a very large extent, given it their support. I have, in the short time this Bill has become known to the country, had proof positive that it meets the desire of a very large majority of the people of this country and that in some quarters, in most, at least, it has been hailed with a sigh of relief. I therefore sincerely hope that on both sides of the House hon. members will approach this measure not in a party spirit, not in a spirit of calculation of party risks and party advantages, but that they will approach it in the spirit of a broad and true South African patriotism. After all, what does it matter in a measure like this whether there is, on the one side or the other, a party loss or a party gain? No Government, of this country or any other country, has any business to place merely party considerations above the abiding interests of the country, and what is true of the Government is just as true of the Opposition. I, for my part, am willing in this matter, to trust the people that in their own interest they will see to it that no Government and no party are penalized because it does the right and the straight thing. I shall now, at once, plunge into the subject, and try to tell the House plainly what prompted me in bringing forward this measure. I think, in recent years, there has grown up a very distinct and increasingly urgent immigration problem in this country. With this problem not only the present Government has had to deal, but our predecessors had also to deal with it. They dealt with it in their own particular way— a way in which I differed from them, and I still differ from them very emphatically. Since the present Government assumed office, that problem has not only remained, but has become more acute, and it has become abundantly clear that the present Government cannot content itself with taking up merely the negative attitude, and has formulated a positive policy with regard to this matter. The problem of which I have spoken arises from three different outstanding facts, of which, I think, everybody knows by this time. The first fact is that the immigration from alien countries, more particularly from countries in eastern Europe, is increasing in volume year by year. The increase certainly was in arithmetical progression, and more than arithmetical progression; in some particular years it has even approached to geometrical progression. The second fact to which I refer, is that while the stream of immigrants from eastern Europe is increasing in volume, there is another stream, not of immigration into, but emigration from, our country. That stream of emigration includes not those new arrivals from alien countries, and especially eastern Europe, because comparatively few of those that come to South Africa leave the country, but it comprises the more permanent elements of the South African population, comprises the descendants of the original stocks from which the South African nation was drawn, and in the case of some particular countries, the home countries of the South African nation, there has been a very considerable dead loss to the country upon the figures of the immigration and emigration. This stream of emigration out of South Africa has taken place in spite of the fact that South Africa has passed through in recent years a period of prosperity such as it has not passed through previously. The third fact to which I shall refer is that a very large number of these new arrivals to South Africa belong to a class with occupations which are not required in this country in view of the economic conditions obtaining here. By far the greater number of the new arrivals do not belong to the producing class. When they come to this country, and they fill the occupations which they followed overseas, they must necessarily live not on what they produce themselves in South Africa but on what others produce. Twenty-two per cent, of those coming to the country are dependents, and for our purpose they may be ignored. Of the remaining 78 per cent, only 3 per cent, are agriculturists, and no less than 80 per cent, belong to other occupations, in following which they must exist on what others produce in the country. These are the three facts out of which arises this very distinct and increasingly urgent immigration problem. Whether there is any connection between these three facts it is not for me now to say, but these three facts stated separately are significant enough to let everyone see that we have to do here with a great problem. What makes this immigration problem so much the more serious is the fact that to some extent at least it is not altogether spontaneous, that undoubtedly to some extent —I won’t say to a very large extent—it is systematic, and that to some extent, too, the provisions of the existing immigration law are evaded in a way which it is very difficult to prevent. The immigrants, especially from eastern Europe, belong to the very poorest classes. A large number of them come to the country not with any cash whatever, but with letters of credit in order to comply with the law, and it has been found that in many such cases the funds on which these letters of credit can operate, not new money which is brought to the country, is very often money which is supplied from South Africa, and which is deposited with the shipping companies as a security against the possibility that some of these immigrants may not comply with the law, and may be rejected as immigrants, and must be taken back to their homes at the expense of the shipping companies. Further a good many of these new immigrants get admission to the country because they can show guarantees of employment after they have arrived here. It has been found that a large number of these so-called guarantees are brought to the harbour when the ship arrives with everything filled in, including the name of the guarantor except that the name of the prospective employee is left blank and is filled in on the ship after the intending immigrant has actually arrived. This shows that there is no real personal individual connection between the prospective employer and the employee, and in that way the provisions of our present immigration Act are being evaded. Examples of such guarantees have been placed in my hands. This naturally gives rise to actual unemployment in the case of quite a number of these new arrivals, not that they are ever thrown on the hands of the Government—I am glad to say they are never thrown on the hands of the Government—but that does not take away the fact that these new arrivals are certainly unemployed, and by a certain employment bureau they are helped to get work. I shall now come to some figures to let the House see the scope and the significance of this particular problem. We shall leave out of account the countries of central Europe, because those arriving in South Africa from those parts are altogether insignificant in numbers. I shall take the countries of northern and western Europe, and on the other hand the countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe. Taking the countries of northern and western Europe we find that in 1924—I take the last six years—the figures are the following. In 1924, 4,425 assumed domicile, and no less than 5,687 relinquished domicile. The year after, 4,036 arrived and settled permanently in the country, and 4,365 left. In 1926 things began to be better; 4,957 arrived and 3,725 left. In 1927 the figures are 4,579 and 3,904, so there was a still greater improvement. In 1928, 4,544 arrived and 4,029 left, so the improvement continued. Last year, 1929 the figures are even better; 4,763 arrived and 3,418 left. I might say with regard to the figures of last year that the great increase includes 725 from Belgium and Holland, and they probably came to this country in connection with our diamond cutting industry, so that if we leave that number out, then I do not think the figures of 1929 will show any change on the figures that we had for previous years. Taking the countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe, we find that in 1924 817 assumed domicile. Those that are left are insignificant, 161, 66, 70, 85, 125. Now, assuming domicile the figures are: 817 first year, 1,360 the year after, and then the following figures, 1,559, 1,940, 2,388, and last year 4,873. Now this shows that immigration from the countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe has increased during the last six years by no less than 351 per cent. Now I shall quote other figures which are, perhaps, more significant. Take the total nett gain to the country of immigrants of all nationalities. We find it amounts in the six years I have mentioned to 12,662 immigrants of all nationalities included domiciled in South Africa. In that same period, the nett gain from the main white racial stocks from which the population of South Africa has been drawn has, up till the beginning of last year, been only 800, with a special immigration from Belgium and Holland last year. We may place it between 1,700 and 1,800, as the gain to the main racial stocks of the country, and the total gain of all nationalities was 12,662. If we analyze these figures further, we see that the position is even more alarming. If we take the British stock separately, in the main white stocks from the continent of Europe, we find that up till the beginning of last year the total nett loss was between 1,800 and 1,900. If we take the figures of last year, 1929, the total nett loss of British stock by excess of emigration over immigration was 1,566. In the same period the alien element coming to the country to reside permanently showed a nett gain of 14,527. There are four countries which have contributed the bulk of these new alien elements came from Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Russia. These are responsible for 9,065. Since 1927, a considerable immigration has set in to this country from Palestine. That figure shows a tendency to grow and last year was close on 100 for one year. Now whatever the causes are of the influx of these immigrants that I have described into the country, there is one cause which, I think, we cannot ignore. That cause is an international one, and it is certainly not unconnected with what takes place in other parts of the world. In the first place, it is quite evident that for a considerable time there has been a strong movement of the peoples of eastern Europe to leave their countries to go to other countries. In the United States of America, for many years, the predominating element in the large immigrant population of that country consisted of people coming from or connected with what we call the Nordic stock, but gradually the immigration from western Europe to the United States decreased and the immigration from eastern and southern Europe increased. The increase was very remarkable. Before the quota system was introduced into that country, no less than 7 per cent, of the immigrants came to the United States from western Europe out of the 7,000,000 per annum which came from southern and eastern Europe. At the same time that striking increase of immigration to the United States was also pressing heavily on the shores of other countries, notably South America, Canada, Australia, and latterly even France. Now, taking that movement of the population from the countries of eastern Europe to other countries; taking that alone, it is only natural that there was an increase from year to year. There is another feature in the situation which is the chief contributing cause of this rapidly-increasing influx into this country. It is this: that the principal receiving countries lay obstacles in the way of immigration from those parts; not only obstacles; they have, in some cases, closed their doors practically altogether. To what extent the United States of America has done that will be shown by the fact that if we take all the immigrants applying for immigration into the United States from eastern and southern Europe, the figures amount to no less than 12,000,000, seeking admittance, and the individuals actually admitted amounted to only 20,000. If we take the countries alone upon which our Bill contemplates placing restrictions, the figures are 900,000 applied every year for admittance to the United States, and those admitted were only 15,000. Now what does this show? It shows that very likely that tide of immigration which beats against the shores of the United States of America and other countries—we can also place restrictions on immigration—is being thrown back, and comes to our shores with redoubled volume and intensity. Even more serious is this. If we do not take measures for self-protection and other countries are allowed to select the very best of these possible immigrants, South Africa will become the receptacle for those that they do not want. I shall now come to the various provisions of the Bill, and will try, as clearly as possible, to explain them to the House. The first feature of the Bill is that it divides the countries of the world into two separate groups, the one group consists of those countries upon which we place a restriction so far as immigration is concerned, and the other group consists of those which, so far as immigration is concerned, we leave unrestricted. Broadly speaking, the unrestricted countries, according to the Bill, consist of the communities consisting of the British commonwealth of nations; further, the United States of America, and then broadly, the countries of western Europe. Those countries are, according to the Bill, unrestricted. But all the rest of the world belongs to the group of countries where we place restrictions on immigration. A feature of the Bill is that we restrict immigration, but we propose to restrict immigration from those restricted countries, by way of a quota which shall not be exceeded from year to year. That quota will be 50 for all countries without distinction. I may say that I have considered very carefully whether we could not raise that quota to a figure higher than 50, and I found if we did that the object of this Bill would, to a very large extent, be defeated. That is why we have fixed it at a figure of 50, for all countries of the world which are restricted. I may further explain under the Bill the position of immigrants to this country, if they fall under a particular quota, under a quota not of the country where they were last domiciled, but under the quota of the country of their birth; now that means, to take a concrete example, that if a Scotsman was born of Scotch parents, living in Lithuania—which is a most unlikely event—if a Scotsman should be born in Lithuania of Scotch parents, under this Bill he will fall under the quota of Lithuania, For the purposes of the Bill, he would be a Lithuanian, but if a Lithuanian is born of Lithuanian parents in Scotland, for the purpose of this Bill he would be classed as a Scotsman. On the other hand, if Lithuanians go and live for so long, say, 20 or 50 years in some part of England, and they then come to South Africa, they fall under the quota of Lithuania. Now the third feature of the Bill is to make provision for what I call the unallotted quota of 1,000. That unallotted quota is entrusted for allotment to a board for which this Bill makes provision. The object of the exclusion of this unallotted quota is that South Africa shall not lose, or stand a chance of losing, any good desirable immigrants that may come to South Africa from any part of the world. I must further explain that this unallotted quota of 1,000 is not necessarily allotted by the board every year. They may allot the whole of 1,000; they may use only 500 or 200, or there may even be years when they do not exercise the powers under the Act at all, and none of the 1,000 is allotted to immigrants of any country. But the House will have some idea of how this unallotted quota may be used and become necessary, if I explain to them that there may be, in the first place, South Africans, real South Africans, who have left our shores and who have settled in other countries from where immigration to South Africa has been restricted by this Bill, and the parents, having become naturalized, the children naturally lose their British nationality and lose their South African nationality and domicile. Take, for instance, the case of the Argentine Republic, where a good many South Africans of Dutch extraction having known no other country than South Africa, are living there at present. The position may arise that the quota of 50 for the Argentine Republic is exhausted, and unless we make some provision, those South Africans, if they want to return to our shores, will be debarred. Now, the unallotted quota must make provision for them. We shall find British subjects scattered through all countries which we propose to place under restriction. It is quite possible that the quota of some of these countries may be exhausted, and British subjects living in those countries may like to come to South Africa, but because they were born in those restricted countries, they will be debarred from coming. The unallotted quota must be free to make provision for them. There may be others who are living scattered in those countries over which we have placed restrictions, but are related to the main racial stock, the original stock, out of which the South African nation has been built. There may be Dutchmen, there may be Danish, or there may be German or other people living in these countries, and the children, because they are born there, will be debarred from coming under the quota, if the quota of that particular country is exhausted. It is necessary in some other way that we should make it possible for them, because they are desirable immigrants, to come to South Africa. Moreover, there may be a good many people living in this country whose wives and minor children may be overseas, and who may never have been in South Africa. It is quite possible that, because the quota of their particular country of origin has been exhausted, the wives and minor children will he debarred from coming and joining their husbands. The unallotted quota must be free to make provision for such an eventuality. Further, we may start industries in this country. It may be possible that the experts we require in those particular industries, and expert workmen, can be found only in some of those other countries which are under restriction. If we do not make provision by the unallotted quota, they will be debarred from coming to South Africa, and there may be countries which are now placed under this Bill under restriction, and placed under restriction simply because their population is a very mixed one. There may be very desirable elements we would like to admit, but those that we wish to keep out may be present in such numbers that we would defeat our own object if we leave these countries unrestricted. It is possible that we could admit a good many of these under this unrestricted quota. As far as the board is concerned, we have made provision for it simply because we want an independent body—independent of any political opinion. If the Bill passes into law it is not my intention to appoint to the board any person from outside the public service, but to appoint, for instance, as one of the members, the Director of the Census, a man who has a general view of the population and other conditions in the country. Further, a man, for instance, like the Director of the Land Bank, who knows what the agricultural conditions of the country are, and the requirements of the country. Another I am thinking of, it the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, simply because he knows what the requirements of our industries are and what immigrants would be desirable and what not. Further, we should have a representative of the Labour Department, because he would be in a position to know what the labour requirements of this country are. If the Bill becomes law, our immigration laws would practically remain unaltered, as far as immigration is concerned, from those countries not placed under restriction.

Will this board report to Parliament ?

Yes, they will report from year to year regarding those admitted, and the grounds on which they are admitted. The present Act would still prohibit undesirable immigrants, but if this Bill is passed, the whole character of our immigration from the restricted countries would undergo a radical change—instead of being merely prohibitive as far as undesirable immigrants are concerned, it would be essentially selective. Both as regards the quota of 50 and the unallotted quota, we would be in a position, from year to year, to select the very best from those who apply to come into the country.

Who would make the selection ?

As far as the quota is concerned, the department, and so far as the unallotted quota is concerned, the board. In drawing up the measure, I did not slavishly follow the example set by any other country in the world. There are two countries where the quota system of immigration has been introduced—the United States of America and Australia. As far as those countries are concerned, I have adopted the general quota principle, but I have tried to apply it in our own way according to our own South African circumstances and requirements. In the first place, the expedient of an unallotted quota is altogether new. Further, what I propose in the Bill differs in some respects very materially from what we find in Australia. The Australian law is, in its character, absolutely arbitrary. Our law does not give the Government such wide powers—they are statutory powers and circumscribed. In Australia the Governor-General is empowered to prohibit altogether, or to restrict merely by proclamation to whatever extent he may please, immigration from any country or persons belonging to any race, or following any particular occupation. These are the widest possible powers we could imagine. I think I am right, therefore, in saying that the difference between the Australian quota system and ours is that the Australian system is absolutely arbitrary, whilst the powers given to the Government in our Bill, are circumscribed and statutory. Our system, again, will differ very materially from the system of the United States. In the first place, the American system is very much less liberal than the one I propose. There is no country in the world which is not restricted by the American quota, and in many cases they are restricted very severely. Further, the American system differs from ours insofar as it is based on the fundamental principle, as far as I can gather, that the racial composition of the people of the United States shall remain unaltered from what it was at a particular date. It is the principle of an unaltered or unalter able composition. First of all, the United States provided that not more than 3 per cent, of the alien element domiciled in the country in 1910 could be admitted as immigrants in any particular year. They found this most unsatisfactory, however. They did not gain their object, and therefore, three years later, the Act was revised, and, instead of 3 per cent, being admitted, they admitted only 2 per cent., and, to find a satisfactory basis, they went back from 1910 to 1891. By that alteration immigration was restricted most severely. Two years ago another change was introduced, bringing the American system a great deal nearer to what I propose in this Bill. It makes American immigration much more selective than it was before. Now I may add here in passing that it is impracticable for us to follow the example of the American quota law simply because we have not got the census figures to find a satisfactory basis; the only census figures which can help us in any way are as recent as 1911, and that would not help us in any way. I may here refer to a suggestion which has been made as to the possibility of adopting another principle upon which we could control immigration—a suggestion which has been made in the resolution which has been passed at many places during the last few days—

All I can say with regard to this suggestion is that, in the first place, this principle has not been adopted by any immigrant controlling country in the whole world. There are countries which have a good deal of experience with regard to the control of immigration, such as the United States of America and Australia, which have been casting about for years to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the immigration problem, but none has decided to adopt this particular method. But, further, I wish to say that from the administrative point of view, such a measure would be altogether hopeless, and from the point of view of the peace and contentment of the people of South Africa, I would add that it would do positive mischief. I can understand in a system like the one I have adopted in this Bill, where there may be a large number of applications from a particular country for admission into South Africa, where the official concerned or the particular board should sift all these and select fifty or more of the best among those applicants. But I cannot understand a system whereby every particular new and prospective immigrant who comes from oversea must be examined as to his character, qualifications and conduct. Where must it be done? Must it be done by our representatives overseas; must it be done by the British consuls of whose services we avail ourselves in those countries which are under restriction? If that is so, where is the uniformity of action? How can we leave in the hands of officials a matter of that nature which affects the destinies of South Africa, and where that official has never yet set eyes on South Africa? But if it is to be done in our harbours after the arrival of these immigrants, that would undoubtedly give rise to a position and state of affairs which none of us would like to see adopted. Robben Island will have to be used in future for something else than it is being used for now, and it would undoubtedly become in a much worse degree an Ellis Island as we have the Ellis Island of the United States. But why speculate as to the results of the application of such a measure? We have had something similar in this country, only a few years back. My predecessor in office tried in the same way to control that immigration which he considered undesirable immigration from overseas, from eastern Europe, and he certainly did not go so far as to institute an enquiry as this resolution asks, into qualifications, character and conduct. His method was much simpler; he simply took it for granted that those coming from that particular part of the globe were more or less unsuited to immigration for South Africa. But what did that lead to? If the hon. member will get up and confess in this House, he will confess to many a weary day and many an anxious night, and he will certainly confess to very great confusion in the minds of the officials who had to carry out these instructions, because they never knew exactly where they were. As I say, the problem from the administrative point of view of such a system is difficult, and would be absolutely hopeless, and from the point of view of the peace and contentment of the people of South Africa, would be absolutely mischievous. I would ask the unfavourable critics of the Bill to remember two things which we may not forget in this connection, and the first is that every nation in the world has an undisputed right to control its own destiny by controlling its own composition. Two years ago a very important world conference on population was held in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations. I have taken the trouble to read very carefully the report of the proceedings of that conference, and I can give the House the assurance that there was not a single delegate from any country who disputed this inherent right of the nations of the world. In 1918, I wish to remind hon. members, a conference was held in London representing Great Britain and all the dominions. At that imperial conference a resolution was passed which ought to throw light on the inherent right of every nation. That conference decided to recognize the inherent and inalienable right of Great Britain and all the dominions to exclude immigrants who came from other communities and belonging to the commonwealth; in other words, to exclude even British subjects. That is the right every dominion has as over against another dominion. If it may exclude British subjects by its immigration laws, how much more should it not have the right to exclude immigrants coming from alien countries

What about the basis of population ?

I shall give the hon. member all the facts. The second thing I wish to remind the critics of this Bill of, is that in controlling immigration to this country, we are merely following the trend of the world’s historical development in this respect. There was a time when immigration from one country into another was absolutely uncontrolled, and it remained uncontrolled for so many generations simply because that was justified by the circumstances which obtained. The circumstances of the world at that particular period formed a sort of natural protection to the various nations of the world. It was very difficult at that time to get from one country to another. The new countries of the world existed in such circumstances that it was very difficult to exist there, and therefore naturally only those persons went to those countries who were the most courageous, and had the most initiative, and who were practically the strongest. To a very large extent countries like South Africa and the United States were peopled by people who had aspirations, because they had ideals, because they were faithful to their conscience. Therefore by that process of natural selection these countries received the very best, and not the weakest element. Circumstances have changed altogether nowadays. The reasons why people emigrate from one country to another to-day, now that it is easy to travel, and now that one can travel all over the world in comfort— the reasons are economic, and those come to new countries chiefly, not in every case, but chiefly, who have shown that they are not able to compete successfully against their compatriots in their own country. Therefore almost in every country of the world the control of immigration has become a very important point in national policy, and a good many countries place obstacles in the way of immigrants of a certain type, and raise barriers against immigration from certain countries. France is placing restriction on immigration from eastern Europe, Canada has its list of preferred and non-preferred countries, Australia prohibits altogether immigrants of certain countries, and has placed a quota restriction on immigration from other countries, and the United States of America has introduced the quota system under which falls almost every other country of the world. Is there anything unjust and illiberal in that? If we are unjust and illiberal, then the whole world must have become unjust and illiberal. We find ourselves in the company of the other nations of the world. Apart from what I have already mentioned, there are three principles upon which the provisions of this Bill are based. The American quota law is based on one principle only; our Quota Bill is based on three such principles. The first principle, I would say, is the desire of every nation in the world to maintain its development on the basis of its original composition. In the sphere of the individual there is such a thing as a desire on the part of the individual to remain himself. There is a desire to maintain his identity, whatever may be the history through which he passes. Nations also naturally desire to maintain their identity, and because that is so, in our immigration Bills, we could not exclude such countries as Holland, or France or the British commonwealth, or Germany, all countries from which the original stocks constituting the South African nation have been drawn. The second principle to which I have to refer is that of unassimilability. Here we have our counterpart in the world of the individual and the home. Every home has got its own character, every home has got its own atmosphere, its own aspirations, its own outlook, its own social structure, and it is only natural for the head of every family to decide to preserve that identity, or to preserve that character and outlook. Therefore in every home by preference you would welcome not the stranger with a different outlook, but your own kith and kin. Nations desire to preserve homogeneity, because every nation has got a soul, and every nation naturally desires that its soul shall not be a divided one. Every nation considers from all points of view that it is a weakness, if in the body of that nation, there exists an undigested and unabsorbed and unabsorbable minority, because that always leads to all sorts of difficulties. We in South Africa have had our racial problems, and I think we would all agree in saying that South Africa cannot add a number of racial problems to those we already have. Acting on this principle of unassimilability, we could not otherwise but include in those countries unrestricted the United States of America, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Belgium and the new Austria, which is almost exclusively German. The third fundamental principle is what I would call the desire of every nation to maintain its own particular type of civilization. There is not only one civilization; there are several. It is not to say that one civilization is inferior to the other; one is not necessarily inferior to the other. The only thing is that these civilizations are different. Everybody will admit that the civilization of Asia is different, though more ancient, from that of Europe, and I think everyone will admit that the civilization of eastern Europe is, to a very large extent, a different one from the civilization of western Europe. We are called upon in South Africa to maintain western civilization, and the standards of western civilization, and it is difficult enough, as it is, for us to perform our task in that respect, and I do not think that we should, as a South African nation, further complicate our difficult task by uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration. On this principle which I have last mentioned, that of the maintenance of a particular type of European western civilization, we have included Italy, Spain and Portugal, who, generally speaking, have the same outlook as the peoples of western Europe, and are geographically so situated that it would be difficult to exclude them from the others. Let me again emphasize that the passing of the quota restrictions on some countries of the world does not in any way imply a reflection on the racial composition or on the culture of the peoples living in those countries. If those principles which I have enunciated did imply such reflection, I am sure that they would not be internationally recognized, as they are to-day. America restricts very severely even those countries from which its original stocks were drawn. Taking the countries of western Europe, there are annually now not less than 521,000 applicants for admission, of which America admits only 140,000. Does that mean that America casts a reflection upon western European civilization? There are no less than 233,000 Englishmen born in Great Britain who seek admission to the United States every year. America admits only 62,000. Does that imply a reflection on the part of America on the racial composition or the culture of the people of Great Britain? Certainly not. Great Britain does not look upon it in that way. Neither does America nor any other country. Why, if we introduce a similar condition, should we be suspected of casting any reflection on the racial composition or culture of any country? I think the countries of eastern Europe which have been more particularly mentioned in connection with this Bill and the discussion on this Bill, would be the first to recognize the soundness of this principle upon which our Bill has been built up. Since the war, the whole of eastern Europe has undergone a very rapid change. It has been reborn. On the ashes of the pre-existing Russian and Austrian empires there have arisen quite a number of nationalities of homogeneous communities which are self-governing to-day; which have their own boundaries. On what principle was this re-division of eastern Europe made after the war? On no other principle than the one I have enunciated, the principle which is at the bottom of the Bill, that every nation should, as far as possible, be or become a homogeneous community. Some of these nations have gone so far in the application of this principle that they have exchanged on a vast scale their populations. Take one example. Greece has imported within its borders 1,500,000 Greeks, living in adjoining territories—Bulgaria, Roumania and Turkey—and it has sent out from its own borders an almost equal number of those elements who have been born there and lived there all their life. This has been done in accordance with this principle of national homogeneity. Where the nations of eastern Europe have followed this principle to its logical conclusion, they would be the last to prevent South Africa doing the very same thing. In conclusion I would refer to an agitation which has been started in the country, and which has been raging in many parts during the last few days. The resolution which has been passed at the meetings held is—

All I can say with regard to this resolution is that never has a conclusion been based more surely upon erroneous premises. The Bill has been called unjust and illiberal. I have enunciated all the principles upon which we proceed and upon which other countries have proceeded. If we are unjust and illiberal, it is because we cannot help ourselves; all the world is unjust and illiberal. When the resolution says that the Bill is unjust and illiberal because it discriminates between various races and creeds, all I can say is that if we aim at particular races or particular creeds, we are setting about our business very crudely and very badly. If we aim more particularly at one race—the Jewish race—then I ask what about the 120,000 Jews living in Holland upon whom we have placed no restrictions? What about the 300,000 Jews living in England unrestricted? Let us take those three countries I have mentioned. In Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, we find that of the population 7.7 per cent, are of the Jewish persuasion; that no less than 85 per cent, are Roman Catholics. In Poland we find that only 10.5 per cent, are Jews; only 63 per cent, are Roman Catholics. In Latvia, 4.5 per cent, are Jews, and no less than 58 per cent, are Protestants. Now if we aimed at placing a restriction not upon a race, but upon a country—if we aim at a particular race or creed—then all I can say is, it looks as if we have been aiming at Protestants and Roman Catholics. In conclusion, on every side this Bill is more in the interests of the Jewish community of South Africa than in the interests of anybody else. If I understand the mind of the Jewish community aright, I think there is one thing about which they are more anxious than anything else. It is this, that they, in this country shall always be treated on a footing of equality; that they shall have equal opportunity with every other person in this country, and that they shall be allowed to participate to the fullest extent, in the national life of South Africa. I think that that is what is uppermost, and has always been uppermost, in the minds of the Jewish community. Now what I would say is this: That that state of affairs will certainly not be ensured merely by an admission to their numerical strength, simply because the Jews in this country, as in most other countries, are very much in a minority. The day will never come when they will preponderate in this country in spite of unrestricted immigration. Therefore, they cannot ensure what is uppermost in their minds, and what they desire, by additions to their numerical strength. There is only one way of accomplishing that ideal to which they cling, and that is by keeping down the feeling of hostility in this country among other elements of the population which, in other parts of the world, has led to such disastrous and dreadful results. But a Government, after all, cannot go further in any direction than the sentiment of its own supporters, and the sentiments of its own people will allow. There is in South Africa to-day, I am glad to say, very little anti-semitism. I think the people of South Africa, generally, belonging to all parties and sections, desire to give to the Jewish people in this country full equality in every respect, every opportunity which every other section enjoys, full participation in our national life, and I am glad to say that we are still in that position to-day in South Africa to appreciate, and appreciate very highly, what the Jews have done for South Africa. Certainly this stream of immigration from eastern Europe must stop. Already with this indiscriminate influx into our country, we see a nervousness arising among all sections of the population, and if measures are not taken, as we propose to do here in this Bill, then that nervousness might actually develop into actual, open hostility. When that hostility arises the Jewish community in this country has everything to lose. The Bill, therefore, which I propose to this House, is in the interests of every section of the population, and not the least, in the interests of the Jewish community. It is a Bill which is, to my mind, in the interests, in the true interests, of the peace and happiness of our country.

I do not intend to reply to the elaborate statements and figures given by the hon. Minister in making his very important statement to the House in support of this Bill. I believe that in the course of this debate hon. members who will follow me will have an opportunity of discussing more fully the statements which have been made by the Minister. I would only refer to one appeal which he has made to this side of the House. He made an appeal for the support of this measure on the grounds of patriotism and the love of country. Let me say to the hon. Minister that the party sitting on this side of the House, as the past history of our national life will show, has never been wanting when there has been a national emergency. They can certainly not be accused of want of patriotism, or in need of the special appeal which has been made to them. If they come to the conclusion that this measure is in the interests of South Africa, that same spirit of patriotism will also be applied. I would just say this in regard to this Bill. I should like to discuss the Bill in its main aspects. This is a Bill which places great restriction upon the immigration of people into this country, and it proposes to give the Government more powers of control of such immigration. I agree with the Minister that it is the fundamental right of every country to say who shall enter across its borders as permanent residents, and who shall not. This fundamental right is also vested in the Union of South Africa. Such a right, of course, might be qualified by international edict. I hope, in regard to this Bill, that this aspect of the question has been duly considered by the hon. Minister. From the national point of view, I think that this Bill is a very important measure, owing to the fact that it draws a clear and distinct discrimination between the several countries. One set of countries is given distinct preference over another set of countries, and the balance of countries is not scheduled. I admit that, to a very great extent, this mode of legislation in regard to immigration, as the Minister himself said, is a new departure. In many respects, this Bill contains novel principles which have not been adopted in the case of legislation in other parts. Therefore, that is one of the reasons why this measure should be very fully considered before it is finally adopted in its present form. I readily admit that our first duty is to our country and our people. From that principle not a single hon. member on this side of the House will depart. At the same time, we have also to recognize that with the wonderful development of science and communication the world is getting smaller. As a result, there is more acute competition economically between the different nations of the world. So that no country, however patriotic, can lightly afford to pass legislation in a form which may tend to alienate sympathy and goodwill, if such can be avoided by a more acceptable form of legislation. With our growing products for export South Africa cannot afford to create ill-will with other nations, but the history of negotiations between nations teaches us that wherever there are difficulties between nations the first thing is to avoid formulas by which one nation might hurt the feelings of another, so nations seek ardently to create international good-will. It is true that among the smaller nations there is developing a spirit of national pride far in excess of what existed fifty years ago. I submit, therefore, that in passing legislation of this kind we cannot lose sight of these facts. The United States of America are an outstanding example to us. Shortly after the war the United States began to consider its immigration laws very seriously, this eventually leading up to the quota restrictions of 1924, but there was no panic and no hurry. Although the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the quota law, it was vetoed three times—twice by President Taft and once by President Wilson, although the law was passed by a large majority of both branches of the Legislature. This shows how very carefully the United States approached this problem. When it was found that the 1921 law did not work satisfactorily, the question was referred to a select committee of both Houses, and for a full year the matter was considered by the Legislature. The select committee brought up a report in terms of the present law of 1924. That report was submitted to public scrutiny and comment for more than a year. Alternative schemes were put forward, but eventually the law incorporated the report to the select committee. The American system is an actual quota based on a percentage applicable to all nations, but the Bill before us contains an arbitrary division between different countries. I am making no invidious comparisons, but if one wished to do so one could easily prove that there are countries outside the schedule which can compare very favourably with some of the countries in the schedule. The so-called quota of fifty applicable to nations which are not in this schedule is also an arbitrary principle, but in practice it can be nullified, because in terms of Clause 7, sub-section (a) the Minister may make regulations prescribing the qualifications which persons born in any country not specified in this schedule must possess and the requirements with which they must comply in order to be permitted to enter the Union. If the Bill becomes law in its present form, many non-scheduled countries may view it, not as establishing a quota for admission, but as bringing into operation a total prohibition, because the quota may be nullified entirely under the clause I have quoted. I have endeavoured to submit to the House how this Bill may affect the interests of South Africa in the eyes of countries which are discriminated against—

Repercussions, in other words.

I come to another difficulty which unfortunately touches our internal relationships with a body of people who form part of the permanent population of South Africa. Since the publication of the Bill the Jewish community in our country have been greatly perturbed. We know what a highly sensitive and sentimental people they are. The reason for this is quite understandable, and I need not discuss it here, but their complaint against the Bill is that in actual practice it will principally affect their race. If we look at the immigration figures for the last four years, it will be difficult to deny that such would be the case. It is also difficult to deny that were it not for the growing immigration from Lithuania, Poland and Russia, probably this Bill would not have seen the light of day. It is natural under the circumstances that the Jews of South Africa who emigrated from those countries, or whose parents came from those countries, view this Bill as a stigma on their race. Now I submit to the Minister that when legislating on such a delicate and important subject, which not only stirs up feeling outside the country, but also affects a considerable section of our own community, I do not think Parliament can go wrong by giving consideration to the representations and feelings of such a large section of our people who say they are directly interested and affected by this Bill. We may not be able to meet their views, but we are considering their views and complaints and we cannot deny them due consideration and attention. Race and national pride, to my mind, is commendable in every nation, and I hold firmly to the belief that the greater pride a South African has in his origin, to that degree is he a better South African, and if this Bill were to discriminate against the United Kingdom, Holland, France and Germany, the countries of origin of practically all of us sitting in this House, would our race pride not be stirred? And that, in spite of the fact that we have practically developed a typical South African nation in South Africa. No, I do not blame the racial pride and susceptibilities of our Jewish community. They have a history—it may be chequered, but it is one of which they need not be ashamed. I am not pleading here for the Jews of those countries the influx from which will mainly be stopped, but I have a right to stand up here and say that the Jewish citizens of South Africa, of all political parties, have always been reckoned and acknowledged to be worthy members of each section, and they come to tell us that this Bill has fallen upon them as a bolt from the blue, especially in the form in which it is drafted. I would say in addition that many of our Jewish citizens recognize that, owing to political development in eastern European countries during recent years to which the Minister referred, and keeping in view the immigration figures from those countries, a greater measure of control and restriction should be exercised. They also recognize that the majority of the people of South Africa is in favour of such restriction, but as far as I know the sentiment of Jews with whom I have come into contact, what they feel is that this Bill has erred in the method how this is to be brought about. I think the Jewish people are the last to take up an attitude in this country which may rouse anti-Semitic feeling, and I wish to repeat the words the Minister has said—

Just to bring it home to the Minister, I would like to relate to him what happened to me in an interview with a very prominent South African Jewish citizen, a man who is now advanced in years, who has devoted practically his whole life to unselfish public service, and has worked for the welfare of the people, educationally and economically, and has done so irrespective of race or creed, and I attach a great deal of value to what he says, said that his main objection to this Bill was that it contained an underlying stigma against his race, and he considered it not above the wisdom of Parliament that in the schedule of discrimination to make it as little objectionable to his people by incorporating therein the British Commonwealth of Nations, Holland, Germany, France, and then endeavouring to put all the other countries on a percentage basis. That statement made a deep impression on me in two directions; in the first place, there was the implied admission that the main stock from which the bulk of our population had come should not be jeopardized by immigration from other countries, and the other point which became equally clear to me was, there is, as it were, a belief in the minds of the Jewish community that this Bill, in its present form, does cast a stigma on their race.

Do you find it in the Bill ?

In effect; in the application of the Bill. According to the census of immigration, this Bill will completely keep out the Jewish element from certain countries, and that, I think, is looked upon as a stigma on their race.

made an interruption.

I have already said that I will not now discuss the Minister’s figures; other hon. members will deal with his facts and figures. The Minister tried to brush away, rather lightly, the opposition of the Jewish community to this Bill, and I am trying only to explain to the Minister what this Jewish citizen of standing conveyed to me in the form of a conversation. Let me say that this belief of the Jewish section of South Africa would not be removed by the ruthless passing of the Bill in all its stages. I have endeavoured to place before the Government my criticisms of the Bill, and endeavoured to show that it requires serious consideration. I have tried to emphasize the necessity for further serious consideration whether this Bill in its present form should be adopted. I have also endeavoured to state the position of our Jewish citizens, and I have also stated that on this side of the House we stand by the principle that the original stock of our country should be protected, and not allowed to be eventually overbalanced by immigration outside the source of our original stock. We thoroughly agree that this can only be attained by a carefully-thought-out measure amending our immigration law. We feel that an alteration can only be effectively attained by referring a Bill such as this to select committee before the second reading. I have suggested this course, but the Government is not prepared to take it. I will, however, ask the Prime Minister seriously to reconsider his attitude. In a matter of this sort, every avenue should be explored with a view to the best form of legislation being secured. As regards the sentiments of our Jewish citizens, what harm can result from their being heard before a select committee? It would give them an opportunity of suggesting to the Minister an alternative scheme, if one can be found, which may to a great extent meet their objections to the Bill as it now stands. The Prime Minister must not forget that this Bill only saw the light of day ten days ago. Not an inkling was given to any part of our population that a matter of such great importance was going to be brought forward. Nothing was said in the Governor-General’s speech of any intention to bring forward such a Bill. The Stellenbosch election was contested, and not a single word was said to the effect that the introduction of such a measure was meditated. Ten days ago this Bill was sprung upon the country, and the Jewish community then learnt for the first time that such legislation was contemplated. The Prime Minister may say to me: “If you feel so strongly on the subject, why don’t you move the reference of the Bill to a select committee ?” I do not move for a select committee, because, in the first place, the Government has already indicated that it is not prepared to accept such a motion. If I were to move that a step of this kind be taken, and if I did so without the consent of the Minister, it would at once drag this delicate subject into the arena of party politics. I respond heartily to the suggestion of the Minister that if we can possibly settle this matter apart from either side endeavouring to make political capital out of it, we should do so. A select committee of this nature can only do good if it is appointed with the consent of the Government. In a matter of this delicacy and importance, a mistake cannot be made if this consideration is shown for the sentiments and feelings of the people affected, and not only of the Jewish people. I submit that the scheme adopted in this Bill might, perhaps, be remodelled so as not to discriminate so severely against the nations not incorporated in the schedule. This Bill meditates the restricting of the influx of Europeans from certain countries. It raises the large issue that we must strengthen the original stock of our country. As it stands, the Bill restricts the immigration of Europeans, but is there any special provision in the Bill which gives the least encouragement to immigration from those countries from which the large majority of the people of South Africa have sprung? In the past, the question of immigration has always been the football of party politics, and I doubt very much whether this Bill would have been necessary in its present drastic form, if we had come to an agreement in the past to have a settled and sound policy of immigration. It is a matter of common concern to establish a sound policy of immigration, and to strengthen that stock on which the bulk of the population of this country has been founded, and I think we should be glad that an opportunity has been given of dealing with the question. I hope the Minister will take into serious consideration the plea I have put forward for the giving of opportunities to the people who say they are directly concerned of stating their case before a select committee which will not be prejudiced by the passing of the second reading of this Bill, and which will not be prevented from suggesting an alternative scheme. I hope the request I have made will be duly considered by the Prime Minister.

I will endeavour to deal with this matter, not from the point of view of sentiment, not from a racial point of view, but from a purely South African standpoint, and I will try and show that the passage of this Bill is likely to affect South Africa adversely. I wish to refer to a number of points made by the Minister. I was glad to notice the Minister appealed to the House to deal with the measure from a non-party point of view. I hope hon. members on each side of the House will feel they have the fullest liberty to vote on this question, apart from purely party considerations. I come to the reason why the Bill has been introduced. The Minister has given us figures, not as to the validity of objections to immigration, but a number of general figures which have appeared in the press from time to time, showing how the British races in South Africa have been dwindling. I am sure it is very refreshing to us to find him so concerned about this matter. He has shown us that year by year, since 1924, the immigration figures have become more and more alarming, and that it is imperative to take action. But in the last two years the figures he shows are not so alarming. The question is this: if, since 1924, the Minister has been alive to the importance of this issue, why has he waited so long before taking any measures? How is it that this matter was not made an issue during the general elections? Further, how is it that in the Governor-General’s speech which deals with important matters, nothing at all was said about this Bill? The Minister would tell us that he had to keep the matter quiet because of a possible hasty influx of immigration. But it is an insult to the intelligence of the Minister to assume that he believes that such a thing could happen. He surely knows that it is impossible in a matter of a few weeks, to have any serious influx. I can only come to one conclusion: that something has happened in the last few weeks to induce the Minister and the Government to introduce this Bill. The Minister has spoken of the fact that in every part of the world legislation of this kind has been introduced. He has spoken of America, but he has evidently forgotten that the United States of America has a population of 120,000,000; that Canada is receiving a large influx; that Australia is much more developed than we are. Does he mean to say that with our population of 1,800,000 we have to close our country to immigration? He has said also that he is introducing this Bill in the interests of the Jewish community. I want to say this: that this admission clearly shows he is conscious that the Bill is aiming at the Jewish people. In the first place, I do not know that the Jewish community will be very grateful to him for his patronizing reassurance. Further, does he suggest that the Jewish community is wrong in believing the Bill to be directed against them? I ask what he would say if it were proposed that we should close our doors to the Boers in Angola who want to get away. The Minister must realize that, although he has the right to do this, that and the other, it is the duty of people, however comfortable they may be, not to forget their own kith and kin, not to forget those oversea who are not as well off as they are. The only question we are entitled to consider is as to what extent the Bill is reasonably justified, and to what extent it will prejudice or benefit the people of South Africa. He has given us one other figure, which, I am sure, he could not seriously consider as valid. He says: “I take Lithuania, Poland, Latvia; if we take Lithuania, there is an overwhelming Protestant population and only a handful of Jews”; and the Minister, who has recently been developing an overpowering sense of humour, is making a joke about the matter. The question is, not who constitute the overwhelming majority of the population in Lithuania, Poland and Latvia, but who constitute the immigrants, and the Minister must know that at least 99 per cent, of the people who are coming from these countries are members of the Jewish race. The immigration from Russia is very small at the present moment. It must also be remembered that the Soviet Government is not allowing people to emigrate; but I am not concerned with that. In the case of the three principal countries concerned, of which the Minister has spoken, practically the only immigrants arriving are Jews. The hon. Minister read a resolution. I know that resolutions have been passed in every part of this country by members of the Jewish community, but I do not know where the resolution comes from which he has read out to this House. As far as I know, the Jewish communities passed different resolutions from this. The resolution which was sent from Johannesburg did not refer to race or creed. It protested against the Bill on the grounds that it is—

Now that is a different thing altogether. Now the hon. Minister said that his Bill was receiving the support of everyone. He said it had been hailed throughout the newspapers of this country, and I am free to admit that the English-speaking press in South Africa, with hardly any exceptions, has hailed this Bill. But I want to ask the Minister this: is he going to rely upon the fact that the English-speaking press of South Africa is supporting the Bill? Is he going to accept that as an indication that the Bill is right? Surely he has never been in the habit of suggesting that he would follow the advice and opinion of the English-speaking press before. I ask because on this occasion the English-speaking press and the Minister happen to be in agreement; does he say that the Minister is right? I say to the Minister that we should not only be guided in connection with this matter by generalities; we should not be guided in this matter by sentiment, but we should temper our sentiment with reasons and with facts. I am free to admit that I have sentimental feelings in connection with this matter, but I propose to deal with that sentiment in the light of reason and facts, and, unless you temper your sentiment with reason and fact, that sentiment becomes prejudice; and I submit that, so far as the main support for this Bill is concerned, it is based on prejudice, and not on facts. I will take the first point about which a considerable amount of controversy exists, a point which the Minister touched upon. This Bill is aimed essentially at members of the Jewish race. I put that forward because of three facts. Firstly, because the Minister knows that 99 per cent, of the immigrants coming from Lithuania, Latvia and Poland are members of the Jewish community. Secondly, because the Minister himself knows that outside of these three countries the immigration from south-eastern Europe is almost infinitesimal. The Minister admitted it. Thirdly, because the Minister knows that the Bill, as well as his speech, have given away his case by excluding the British dominions and their dependencies. They are allowed to be exempted, but in so far as mandated territory is concerned, we are told that mandated territory must be governed by the country to which it belongs. There is only one reason for that, and that is to bring Palestine under the quota provision. Who comes from Palestine? Do any Arabs come from Palestine? Do any Turks or Moslems come from Palestine? He knows that in the past the Jewish people have come from there, and only in the last twelve months, owing to bad conditions, 81 people have come from Palestine. Therefore, he has included Palestine, and if anything more were needed to show that the Bill is aimed at the Jewish community that inclusion shows it. The “Bloemfontein Friend,” quite frankly, in an article on the 31st of January, dealing with this Bill, frankly admitted that the real object is to keep out an unlimited influx of the Jewish people. This restriction is to prevent an unlimited and unbalanced number of the Jewish community coming in, and, in the writer’s opinion, at any rate, that is the reason behind the Bill. I want to ask this. I want to ask the Minister of Justice, and, through him, the Government, what happened on the 17th of last month? The hon. Minister of Justice, speaking at Bethal, made the following statement—

What has happened since the 17th of January to alter the opinion of the Government on the question of Jewish immigration? I am not aware of anything that has happened to alter the status or the character of Jewish immigrants since the 17th of January. I submit that the principle of the Bill is wrong for two reasons: we either in South Africa to-day are satisfied that the disparity of population between the native and European races should remain as it is, or we are anxious to see a larger white population in this country to bring down the disparity between the two races. The Minister tells us that the British people are only dribbling into South Africa and that large numbers of them are leaving South Africa. If that is so—and that is his concern— then I say I am sure that I shall have the support of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) in connection with this matter. Why not introduce a measure to provide for state-aided immigration to members of the British race? You will in that way get rid of the difficulties existing in regard to the disparity of races, and to the fear that you have of the Jewish immigrants coming in.

I am in favour of a vigorous immigration policy, and to assist immigrants from English-speaking territories, but the Minister has not done that. On the contrary, he talks gloomily about the fact of a decrease in immigrants of British stock. The latest figures in connection with the matter are startling. According to the latest figures, the Dutch people in South Africa to-day constitute 57 per cent, of the population. The English-speaking people constitute 34 per cent.; the Jewish community 4 per cent, and the other European races 5 per cent. So that, in reality, the English-speaking people in South Africa have dwindled from being a majority in 1902 into being a minority to-day. The point I am making is this: if this is the case—and these are the census figures— I say that the census figures show that English-speaking people in South Africa to-day are only 34 per cent. If that is the position, I say that it was the duty of the Minister and of the Government to have taken steps to see that facilities should be given for that section of the population to be increased. But what do we find? We find, and I say it with all seriousness, a provision in the Bill that Great Britain and the dominions shall be free from the quota. I do not know whether that generous provision has been put in to meet the wishes of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), or because the Minister knows that there is an effective bar against British people coming to this country through the rigid enforcement of bilingualism which exists in the country. I put it to the Minister that this Bill is not intended to keep out undesirables, but members of the Jewish race. I would be the first to assist the Minister in the rigid enforcement of the present law, but other provisions should be used to restrict the entry of undesirables, and I object to the suggestion that people coming from a particular area must all be undesirable. We can, therefore, only come to the conclusion that the measure is not intended to prevent the entry of undesirables, but to restrict immigration and bring about a greater disparity between the white races already here. Surely the Minister does not seriously suggest that a proportion of 4 per cent, is likely to be a menace to the racial solidarity of the people. I cannot conceive that hon. members and the Minister are so timid that they are afraid that a population of 4 per cent, is going to alter the calibre of the people of this country. Let me give the Minister a few definite figures, and not mere generalities. The immigrants are divided into two groups— positive and negative—the positive including agriculturists, industrialists and professional people, and the negative group being made up of people to whom the Minister strongly objects, namely, commercial people and tradesmen. The positive group in 1929, formed 42.3 per cent, of the total, and the negative group 57.7. Of those who relinquished domicile, people in the positive group made up 39 per cent, of the total, and the negative group 61 per cent. Striking a balance it shows that the positive groups are increasing and the negative groups diminishing. Taking the latest available figures, namely, those for 1927, it appears that the negative groups are divided as follows: Immigrants from eastern and south-eastern Europe, 36.8 per cent., and immigrants from the desirable countries, 63.2 per cent. Therefore, in reality, you will find that the Jewish people coming into South Africa really constitute a bigger proportion of the positive group than do people coming from the countries that are so desirable. I am sure hon. members wish to deal with the matter on the basis of fact, so I will give them a few more figures. Take the question of dependents. Of the Jewish males, 6 per cent, are dependent, and of the Jewish females 76 per cent., but for the general population the figures are: males, 7 per cent., and females, 80 per cent., so that the Jewish people are really less dependent than the others. The same with regard to gainful occupations. 60 per cent, of the Jewish males follow gainful occupations, but so far as the general population is concerned, the figure is 57. There are many advantages arising from the influx of Jews into South Africa. Here we are shouting that we want overseas markets. Surely immigrants improve your home market, as they increase the number of mouths to be fed and bodies to be clothed. Generally speaking, there has been development to the fullest possible extent during the period from 1921 to 1927, when immigration into the Union was at its height. For instance, the number of letters and postcards has grown by 36 per cent., the number of newspapers posted has increased by 65 per cent, and there were 80,000 more post office depositors in 1927 than in 1921. Then there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of shipping. Whether it be South Africa, the United States, or any other country, industry is built up as the result of immigration, and no country can put a ring fence around it; certainly not a country with a small white population such as South Africa has. No, we cannot develop unless we give every facility for increasing our population, and we cannot do that under this Bill. Take another aspect of the question. There are certain industries here which would not have been in existence but for the influx of Jews. There is, for instance, the tailoring industry, which was created in South Africa, as it was in Great Britain, by members of the Jewish community. But for them you would have been importing all these goods now made here, and tens of thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people would have been unemployed. To a very considerable extent the bootmaking industry is due to the energy and initiative of the Jewish community. In Johannesburg you have the startling fact that out of 60 factories, 59 are controlled by Jews and one by the Chamber of Mines. The overwhelming majority of the people employed in these factories are Dutch boys and girls, who have been attracted to the towns from the country, and are being helped to raise themselves from the position of poor-whites to become useful citizens. If you take the furniture industry, the same applies. I ask the Minister to make an investigation into this, and he will see that this industry has been brought into existence by members of the Jewish community, and is employing our Afrikaans-speaking people in large numbers. I say in all seriousness to my hon. friends on the other side who want to do something seriously for the poor-white problem that if this Bill or a Bill like this had been introduced 10 or 15 years ago, your poor-white problem would have been worse than it is today, and tens of thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people would not have been employed. Take other industries, such as soap-making, blanket and rope factories. We have at present in the Transvaal also the Union cotton mills. The individual who established them came to South Africa some four years ago, and was one of those poor immigrants from Lithuania. He first opened a little shop, and, after two years, came to the conclusion that there was scope for cotton mills. He got some assistance and established these mills, which, to-day, is a flourishing industry, employing large numbers of Afrikaans-speaking people. With regard to primary industries, the Minister says he wants more farmers or agricultural producers. But it is the Jewish people who are drifting back to the land. You may dislike it as you will, but what is happening to-day is that whilst unfortunately Afrikaans-speaking people are drifting to the towns—and I deplore it as much as anybody—Jewish people are drifting to the land. There are 1,000 Jewish farmers in the Union; 800 officially occupied in farming, and 200 who combine that with other occupations. I want to show how helpful that is to South Africa. Take maize; I think it was about 12 months ago that a booklet was issued under the auspices of the Government, called “Farming Opportunities in South Africa.” On page 2 the statement is made that at the time that booklet was compiled the average production of maize per acre was three bags in the Union, and the production of Jewish farmers was something like eight bags per acre. I take the agricultural census No. 11 for 1928, and on page 6 you will find that the average yield of maize per morgen is 6.7 for the whole of the Union, and 7.5 for the Transvaal. This is not per acre. The majority of the Jewish farmers reside and work in the Transvaal. An interesting feature is, and I am sure the Minister of Justice will corroborate me, owing to his recent visit there, that the majority of the Jewish farmers are resident and work in Bethal district. On page 45 of the same publication you find that while the average production per morgen for the Transvaal is 7.5 bags, the average production for the Bethal district is 14.5 bags. Is it not an advantage to our Afrikaans-speaking population to have people in the country who are giving a lead and combining brain with brawn to make agriculture a progressive industry? In the light of what the Minister has said, is the influx of the people who have assisted in making that contribution to be stopped? The Minister referred to the type of Jew that is coming in, but the figures I have given show that at least 95 per cent, of these manufacturers, industrialists and farmers hail from Lithuania and Poland. We have also artizans and people able to work in industry. Assuming that the Bill had been introduced 10 or 15 years ago, what would have been the position of development in South Africa? The Minister has been telling us something about America which has followed largely the course we have followed here. Two hundred years ago, in 1717, when the Cape Colony was still under the Dutch East India Company, there was a great deal of poverty amongst the handful of the people, and there was a great scarcity of labour—the same process through which we are going to-day. A commission was appointed by the Dutch East India Company to consider the position of the colony, and of the proposals which were made, the first was to assist immigrants to come from Holland and to do the work which was required; the other was that we had already enough poor people in South Africa, and that nothing must be done to encourage immigration; but to provide employers with the necessary labour that should be done by importing convict labour. Du Chavonnes signed a minority report in favour of immigration. America started on the same lines when it had a population of 10,000,000. An agitation was then started against immigration. I almost felt this afternoon as if the hon. the Minister was plagiarizing Benjamin Franklin. In America they said “we must not allow any more Dutchmen to come into America, because it will alter the stock of the United States. Benjamin Franklin put forward that point of view, but reason prevailed, and the United States said: “No, we have got a small population and vast territory.” The result is that hundreds of thousands of immigrants went from Holland into the United States, and helped to build up that country. [Time extended.] I appreciate the courtesy of the Minister. I was referring to the question of immigration into the United States. Following the agitation against Dutch immigration came an agitation against the immigration of Germans, and then against the immigration of Irishmen. They were told in America that they dare not allow Irishmen to enter America, because they would alter the whole complexion of the country. Then we had an agitation against Bohemians. But America waited until it had a population of 120,000,000 before it introduced its quota system. It did not introduce it when it had a handful of people. Even now, although I entirely disagree with the principle applied in America, because I think the quota system is vicious, if you adopt that system and allow a percentage of immigrants according to the number of people of a particular race in the country, you will have to take the fact into consideration that there are 70,000 Jewish people in South Africa, and allow them a proportionate percentage. If you lay down the principle that people are undesirable if they come from a particular country, you are apt to make mistakes, because what is fashionable one day is unfashionable on a later day. In 1920 in Australia the prohibited countries were Germany and the Central Powers, and I venture to say that if we had discussed immigration in 1920 very few members on the South African party side of the House would have been in favour of having the quota system without applying that quota very severely to the Central Powers. Fashions change, and people who are unpopular at one time become popular at another. The only test you can have of desirability is the test whether the individual has the necessary character and qualifications to enable him to serve the country to which he emigrates. The Minister spoke of the thousands who are leaving South Africa, and then he said that the people who came from Lithuania, Latvia and Poland remained here, and married and brought up families. Surely you prefer people to come and make this the home for themselves and their children, rather than birds of passage. Surely that is the best test of suitability; and that is actually the position. We are told about assimilability. I ask the Minister, what does he consider assimilability? Does he consider intermarriage as a test of assimilability? I remember the day when there was a very strong objection to intermarriage between persons who hold the Catholic creed and members of Protestant churches. The best test of assimilability is whether people adapt themselves to the conditions of the country, and do everything that they possibly can to make themselves good citizens. If that is the test, what is the position of the Jewish community in South Africa? Look at all your statistics with regard to education and the universities. Surely the children of these immigrants from Lithuania, Latvia and Poland show that their educational achievements have been good. Go to any university and ascertain. I take another test, which I am sure will appeal to the Minister. I take the test of bilingualism. Whilst only 54 per cent, of the general population in South Africa is bilingual, 60 per cent, of the Jewish population is bilingual, and if you go to the rural areas you find that 81 per cent, of the Jewish population is bilingual. That is a test of assimilability and adaptability, and shows that the Jewish people who come to the country are not only anxious, but able to serve South Africa. We have heard about middlemen. I am not one of those who believe very much in a big population of middlemen, but in spite of my political views on the matter, I say, and I have always said, that there must be a certain number of intermediaries between the producer and the consumer, and if one section of the population is not carrying out that work, it is an advantage for the country to have another section of the population to carry it out. I appeal to my friends on the other side, who probably know more about rural conditions in this country than my friends on this side of the House, and I ask them if it is not a fact that at the time the banks were pressing the farmer the Jewish storekeeper, over and over again, came to his assistance. The Minister smiles. It does not affect him; but it affects the Dutch farmer. I venture to say that if hon. members opposite give an impartial opinion on the matter, they will support the statement I have made. Speaking as a member of the race to which I am proud to belong, I resent this Bill, because on the facts which I have shown, it is clear that the Bill is aimed essentially at the Jewish population. It is clear that the members of the Jewish community, probably 99 per cent, of whom came from Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, have proved themselves useful citizens. It is no use for the Minister to say: “We are not aiming at you; you are excellent fellows, and we are only aiming at your kith and kin who have not yet arrived in South Africa.” We may be told that there are men of my race who are in favour of this Bill. I am satisfied they are few and far between, and if there may be a man here and there who, for personal selfish interests, or in order to curry favour with the Government, comes along and says he is in favour of this Bill, I ask the Minister and the Prime Minister, what was their opinion of the national scouts. That is my opinion of Jewish people in South Africa who support this Bill. I am sure the Minister and the Government would be ashamed to rely upon opinions of that kind for support of the Bill which is now submitted to the House. My reason for objecting to the Bill, apart from this, is that there is no evidence to show that those Jewish people who are coming in from Lithuania, Latvia and Poland are any worse than those who came prior to the introduction of this Bill. On the contrary the Minister in his search for evidence in support of the Bill paid a belated visit to a ship the other day to inspect some of these immigrants, and he would probably be the first to admit that the immigrants were quite a decent crowd of people he saw. They could not speak English or Afrikaans. I wonder if the Minister went to Palestine whether he would be able to speak Hebrew. A larger percentage of the Jewish people become bilingual than in any other section of the community. I want to conclude with a quotation from a speech of the Prime Minister as recently as the 4th of July last at a Jewish banquet, and I am sure it was not the pleasure of the banquet alone which caused the Prime Minister to voice these sentiments—

He went on to say—

I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he has changed his opinions of July, 1929, and whether he has any evidence to show that the Jewish people, from whom South African Jewry sprung, have altered materially since then. Can the Government bring vital tangible proof that the characteristics and national behaviour of the Jews in the countries from which we hail has altered for the worse since then. Unless he can, I believe that this Bill is shown to be unworthy of consideration.

It would be difficult for any hon. member to participate in this debate without a keen sense of responsibility. We are treading to-day on difficult ground, and the result of what is said and done in this debate may not have worked itself out for a very long time. We are dealing with one phase of what has always been the dominating issue of our South African political life, that issue which has resulted from the meeting in South Africa of men of different races and different nationalities. In South Africa the white man and the black man have met, here east and west have met; here different nationalities within the European family have come together, and in each case the differences between them have led to conflict and strife. To-day we are dealing once again with the results— present and potential—of a meeting together in South Africa of different nationalities, of people who are different in their outlook and their traditions and their standards of life. It is our task in dealing with this Bill to lay down the conditions which will make it possible for them, despite their present differences, to live together in continued friendship. It is our responsibility to see that our discussions or decisions will put no difficulty in the way of the attainment of that end. I should like to state in a few sentences what is my general view in regard to the Bill—and what is, I believe, the predominating view on this side of the House. We accept the principle which has been enunciated by the Minister that every nation has an inalienable right to control its destiny by shaping its own immigration policy, in order to insure the preservation of its predominant national characteristics. We believe that in the circumstances at present prevailing it is desirable that steps should be taken to give effect to that general principle in our own particular case. We consider also that failure to take such steps at this moment would have unfortunate results both from the point of view of the modification of the predominating national characteristics of our people and also—here I associate myself with the Minister—also in the arousing of sentiments which may lead to hostility as between those who are to-day living together in South Africa in friendship. For these reasons those for whom I speak are not ready to take the responsibility of taking action against the principle of the measure now before the House. [Interruptions.] At the same time we also regard it as most important that in legislation of this kind nothing should be embodied which might be interpreted as imposing a stigma on sections of our population which have made valuable contributions to South Africa in the past and which are playing an important part in its life to-day. While we are in accord with the principle which the Minister is seeking to establish we desire that that principle should be established in such a manner that it does not cast an unmerited slur upon valued and important elements in the population of South Africa. It has not been easy for me—nor I think for others with the same feelings as I have—to accept the principle of the Bill. The Bill is a restrictive measure and it should be a characteristic of our South Africanism that we should resent and question the value of restrictive measures. We set great store by the realization and the expression of our own national freedom and our national honour. We should be loth to lay prohibitions upon others which touch their national honour. We believe in the fostering and development of our own national self-respect. We should be loth to take action which might give offence to the self-respect of other elements in the population of South Africa. However this Bill has been conceived by the hon. Minister, that, unquestionably, is the effect it is having to-day. Moreover, there are many of us who believe that, for the solution of most of our problems in South Africa, it is necessary that there should be an increase in our European population. To that end we welcome, as the country’s carrying capacity increases, immigration, not from one European country only, but from several European countries. This Bill sets itself to restrict European immigration into South Africa. Further, there are some of us who dislike not merely these aspects of the Bill that. I have mentioned, but who also dislike the spirit in which this Bill has been received and welcomed by a large proportion of the people of this country. The hon. Minister has explained to us his conception of the Bill. I think he has tried to indicate to us that he does not regard it as a Bill against Jewish immigration as such. He has also told us of the way in which the Bill has been welcomed throughout South Africa. But whatever his conception of the Bill may be, we cannot get away from the fact that throughout South Africa, in non-Jewish circles, as well as in Jewish circles, this Bill to-day is being regarded as a Bill to restrict Jewish immigration. In so far as it has been welcomed, as the hon. Minister has told us, it has been welcomed mainly on that account. There are some of us who feel that this is a view and a spirit with which we would not like to regard ourselves as being associated. To those who take that view, I should like to ask them to be fair and just in this matter. I ask them to consider for a moment what Jewish immigration has done for this country. It has played a great part in the building of our industries, both secondary and primary. It has helped to establish our big urban centres and so create markets for our agricultural produce. It has brought into this country enterprise, energy and enthusiasm, and we are the richer for these gifts. It has been suggested this afternoon that the Jew is essentially a middleman, a petty trader. I should like to ask hon. members who make statements of that kind to go and see what the Jewish farmer is doing for agricultural development in the highveld of the Transvaal. I have here a list sent to me, not from any Jewish agency, of some Jewish farmers who hail from eastern Europe, and on that list I find 117 names of Jewish farmers in the eastern highveld alone, all of whom have come from Lithuania. I should like hon. members to go with the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Robertson) and see some of the magnificent work that has been done by Mr. Lazarus, the mealie king, or to see the magnificent block of Jewish farms in the Bethal district, which last month, drew such an eulogium on the merits of Jewish immigration from the presumably reluctant lips of the hon. the Minister of Justice. In any case, we, in this country, do owe a very great debt to Jewish immigration. If there had been no Jewish immigration into South Africa, we would have been very much the poorer, vastly the poorer to-day. If it were possible for the Jews in this country to be removed to-morrow, it would be a staggering blow to our credit and prosperity. I know what is passing through the minds of some hon. members in this House. They will admit that we owe much to the Jews. “Yes,” but they will say, “those were Jews of the old type. It is the new Jew we do not like. It is to the Lithuanians that we object.” Is there really such difference between the Jewish immigrant of to-day and the immigrant of 20 years ago? Is it not only this difference, that 20 years ago we talked of the Russian Jew, just as we are now talking of the Lithuanian Jew? Twenty years ago, it may be there was a slightly larger proportion of Jewish immigration from western Europe, but even then the great mass came from eastern Europe. It is certainly a significant fact that in 1911, while there were 47,000 Jews in South Africa, including those born in the Union, there were 24,000 people in South Africa who had been born in Russia, most of them presumably Jews. So that we may infer that even twenty years ago most of the Jewish immigrants came from eastern Europe. And in the intervening period, according to the last census figure, the number of 24,000 who came from Russia, including Lithuania, Poland and Latvia, had only grown to 29,000 in 1925. There is no fundamental difference between the newer Jewish immigrant and the older Jewish immigrant, and if we say, as some hon. members are disposed to say, that we have nothing against the older Jewish immigrant, then there is no reason, in principle, why 20 years hence, they should not be saying exactly the same thing about the Jewish immigrant of to-day. People tell us that the Jews who are coming in to-day are alien; that they are unassimilable. The very fact that there is a difference between the immigrant of to-day and the one of 20 years ago implies that they are wrong. The Jewish immigrant of 20 years ago has, in a large measure, been assimilated, and there is no reason, in principle, why the Jewish immigrant of to-day should not be assimilated to the same extent. We may be told, “Oh, go down to the docks,” as the hon. Minister did, very early in the morning. “Look at the people coming in. How different they are. How almost repellent they are in their difference. We can never assimilate them.” I ask, in fairness and in justice, what is the cause of that difference? What is the cause of that repulsion? Is it a fundamental moral difference? Or is it not rather a difference which has been imposed upon them by centuries of political and economic repression? If it is the latter, then surely it is not a permanent and not an irremovable difference. They bring with them, we are told, the spirit of the Ghetto. Yes, they do. But the Jew has shown throughout history that the spirit of the Ghetto is not a permanent characteristic. It has been forced upon him, and given favourable conditions, he can shake it off. He does shake it off. I admit that for the present, at least, we cannot look forward to the complete assimilation of the Jewish people with the dominant stock here in South Africa. I admit that they must continue, to some extent, to be a distinct element in our midst. History requires of us the admission of their separateness as the very least we can do by way of reparation for the centuries of oppression which they have endured at the hands of our ancestors. We must be prepared to accept that they will not be entirely assimilated. They have been scattered—not by their own doing —amongst all the nations of the world, and they have been without a national home. By one of the miracles of history they have maintained their national identity, and the world is the richer for that; we should not wish to lose the results of this maintenance of their national identity. So long as their ideals of a national home remain unrealized, we must accept them as a people of divided allegiance, putting South Africa first, but still maintaining contact with the continuity of their people. Within these limits, I would question the implied statement of the Minister that the Jewish people in this country cannot be assimilated.

He did not say that.

The Minister implied that one of the principles of the Bill was that of assimilability. He included in the schedule those nations which can be assimilated, and left out the nations which cannot be assimilated. I would question the implied statement of the Minister that the Jewish people cannot be assimilated. They are being assimilated today. They are adopting our ways of life, our standards and methods of thought; environment is doing that, and in the second generation education is carrying on the work of environment. I have been privileged in my educational work to watch the development of young Jewish students and to see the change that comes over them as they pass through a good school, college or university, to compare them with their parents and to see how they are being assimilated into the general body of the population. I say again that within the limits I have indicated, in principle there is no reason why they should not be assimilated here in South Africa. I would repeat that in so far as this Bill is being conceived as a Bill to restrict Jewish immigration, and is receiving support on that basis, I, for one, would wish to be dissociated from any idea of supporting it along those lines.

Are you going to vote against it ?

I am coming to that. I will tell the hon. the Minister on what grounds the principle should be accepted. He has described it as a measure of general applicability, and not specifically anti-Jewish. We believe it should be supported on that ground, but we are not going to shirk the issue, and we are not going to confine ourselves to supporting it on that general basis as the Minister so largely did. We accept the position that, as a fact, this Bill will restrict Jewish immigration. We believe that in the present circumstances such immigration should be restricted, and, therefore, we support the Bill on that basis, although not on the grounds to which I have referred. [Laughter.]

Sitting on the fence!

I gather from the demonstration opposite that hon. members there do support the Bill on the ground I refer to —the ground that it is a Bill against Jewish immigration as such. But that is a ground, I understand, the Minister dissociated himself from. We support the Bill on general grounds. We believe that it is a right principle that any country should seek to retain the predominant national characteristics of its people. The European population of South Africa has two main elements, the one a mixture of Dutch, French and German stocks and the other of British stock. There is no bar to the assimilation —the easy and rapid assimilation—of these two elements. They are being assimilated, and in so far as they have not been assimilated more rapidly, that is the result of unhappy incidents and not the result of any fundamental differences. And so we have here in South Africa, a European population which is predominantly—if I may use a much abused term—Nordic. It is a small population which, unhappily, is not yet completely united, and is faced with a very heavy responsibility indeed in relation to the great masses of aboriginal people of this continent of Africa. And so I say it is right, in the interests of the peaceful development of South Africa, that we seek to maintain the predominant characteristics of our people, and avoid unnecessary additions to the complexes of racial sentiments and prejudices with which we are so richly endowed. But we also support the Bill in the light of its specific application to Jewish immigration. I have said very clearly we are not opposed to Jewish immigration as such. I go further and say I do not see any great danger in the present numbers of Jewish immigration, provided these numbers are balanced by immigrants from the stock of people from whom we have sprung. There is a big difference between supporting this Bill because you want to object to Jewish immigration as such, and supporting this Bill on the ground that at the present moment there is a disproportionate relation between Jewish immigration and non-Jewish immigration. I have said before that I have watched with interest the absorption of Jewish students into the predominant characteristics of their environment. Sometimes I have tried to note the difference as between the Jewish student who comes from a school where 15 per cent, of the enrolment is Jewish and the student who comes from a school where that enrolment is 50 per cent. In every case, in the former instance, the assimilation was very much more rapid and complete. That, I think, does go to the root of the matter, and it suggests to us that there is a limit to the assimilating capacity of this country.

Have we reached the limit?

As long as the other element in our immigration is as low as it is to-day we have reached the limit. I would like to go further and to endorse what the Minister has said on what seems to me a very difficult and delicate aspect of this matter. A fortnight ago I was present when a statement was made by a visitor to this country that the Jews in South Africa are freer than they are in any other country in the world, and that there is less anti-semitism in this country than prevails anywhere else. That is something that should give great satisfaction both to Jews and to non-Jews, and on both sides we should do all in our power to maintain that happy state of affairs. But do not let us deceive ourselves. It is true there is very little active anti-semitism in South Africa today. But it is true also that as a result of recent immigration tendencies a state of tension is rapidly developing, and that if the present tendencies are allowed to develop we shall not continue in that happy position to which I have referred. Those of us who have visited many parts of this country have noted in recent years a change of feeling on the part of our non-Jewish population towards our Jewish population. We may deplore that change of feeling—we cannot but deplore it—but you do not remove a sentiment by deploring it, no more than you remove it by arguing against it. There is therefore in South Africa to-day the possibility of disharmony and strife between Jews and non-Jews, and if the present tendencies of immigration prevail unchecked, then I am very much afraid of that possibility becoming a fact. It is on that basis that I support the principle of this measure and it is on that basis that, if I may be bold enough to do so, I would make an appeal to our Jewish citizens, not as Jews but as South Africans, because I believe that they do not fail in their patriotism or in their service to South Africa. I would appeal to them to look at this matter from the point of view of the future relations between the Jews who are in South Africa to-day and the rest of us, to recognize that there is some reason for that change of sentiment to which I have referred, and to accept the position, whether they can agree with the form in which this Bill is cast or not, that there must be some restriction of the immigration which is taking place to-day. I have suggested that the Jewish clement in our population can hardly be expected to accept the Bill as it stands, and though many of us are willing to support this Bill rather than have nothing at all, at the same time we feel there are some aspects of it which are calculated to offend the sentiment of important sections of our population. The Minister may say that there is no reason for the Jewish people to take offence. There is no mention of Jews in the Bill. Why should they take offence? But what is really the effect of this Bill? Let us look at the list of non-scheduled countries and take the immigration that is taking place from Europe to-day. Let us look at the non-scheduled countries from which we are receiving more than fifty immigrants. What countries are they? Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Palestine. Those and only those are in effect affected. The immigration from those countries, all save Greece, is predominantly Jewish. The Minister has suggested that one of his principles is the principle of western civilization, the desire to maintain our own particular type of civilization. He has included Spain and Portugal and Italy on that ground. Does he mean to tell us Greece is not enjoying a western civilization? Can we wonder that Greeks and Jews are keenly conscious to-day of the stigma placed upon them, that their national sentiments have been profoundly stirred. The hon. Minister has quoted the American parallel, saying that if the sentiments of the people of western Europe are not affected by the American restrictions, why should the people of eastern Europe feel that their sentiments have been offended by his Bill. Has the hon. the Minister forgotten that America applies these restrictions to all nations, to all peoples. It applies the same restrictions to peoples of eastern Europe and of western Europe, but he is singling out certain nations for differential treatment. The Minister comes to us with all his wealth of argumentative and statistical subtlety, and tells us that these sentiments are illogical. It is not the first time in the history of South Africa that logic has waged war against sentiment and the Minister knows that sentiment has often prevailed. I can understand the Minister’s feelings. It must be very irritating to a man such as he to fight against such an illogical sentiment, but it is one of the first essentials that sentiment, however irrational, must be taken account of in political affairs. It is the sentiment of two small nations that the Minister is attacking two small nations which, in the past made the biggest contribution to ancient civilization, much as it was two small nations, Elizabethan England and 17th century Holland which laid the foundation of our modern civilization. This small South African nation of ours is asked by the form in which this Bill is cast to attack the national sentiment of those two small nations. Is there anything to justify that attack in their past or in their services to South Africa? The modern Greek, we may be told, is only a petty trader, only a middleman. The Greeks were always a nation of shopkeepers. But they have been something else as well. When I recall what I have seen of what the modern Greek is doing for civilization and culture, the public spirit he is showing in his own country; the way in which that small nation is setting about its own national regeneration under the greatest of difficulties, I could not be a party to any attack on the sentiments of that people. If the hon. Minister does not know, the hon. member for Middleburg (Mr. Heyns) will tell him that the biggest wheat farmer in the Transvaal is a Greek. When we want tobacco experts, we make use of Greeks; and we shall find that in the agricultural development of Tanganyika and the Soudan, it is Greeks who are taking a foremost part. And then the Jews. I have already referred to the agricultural aspect of their work, I would also refer to the part which they are playing in our cultural and artistic life. You will find that at musical performances, at artistic exhibitions, Jews are present out of all proportion to their numbers. In the examinations of this country, the Jews are successful out of all proportion to their numbers. In the research work of our universities, the Jewish students take an ever more disproportionate part and that not only in research work devoted to material ends. But where we do not find the Jews in proportion to their number is in the list of poll-tax exemptions, in the list of poor relief, recipients or applicants for relief labour. Those are the two nations to which the hon. Minister has attached a stigma in this Bill. That he wishes to impose that stigma I do not believe. I believe it is his wish to remove, or, at least, to alleviate that stigma. We, on our side of the House, believe it is our duty to vote for this Bill. We believe it is our duty to vote for this Bill. We believe it is our duty to vote for this Bill because, as I have already said, it would be unfortunate for South Africa if legislation on these lines were not passed. But we also wish to remove the stigma. If it is the Minister’s wish, we shall be only too willing and only too ready to co-operate with him to that end. I hope he is going to create a means to make such co-operation effective. I have spoken of a stigma which this Bill attaches to certain elements in our population. Let me be more specific. As I read this Bill, there are two features in it which occur to me to have that tendency. First of all, the lack of an adequate principle of discrimination between scheduled and non-scheduled countries. I know that the hon. the Minister has tried very hard in regard to the first of these points, to find a principle he has suggested these principles, but one of his principles breaks down completely when it comes to one of the countries I have mentioned. We accept that it is right in principle that a country should seek to safeguard its predominant national characteristics. And on that basis it would be right in principle for this country to schedule the countries of our origin, but we cannot find such a principle running through the hon. the Minister’s schedule in this Bill. The second point there is the fixing of an unadjustable number for each non-scheduled country. We do not criticize the fact of Jewish immigration. We do not criticize the number of Jewish immigrants, but we do feel that at the present moment there is a lack of proportion and a lack of balance. While that is so, we support the principle of this measure, but we contend that it is not unreasonable to suggest that if the Nordic immigration into South Africa increases, there should be a proportionate increase of the non-Nordic immigration. Along these lines, it seems to me a great deal can be done to remove those features in this Bill which at present attach a stigma to certain sections of our population. Surely, we look forward to the day when this country will be able to attract a large number of Nordic people, a larger number than we attract to-day. When that day comes I am sure we shall be willing to welcome a proportionate increase in the number of immigrants from non-Nordic countries. In those two respects, I urge the Minister to consider again the possibility of an amendment to this Bill. [Time limit.]

When the House adjourned we had just listened to a speech by the hon. member for Johannesburg North (Mr. Hofmeyr) and I think I would be voicing the feelings of the House in congratulating him on his maiden speech in this Chamber. So far as the Jewish people of South Africa are concerned, his eloquent speech will never be forgotten, and we shall always remember that it was made in defence of a people who I think, are badly wanting support at this juncture in this House. May I also express my appreciation of the unexceptional tone of the speech made by the Minister of the Interior in introducing this Bill. Both hon. gentlemen appealed to the Jews of South Africa to support this measure, but from different standpoints. As I understand the Minister, he urged that those Jews who reside in South Africa should support the Bill so as to entrench their own position in this country. I do not think that any Jew in this country would be worthy of the name if, feeling as we do, that this measure casts a slight on our coreligionists he should support the Bill on grounds of that description. I hope I am not misjudging the Minister, but that was the only part of his speech to which I could reasonably take any exception—his appeal to the self-interest of Jews who have enjoyed the hospitality and advantages of this great country. The hon. member for Johannesburg North also made an appeal to the Jews. I hope he will believe me when I say that if I, for one moment, could believe that this measure was necessary, now or at any other time, I feel my duty to South Africa as a South African subject would be greater than the interests of my own race. It is because I cannot conscientiously believe that this measure is justified that I am opposing it. The Minister states that the Bill is not aimed against the Jews as such, and that it is only a circumstance that the majority of the people who are coming here from Lithuania and these other countries are Jews. Before I deal with that aspect of the case may I make an allusion to the manner in which this measure has been introduced? The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) stated that the method of introduction of this Bill was resented by the Jews of South Africa because the Minister had stated it was not possible to publish this measure or make an allusion to it in the Governor-General’s speech for fear of the large influx of Jews who might come into the country the moment the announcement was made. I venture to say that nothing has given greater—I will not say offence—concern to the Jews of this country than that the Minister should make a statement of that description, as if a few hundred of Jews coming into this country would make such a terrible difference. This has been felt very deeply by the Jewish people of South Africa. The introduction of this Bill has deprived South Africa of the opportunity of the counsel and guidance of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The Minister has said he would be back in another week, but why should the Minister have rushed this measure? I would make a last moment appeal to the hon. gentleman to let this matter stand over so that South Africa, and not only the South African party, may have the benefit of the guidance of the right hon. member. We and I on this side feel his absence in the discussion, and I am sure had he been present his counsel and advice would have been material benefit to South Africa, I understood the Minister to say that this Bill is not intended to apply to the Jews. It is said that the Minister is anxious that people of a certain type—the Nordic type of men—should come into South Africa. It would be of real interest to note what Professor Stoddard says in his book “Racial Realities in Europe,” page 184—

so that the very people whom it is proposed to keep out of this country on the ground that the country requires Nordic stock are those of Nordic stock. There can be no question, to take the tone of the debates and correspondence in the public press and of leaders in various newspapers, that unquestionably what this Bill is aimed at is the exclusion of Jews. In the interests of these people it would have been better if the Minister had taken his courage in both hands and described them as Jews. The public themselves are discussing the question as one of the Jew and nothing else but the Jew, to judge from the correspondence and discussions, and have discarded Lithuanians and those of other countries. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has spoken in eulogistic terms of the Jews. They are no better and no worse than the general outlook of mankind. The position of the Jew, as pointed out by a scientific conference held in America, is purely a question of contact and environment. Even the Nordic races themselves are allied to some savage tribes, and it is practically impossible to select any race and people which are fifty per cent, pure blood. Even in those countries from which Nordic people are supposed to come it is impossible to find a race of more than 50 per cent, pure blood. With regard to assimilation, of which the Minister has spoken and which has been dealt with by previous speakers, if the Minister means that Jews do not assimilate to the extent of taking upon themselves the characteristics of the country in which they live, might I point out a couple of instances in my own experience? Just at the conclusion of the war I was asked to go down to the Point at Durban to meet a contingent of troops —of Australian soldiers, and I was told there were certain Jewish soldiers on board. I went to the boat, and on my arrival naturally thought there would be some peculiar characteristics by which I could recognise them, but I can assure the House that I failed to recognize them, and when I met the men later there was nothing to differentiate them from the other soldiers on board. There was not a man who was not six feet high, and everyone spoke with that peculiar burr they had become so familiar with in Australia. In Cape Town I was at a meeting recently at which there were several young men, everyone over six foot high, everyone had a University degree, and they were immediate descendants of these people you propose to exclude under this Bill. Take my own case. Do I look like a Jew? Not only do I not look like a Jew, but I have frequently been taken for a predikant. Only during the last week a man walked up to me in the lobby, and said: “Good afternoon, Dr. Malan.” However disconcerting this may be to the hon. and learned gentleman and myself, I assure you it is a fact. On the question of assimilation, it is only a question of time and opportunity. Give them freedom, give them the chance that I have had, give them education, and they develop and not only do they become good-looking South Africans, but in every way, I hope, as good citizens as I have endeavoured to prove myself. I want to deal with an aspect of this question which has not so far been touched upon. The question of the selective regulation of immigration has been dealt with by the Minister. He has stated that it is the domestic right of every country to deal with its own immigration, but it has also been pointed out that this is not purely a South African or a racial question; it has become a matter for international consideration. This matter of immigration has been discussed at several international conferences held in different parts of the world. The Minister referred to a conference held at Geneva, but I want to refer to the international conference held in Rome in 1924, when certain resolutions were adopted. I would like to read to hon. members the resolutions adopted at a second conference held at Havana in Cuba last year. It was agreed that the questions should be divided into the domestic and the international, and that on all domestic questions each country has the absolute power to decide for itself. The domestic matters include the right of each country to determine how many and Whom of its citizens may emigrate, how many people and what sort of people may enter, and whether its immigrants should be encouraged to be assimilated and naturalised. The principles that each nation has the right to determine its own racial composition and its own density of population, and exclude immigrants who might be a danger to the public health or undesirable owing to differences in culture or race, ate admitted theoretically, but with reservations that preclude their general application. It is held that no country is justified in keeping idle land which others need; that no state with a population of two per square mile is entitled permanently to exclude refugees from over-peopled areas. This is the resolution that was passed at the international congress where something like 38 nations were represented at Rome, and subsequently adopted at other conferences and last year, I believe at the conference at Geneva to which the Minister referred. I notice that in 1926 the population of South Africa was only 3.55 per square mile. This comes perilously close to the standard laid down at the conference. The American quota system has been referred to. America not only introduced that quota system to protect itself from Jewish immigration, but very largely to protect itself from the large influx of Italians. In 1924, when the legislation was introduced no less than 283,738 Italians went to the United States, and in 1925, no fewer than 600,000 Italians registered for emigration. The Minister has stated that he based his case for exclusion very largely on the fact that America and other countries have closed their doors to this type of immigration. There is a possible menace that these people may be coming to South Africa. I would ask what is the trend of public feeling in this regard. Take the case of Italy. It is a notorious fact that it is highly improbable that there will be any emigration from Italy for years to come. Mussolini aims at establishing an Italian population of 60,000,000 of people and at the present moment there is a law in Italy, I understand, prohibiting emigration from that country. What is the prospect of emigration from other countries? May I quote from an interesting article on migration by Dr. J. W. Gregory, published in the “Nineteenth Century and After,” of November last—

I merely quote these figures as indicating that the Minister is wrong in his contemplation that this system of immigration from other parts of the world is likely to become stronger in the future than in the past. What are the probabilities that this immigration from Lithuania and other parts is likely to increase. I venture to say that but for the conditions which prevail in those parts of the world, there would have been no Jewish problem. The Lithuanians and others who are coming here have been driven out of the country in which their homes are. If there is one type of Jew who is held in the highest esteem it is the Jew in Lithuania. Before the war, the Lithuanians and the Jews were equally objects of oppression by the Russians, and they combined to fight that oppression, and so highly were these people esteemed in Lithuania that they actually set up a Ministry for Jewish affairs in Lithuania; it was not long after that that a despot arose whose like had not been met in Lithuania for years, and the condition of the Jews then became intolerable. Pogroms and every possible injustice was inflicted on them, and that is the reason they are leaving, I know it is useless to appeal to members of this House to allow immigration to continue on humanitarian grounds. But if it were the Christians who were being proscribed in that way, I say that no door in the world would be closed to them. I listened to the Minister’s picture of the conditions under which his forebears came to this country. It seems very strange that people who had known in their history a great deal of oppression and have known the injustice that these people had been subjected to; that these people should be the first to shut the door of asylum to these people; the only place in the world open to them. If you could show me that there were so many of them coming that you had to close the door, I might be convinced. Much has been said by the members of the Opposition and members opposite as to what had made these problems so acute. I maintain that no case has been made out at all for the introduction of what I might describe as panic legislation. I said at the beginning of my speech that it would have been better if the Minister had introduced his Bill describing these people as Jews. What is going to happen to these poor people in Lithuania? I described the condition of these people. Any possible excuse is seized upon in these countries for inflicting further injustice and further hurt on these people. What are they going to say? They are going to say that by reason of the conduct of the Jews in South Africa the doors of South Africa have been closed to them. I say with all sincerity that this legislation is not going to do us a great deal of harm, if we are selfish and wish to close the door. But so far as those poor people over there are concerned, you are doing them an irretrievable injury. They will not argue the matter out on the lines we are doing in this House; they will simply say they have been excluded from South Africa, and it will be taken out of the hide of those poor people; it will be a cause of further persecution. Do not tell me that this is merely a Bill for the exclusion of Lithuanian Jews. It sounds the death knell of any more Jews coming to South Africa. At present it is the poor Lithuanian; to-morrow it may be the Jews from Germany or France that will not be allowed to come in. This legislation is progressive; it is like putting the income tax on; it never comes off, and it is progressively increased. I say with a full sense of responsibility that this Bill does not mean the exclusion of Lithuanians only; it means that no more Jews are coming into South Africa. Any more Jews who come along will be subjected to constant pressure. No party can ever take this legislation off the statute book. It is the most lementable thing imaginable. This is the one country in the world where we had equal rights. We prospered here and the country has done well by us. When I came here forty years ago, it was said how well the Dutch treated us; how well they understood our position. They never ridiculed the poor “smauser.” They respected him, and to think it should be a member of the Dutch community in this country who now introduces legislation which no nation has ever dared to introduce before. The Minister showed by his Bill that he knows he is doing a wrong thing; he dare not put in any measure an actual and considered proscription against the Jews coming in. But is it not the Jew from Lithuania he desires to shut out? The indignation which has been expressed by the Jews in this country is a profound and a justified one. If you think you have the right to introduce a quota system—I think it is a wrong one—you should not pick out a certain people and put upon them a stigma which they are justified in resenting. I understand that the difficulties of gentlemen on the other side, once this sort of legislation is introduced, it is very difficult to counter. I do not want to put into words what I feel about it, but this is a most extraordinary thing. The history of the Jewish people, no matter under what conditions they live, under what problems they labour, is that at some time or other there is this recrudescence of feeling against them which takes this form or a form even more objectionable. I do not know what is the cause of it. I had hoped in this beautiful land, with the extent of its acres and possibilities, that here, at any rate, we had people who could live superior to this sort of thing. I am disappointed. I am sure the Minister feels this. I know I feel it myself. It does not affect me one iota. My life’s span is run for all practical purposes. The fact that I can stand up here as a frontbencher is, I think, a tribute to the wonderful generosity of this country. But you are going back on all this, for the sake of a few thousands of poor fellows who have been driven out of Lithuania, and are coming to your doors begging to come in. I cannot describe their feelings. This legislation is not justified, and it is not justice, and I am afraid that it will react against this country. All those people who have treated the Jews well have done well. The Minister himself said that we have had a good time in this country for years, yet at the first sign of reaction, the Jews have to go out. Yet, mark my words, just as nations who treat us fairly have prospered, so those who have not treated us fairly have not prospered. If you pass this legislation you will not be following in the footsteps of other people.

I am sure we are all indebted to the hon. member who has just spoken for the calm and temperate and reasoned address he has made to us in regard to this Bill. We quite understand what his feelings are. Those of us who support the second reading of this Bill—and this party as a party supports the second reading of the Bill—do not want, at any rate, I am speaking for myself, to be associated in my support of this Bill with any feeling of prejudice against the Jewish people in this country. It is not necessary for anyone to elaborate on this theme of what the Jews have been to the civilized world, and of what the Jews have done for South Africa. They have done a great good. I do not stand back for anyone in my admiration of what the Jews have done. But I do not think it is just of them to say that those of us who are in favour of this Bill are necessarily actuated by racial bias. Supposing this Bill is passed, no one will ask an immigrant who comes to these shores whether he is a Jew or a gentile. If this Bill is passed, as it stands, it will restrict very seriously Jewish immigration into South Africa. That is perfectly true. But I think that we are entitled to ask the Jewish people in this country not to insist that we should allow the depressed peoples of eastern Europe to come into this country without restriction and without regard to the proportion they bear to other immigrants coming in. Just because they happen to be Jews, it is not fair that they should accuse us of antisemitism or of bias, because we are a little people. We have every sympathy for the oppression which exists in certain countries of Europe towards members of the Jewish race. Is it reasonable that we should be the one country which should throw open our doors to the members of the Jewish race? I have many Jewish friends and supporters in this country who have stood by me. When I in the exercise of my duty, tried to limit immigration into this country at a time when economic depression was threatening us, where were these beautiful maxims which the hon. Minister has given to us now? On every platform I was denounced. A member of the Cabinet attacked me in my own constituency, on the ground of my being anti-semitic. I am glad to say that the Minister has so far forgotten those days, that he is appealing to us to show that fine spirit which I am sorry to say I did not find in evidence at the time referred to. I acted then, not out of a spirit of anti semitism. Nat at all. I say again that many of my best friends are members of the Jewish community. I have been supported in my public life consistently largely by Jews. I felt at that time that the circumstances of our country were such that immigration through these particular lines had to be restricted. I may not have chosen the best way of doing it, but it was the best I could do. For that reason I am supporting the second reading of the Bill. Not because I do not think the Bill is not on many ways open to serious criticism. It is open to criticism, but I support it because I feel that the principle of the Bill, namely, that control ought to be exercised over immigration into South Africa at the present time, is a sound one. I should like to see something done to encourage immigration of a sort that we do require. I sympathize entirely with what was said by my hon. friend who spoke last (Mr. Robinson), and by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). The real trouble inflicting us is not in the numbers of people coming from these countries, but in the fewness of people coming from other countries. It is the proportion that counts. If we can get a real flow of immigration into this country the proportion coming from these eastern countries would not matter. But we have made conditions in this country such that the only people who come here are the people who are forced to come here and are driven here. I think it would be worth while for the State to do something to help immigration. I know one of the trump cards of the hon. Minister at the last election.

Tell us what you want us to do.

I do not want the Government to spend millions on bringing people to this country. I want them to make it a little easier for people who want to come here to make a living here.

Why did you not do it? You were in office fourteen years.

Up to a point I am prepared to defend immigration on any platform in the country. I am hoping that one result of the debate will be to open the eyes of the Government to a certain extent to the necessity of trying to do something, not only to keep out undesirable immigrants, but to help the desirable ones. In some respects the Bill is open to serious criticism. We have tried to make clear what our objections are, but it is very difficult to press points of criticism which may be regarded by the Government as opposition to the principles of the Bill which we are not opposing, but desire to improve. One serious objection is the singling out of a number of countries as non-scheduled countries. Why should we go out of our way to make enemies among the nations of the world? I do not know whether we are bound by a treaty to any of these countries to give them the most-favoured-nation treatment. Surely it is a very serious matter to put a mark on countries like Greece, the Argentine, Finland and any number of others, and say we do not want people from your country. Surely that is a matter which may very likely expose us to serious criticism and not to say many unfriendly relations. Could some other method not be devised? The Minister said that the American system of having a quota for every country would not work here. I have not gone into the matter, but other ways which suggest themselves are whether we could not regulate immigration based on a certain proportion of those who actually come here and say that a certain percentage could come from the various countries, rather than place some countries in the pillory. All these matters, however, cannot be considered once the second reading is passed, because the second reading commits us to the principles of the Bill and the schedule business. Another thing which strikes me as one who has had some experience of this subject, is that the lot of the board which will have power to admit up to a thousand over and above the quota will not be a happy one.

The board is only appointed for twelve months.

I can assure the Minister that the amount of pressure—I will not use any other word—which will be brought to bear on the board is such that I hope you will appoint men only with armour-plated souls. The discretion is too big to give to a board. I would rather see a bigger quota than fifty, and then give the board power to deal with exceptional cases—hard cases, and cases of people of Special capacity and gifts. I hope the Minister will make some arrangements by which people on the other side will know before they leave their home whether they are going to be admitted or not. When restrictions were put into force in my time a very great deal of hardship was caused to people who left their homes, perhaps travelled hundreds of miles to the nearest port, and then some of them found when they reached here that they were not allowed to land.

In this case it cannot happen.

I am very glad to hear it, but the Minister has not told us what arrangements are to be made to save people the unnecessary hardship and expense—generally they are not too well blessed with this world’s goods —of leaving their homes on a useless errand. I feel, however, that in the present condition of immigration to this country we are bound to make some regulation of this kind. With all the sympathy one can have with the people who are coming here, and realizing the conditions under which they live in their own countries, and with every recognition of what Jewish people have done in the Union and the manner in which the second generation grow up into our ways and civilization, I think we are bound to say that the number of these people are coming out of proportion to those coming from other countries, and that the influx is more than this small community can permit, and, therefore, it is necessary for us to impose some restriction. I appeal above all to our Jewish friends, for whom we have the greatest respect and admiration, not to make this a racial matter. It is true that the majority of the people who will be affected will be Jews, but there is no stigma cast on them in the Bill. Our Jewish friends as citizens of South Africa must realize, as we do, that the number of people who can come here must be limited. At the same time, we ought to give them the assurance that as immigration grows—and it must grow if the white people are going to uphold their civilization, make no mistake about that, for no laws and no native policy will help us if our numbers do not grow faster than they are now—as our immigration grows, we ought to see that these people, whose entry into South Africa we are now trying to limit, should have their due share. That is why we support the second reading.

When the Minister introduced this Bill, he stated that he regarded it as a matter of national policy, to be dealt with in the “true spirit of South African patriotism,” and added that it was a delicate matter capable, if not dealt with tactfully, of hurting the feelings of one section of our South African citizens. And I agree with him that it is indeed a delicate matter, and that it is necessary for this House to walk with the greatest caution lest they should give rise to a feeling that that section has been unjustly and unfairly treated. I feel if as a result of this Bill we added one more to the many problems of South Africa by creating an issue of European versus European, founded on an antagonism between Christian and non-Christian, we would do the greatest harm to that feeling of South African patriotism of which the Minister spoke. I am sure we have enough troubles at the present time without doing anything to create that feeling of antagonism. I would like, in approaching this Bill, to sound first of all that note of caution and to say to the Minister, whatever may be his intention, it is essential, if the guiding principle of his legislation is one based on this spirit of South African patriotism, that he should deal with the matter so that a considerable section of the people of South Africa can feel that this South African patriotism is not irrationally associated with an act of injustice. I hope that the House as a whole shares his attitude that it should be a non-party matter. I am endeavouring to speak in a non-party spirit, and, as will be noted, only for myself, but nevertheless very conscious of the fact that I speak as the representative of a constituency which is very deeply interested in the fate of this Bill, and is justly entitled to feel that the views it holds should find expression and reflection in the House and that the House should view the matter fairly and impartially. After all, I am in a position, with an experience going back for more than 25 years, to know something of the feelings of those who have come to South Africa— poor perhaps—indeed, I have heard a good deal about poverty this afternoon, but I have yet to learn that poverty is a crime—inexperienced in our ways and customs, if you like, but citizens claiming now that they can say they have truly imbibed that spirit of South African patriotism. They are, I insist, entitled to claim from the House a fair and balanced judgment on this whole question, and I am deeply anxious that the House, as a whole, should, in a non-party atmosphere, give the impression to the country that they have applied their minds to it in a spirit of fair play and justice. I, speaking with a knowledge acquired in the last six years, have confidence in the common sense of this House, that it will realize the importance of this question. The whole question should not be hastily dealt with, and not in what I believe is the hasty manner in which the Government has dealt with it. The charge has been made against the Minister—I have heard it, at any rate, outside the House, although it has not been given utterance to here—that he has introduced this Bill with an anti-Jewish bias. I do not re-echo that charge, and while I give credit to the Minister that he has endeavoured to eliminate from his mind any subconscious prejudice he may ever have had, I have not come to this conclusion because of any very definite impression of his virtues that my contact with the Minister here has made on my mind, but because I do not think he would be so supremely foolish to introduce a Bill which has its base on any such prejudice. While, therefore, we may give him full credit for his intentions, outside this House they will be judged by his acts and the result of his acts, and there will be many people in this country who will draw the inference, because the result of the Minister’s measure affects particularly a certain section, that that was his intention in introducing it. I would like to re-echo a little more fully an aspect of the matter which was mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), that is, its international aspect. We have heard for the last few years a good deal of what has been described as our Sovereign international status. We are members of the League of Nations; and rightly or wrongly, we do things in an endeavour to demonstrate our sovereign international status. Surely one of the first conditions of this status is that we should be prepared to accord liberty to the people who exist in our midst. Whatever may be their racial composition, they should not be left to feel agrieved about the attitude adopted on a question like this by the Government of the Union. We have a most favoured nation treaty with Lithuania, it is true not in the wide terms of the famous treaty with Germany. We have other treaties with Czechoslovakia, Finland and southern European states, and although these treaties do not make mention of the nationals of these countries being admitted as freely as the nationals of other countries, there is a great risk that the countries concerned may individually or collectively regard this as a slap in the face. When the Minister replies he might tell us how far the Government has taken this into consideration. One of these nations affected, which falls outside the schedule, with which we have treaty relations, ran claim that its rights, until that treaty is denounced, will be violated by the terms of this Bill. I refer to Greece and to Article 12 of the treaty made in 1886—made with it and binding on the Union, with the exception of the Cape—

The Minister recently received a deputation from Greeks in South Africa. I do not know what he said to them, or whether they referred to the terms of this treaty. My authority for saying that this treaty exists is the paper laid on the table by the Minister of Mines and Industries last year, and if it does, I wish to know how far has it been taken into consideration? Does he intend to renounce this old-standing treaty, and if so, what are the grounds for doing so? Is it because the people of Greece are unfit to enter the borders of South Africa, and does he propose to say that to the Greek Government? I shall be interested to know what the reply will be from the governments affected when they ask for an explanation, and are told that their subjects are unfit to enter South Africa. I refer to that treaty in particular, and these other trade agreements in general, because I have not hoard them referred to by the Minister. I would like him to tell the House what effect they will have on our international relations, and whether he has considered what the true purport of this Bill will appear to be to the nations concerned. He said this afternoon that he had drawn a dividing line on the ground that the people of south and south-eastern Europe were unassimilable. This use of the word “unassimilable” has a strong similarity to the word “Mesopotamia.” I noticed when the Minister used it this afternoon that his supporters seemed to be very much impressed. It is a catch word similar to the term “Lithuanian menace.” Let us not be led away by catch words. This dividing line, if you try to draw it on a map, runs along the east coast of the Gulf of Finland along the eastern boundary of Germany, then round the eastern boundary of Austria to the Adriatic, and then along the north and east coast of the Mediterranean. It stops at the western boundary of Egypt. We are bound to stop at Egypt, because the Bill contains a section providing that persons born in any colony or dependency of any country, shall be deemed to have been born in that country. When we come to Libya, whatever the colour of its people may be, under the Bill they are Italians. They are deemed to have been born in Italy.

They are kept out now.

That is evading the issue. We are searching for the basis for this dividing line. Under this Bill the people of Madagascar are Frenchmen, and the natives of Kenya and Uganda are Englishmen. Natives born in South-West Africa are Germans, because (as the section says) “persons born in a mandatory territory shall be deemed to have been born in the country in which the sovereignty over the said territory was vested on the first day of July, 1914.” The effect of this on Palestine is interesting. A Finn or a Lithuanian may not come into South Africa, yet we have the curious result that a Herero, as a German, can. If that is the reason for his dividing line to be advanced by the Minister, I can see great difficulties in the correspondence that must pass on this point with other nations from our Department of External Affairs. I think there is need for caution, and that the Bill requires further consideration. We have this serious result that a South African born in South-West Africa is a German, a South African born in Russia is a Russian, and the South African born wife of an Englishman born in Japan becomes a Japanese “for the purposes of the Bill.” How the Bill is capable of explanation in any logical way to those nations whom it is proposed to put on the non-scheduled list, I fail to perceive. I do not think any one in the House challenges the right of South Africa to determine the racial composition of its people, but that rightly surely must be exercised on rational grounds. It is unsafe to do so on the ground of nationality, and it would be utterly untenable to do so on the ground of religious prejudice. I would like to illustrate what I mean by the exercise of a rational immigration policy. For some time there has been an empire migration scheme under which a large number of immigrants have passed our shores on their way to Australia, but on the advent of the present Labour Government that was stopped on the ground that the immigrants who were reaching Australia were largely becoming urban dwellers, and that they were merely adding to the ranks of the unemployed. There you have an instance of the application of an occupational qualification used even in the case of an empire-assisted immigration scheme. If that were possible in the case of Australia, are we to understand that this Government cannot evolve some other system for dealing with this immigration question than the one we have before us? It is worth while endeavouring to find some other system. The chief criticism of the Bill rests on the method which has been employed. I want to draw attention to another aspect of the Bill. I notice it is now proposed to make the whole of immigration in South Africa—from whatever country it comes, scheduled or non-scheduled— dependent on the mere administrative fiat of the Union Government. I read from Clause 6—which is to give legislative sanction to the rule that every person entering South Africa must possess a passport. That may seem simple, but the price the Minister demands for the passage of this Bill is shown in Clause 6 (c), because at the will of Government, every applicant for a passport, whoever he may be, if he fails to secure a visa or endorsement of our own representative in London or wherever he may apply, cannot enter the Union. As the Bill stands, the Minister can place a complete stoppage on immigration from the British Isles. He is claiming by this Bill an absolutely arbitrary discretion. He did not say so, but it is the clear meaning of Section 6. I venture to claim support from members on this side of the House who are interested in the coming of 1820 settlers. There are certain grounds in the existing law upon which people can be excluded from South Africa, but no settlers of good character with some substance under that scheme can at present be debarred from entering into South Africa. But under this Bill the High Commissioner or his deputy —perhaps a very minor official—can say to any person who applies to him that he declines to endorse his passport. I regard that as an unwholesome principle. Parliament in 1913 tried to keep within its control the grounds for admission of immigrants into South Africa. The Minister follows out a tendency which is only too common to the present Government, in substituting for control by Parliament, administrative law, or as I might call it administrative lawlessness. We find that even under section 1, the right of admission is to be governed by unspecified regulations to be drawn up by the Minister without any control of the powers to be exercised thereunder being possible through a court of law. It may be argued that the danger is an imaginary one that there is no possibility of administrative lawlessness. But two years ago when on the question of how far a Minister of the Crown was bound to answer to this House for the exercise of administrative discretion a former Minister of Mines declared, speaking with regard to the Iron Bounties Act, when an hon. member in this House claimed his reasons and a full discussion of the legality of his action that the legislative had laid down that he should act in a judicial capacity and that he could not be asked even in this House to give his reasons for the method for which he had exercised his discretion. Are we to have no right to discuss and review matters of this kind? The Courts may have decided that they cannot interfere. We confer the power and surely it is possible for us to review the exercise of that power.

That is not possible.

That is not my point at the moment. We should have the right to discuss such matters on the floor of this House. According to the declaration I have quoted by a member of the Cabinet the exercise of the administrative powers under this Bill after it becomes law cannot be discussed here; the House will have no power to discuss the matter.

You can compel the Minister to do it if you can get Parliament to back you.

Am I to understand that the Minister can sit silent and afford the House no information? That is a point I ask the Minister to justify. The same criticism applies to Section 1 of the Bill. The time, however, at my disposal will not permit me to deal more fully with it. I ask the House to consider what the result will be of placing this unlimited power in the hands of the Government as a mere matter of administration. I pass to another aspect of the question. The Minister has told us of the necessity for the Bill. It was, he said, the loss of South Africans who had left the country permanently. I am inclined to think that the Government has acted in a panic. The hon. gentleman ought to recognize the word. I remember not so long ago that we had a report from the Director of Census. He explained at great length how in a short period of time we should have an enormous increase in our native population, and throughout the country there was a panic which seemed to seize my hon. friends over there. Then we had a black manifesto in February, 1929, followed by a general election fought upon the theory that the black men of South Africa were about to dominate us. That panic was very largely responsible for the return of hon. gentlemen opposite. If I pictured the wrongs that can result from a panic I should say that one of the greatest wrongs resulting from a state of panic was the return of the hon. gentlemen to the other side of the House.

Sour grapes !

In this case too we must be careful that the Minister, in painting an overdrawn picture of this immigration, is not creating a panic. The Minister did not tell the House what proportion the persons from the non-scheduled countries bear to the total volume of immigration. It has quite recently only been about one-third. When he adopts the further argument that there has been this loss of permanent South African residents he does not enquire where they have gone to. One might gain the impression that they have gone back overseas. A very large number of them have gone to South West Africa and to the Rhodesias. The position in that respect to-day in South Africa is largely analogous to the position created in the old Cape Colony when the diamond mines and gold mines were first discovered. When new land is opened up, of course, a large number of residents leave. Can we argue that those who have gone to South West Africa and those who have gone to the two Rhodesias are permanently lost to South Africa? What about the day that the Minister of Finance himself painted in glowing form when we shall be united with the two Rhodesias? Quite a happy day.

But they say, No.

They realize that the Minister’s successor will follow him shortly, and his idea may be carried out more speedily than he thinks. Therefore, when the Minister of the Interior stirs the hearts of his followers by speaking of those permanent South African residents who are leaving South Africa, it will be more convincing if he told us where they were going to, whether they are going to South West Africa and to the neighbouring countries. Another point which makes me view these things with suspicion is their sudden discovery by the Government. The Minister of the Interior has been drafting this Bill for two years, and has very successfully managed to lock that secret in his breast. What is more striking is this! Only so recently as four weeks ago the Minister of Justice was declaiming about the virtues of the Nationalist party from a platform in the Bethal district. They were reminded by him that the Jewish immigrant was welcome in South Africa. The Minister said that, I have no doubt, in the best of good faith. It is quite true that, at the time, he had got this Bill in his pocket, but he omitted to mention the fact. It was—it must have been —for this reason—that he thought nothing of the Bill. He thought it was unnecessary to mention such a trifling document to the voters he was addressing. In his mind he must have thought that the Bill had no hope of being carried. Why then this sudden haste and panic? Why, when the Cabinet sat down to compose the speech for the Governor-General, did they omit any reference to this Bill which the Minister has described as of national importance? When did he make the discovery? If it is such a discovery that it could only have been made in the course of the last few weeks, then I say he could give us time for further consideration and could consult other people in regard to the matter. This Bill illustrates the tendency on the part of the Government to refuse to consult interested opinion in South Africa on matters of first-rate importance. We know what happened in regard to the Mozambique treaty. The commercial people and the mining houses were not consulted. Then we have the German treaty, when again no action was taken to consult commercial opinion. I ask, when they were introducing this Bill, if they did not know that there is a particular section of opinion in South Africa which could usefully have been consulted? Did they not feel that if they had consulted that section they might have had some useful suggestions which might have taken away from this Bill its chief cause of offence, namely, the stigma it throws upon a deserving section of the community? We had a somewhat similar Bill in 1925—the Asiatics Reserved Areas Bill. In introducing that Bill the Minister for the Interior, in his usual pontifical style, declaimed on the necessity for the Bill. He spoke in the same lofty manner about South African patriotism but when consultation was rendered possible largely on the advice of those on this side of the House it was found that those who were so violently opposed to the Bill were able to assist in the determination of a formula which resulted in a satisfactory agreement. I do not think when the Minister introduced that Bill in 1925 he ever thought he would arrive at that agreement. But he did so because he followed the advice tendered to him by members on this side of the House to endeavour to reach an agreement. I earnestly ask the Minister if he desires to avoid racial antipathy and racial antagonism in South Africa to follow the example set for him on that occasion; to appeal to the precedent created by those negotiations and, if need be, to give further consideration to this Bill in the hope of having a round table conference with those who feel deeply upon the question. I am more than hopeful that if he takes that step he may arrive at a solution. It is certainly worth while making the effort. You cannot ignore the fact that 70,000 voices have unanimously been raised against this Bill in South Africa. What is the chief ground of that objection?

It is confined, I think, to the method that the Minister has adopted. I do not object to the claim that the Union should determine the composition of the population. The objection is to the method which places this brand of Cain upon their foreheads. What did others do in similar circumstances? The other night the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares) made reference to the need on all sections of the community in South Africa to work harder, and immediately the Minister on the other side of the House took it upon himself to misconstrue that reference, and said that it applied to the farmers.

That is not stating the position correctly.

I hope I am stating the position correctly. I hope the hon. Minister will break the death like silence on his side of the House and tell us. Let us suppose then that it was a charge against the farmers. What did the hon. gentleman do? He rose up and said “I resent that stigma.”

The hon. member must not refer to a previous debate this session, and he must not impute motives of insincerity.

You have—I feel almost sure—misconstrued my language, sir. I am not imputing insincerity to anyone. I am saying that a Minister of the Crown was the first to call down the thunders of Heaven upon my unfortunate friend. Then when his colleague introduced a Bill which affects 70,000 people, are they not entitled to complain if it contains a stigma intolerable to their pride? I should like to repeat again that the objection to the Bill is the method that has been adopted. We, on this side of the House, have been in favour of a scheme of balanced immigration. We should have had a balanced flow of immigration, in which the inclusion of immigrants from these particular countries would have seemed a small proportion, but this Government during all these years set its face against immigration and thus magnified the percentage of those who come from those states of south eastern Europe. Because of this policy of opposition to immigration it now finds itself in a difficulty and comes to this House to ask it to pass this Bill. Do the Government propose to do anything at all to remedy this state of affairs or to bring in some scheme of immigration as has been suggested? I have been watching, stage by stage, the conversion from time to time of hon. members on the other side to the principles of the South African party. Whatever the South African party’s virtues or deficiencies may be —and they have more virtues than deficiencies —they would never have brought in a Bill of this kind placing a stigma upon such a valuable and important section of our people. I believe a scheme could be devised in a reasonable form. My objection, as I have said is the method employed. I beg of the hon. gentleman to bear that in mind. I think he is very lucky in finding that so many on both sides of the House are in favour of the principle of controlling immigration. If the hon. member has listened to the speeches he will see that the real objection is to the method employed.

Are you in favour of it?

I shall vote against it. [Time limit.]

I appeal to the Minister to give an extension to the hon. member (Mr. Coulter). It is evident that the arguments of the hon. member are going home, otherwise I am sure the Minister would give him an extension of time.

objected.

Is the hon. member in order in reflecting on the members of the House?

If I have infringed the rules of the House I am prepared to withdraw the remark. As one who has the distinction of being the first South African born Jew to be a member of this House, I would like to say how I object to the stigma placed upon my co-religionists. I have also had the distinction of being referred to by hon. members opposite as “in ware Afrikaner Jood” (a genuine Afrikander Jew). This Bill is intended to restrict immigration—to admit a minimum of immigrants from southern Europe and the maximum from northern and western Europe, regardless of the fact that members of the race it is now intended to exclude who in past years, when admitted into South Africa, have proved industrious and a useful addition to the European population. Most of them have become good citizens, and have performed their civic duties in a praiseworthy manner. Their children—those born in this country or those who arrived here with their parents at an early age—have been educated in our public schools and can barely be distinguished from the youth of other nationalities. Those who have come from countries where they have been oppressed have made valuable contributions not only to science, art and literature, but to hundreds of industries and various branches of commerce, and they certainly have done yeoman work in the development of our mines and factories. Thousands of these immigrants arrive here to make South Africa their home, and also to render loyal service whenever called upon to do so. They have at all times exerted themselves in every direction to advance the interests of their adopted country, and they are proud of the privilege of being allowed to do so. These people from southern Europe and their sons and daughters have done much for the advancement of the Union. The president of the Chamber of Commerce of the Union is one of those whose parents were born in one of the non-scheduled countries. His predecessor in office was another. Then in industries we have men like Mr. Kramer. In the blanket making industry we have the Harris Bros, and we must not forget the significant fact that they are employing thousands of their fellow South Africans of British and Dutch descent. But the Bill intends to get rid of all of these by a stroke of the pen. The measure would mean the keeping out of every Lithuanian and other person from the southern part of Europe, and I have come to the conclusion that it is deliberately aimed at the Jews, who form 99 per cent, of the immigrants from these countries. Our mealie kings and potato kings of South Africa are Jews, and they have doubled the quantity of their crops by their improved methods of farming. Although It may be a bitter pill to some of our friends, to follow their example, do not let us forget that it is to the best interests of this country that we have men of their calibre to develop South Africa. It has been suggested that these people are a menace, but let me say, as a Jew, that there are no more law-abiding citizens in this or any other country than the Jews, particularly in South Africa where they have the opportunity of enjoying that freedom to which every human being is entitled. No, they have not been a menace, but a great support. Take the mining Industry. Men like Wernher, Beit, Phillips and Oppenheimer, have they not been the means of initiating an industry which has enriched the country by millions of pounds annually and has given employment to thousands? Such men are an absolute asset to any country, and more particularly to a young country like South Africa. I do not deny that any country has the right to determine whence its immigrants should come. The Jews have been encouraged by flattering remarks made during the election time by hon. members opposite, such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Education. What good fellows the Jews were at the election time, but this unjust legislation is what we are getting now. I do not think that the result of the Bethel election was due to the Jewish vote. I do not think that five per cent, of the Jewish electors voted for the South African party candidate, but for the Nationalist candidate because the Jews felt that they had respect for Mr. Tielman Roos, who has been a friend to the Jews for many years. The result of the Bethal election is certainly not due to the Jewish vote. Have the Government expressed a feeling that they were going to bring up this Bill? No, silently they kept it back until after that election. I make bold to say that the Stellenbosch result would have been quite different if this Bill had been known to the people of the country. Another factor is that this has been sprung like a bolt from the skies, and nobody knew anything about it. Is the opportunity to be given to the inhabitants, of sixty thousand strong, to give expression to their feelings? Everybody is entitled to fair play and courtesy and to have their views heard and expressed. You have the Immigration Act of 1913, with which I am entirely, and if the present Government felt that they had to deal with the question they could have stiffened that Act. Let us, if necessary, have a stronger educational and occupational test and go into the character of the immigrants and also that of their previous stock. But there is a determined effort to get rid of Jewish immigration. We are a young country and have enormous spaces, we are crying out for immigration, and it should at Least grow to such an extent that it would balance the overgrowing native population. But it appears that there is a narrow view, and that we must hold what we have got; there must be nobody else to take it from us. If we had more white immigration we would have more competition and see more of our lands develop and worked under greater population. It is also stated that these incoming people from the southern Slay states are not easily assimilated. It has been conclusively proved that these people are very easy of assimilation. Take my own people; we were exiled from these states sixty-eight years ago; we have assimilated, and I have been proud to do something for the country. Take our schools and universities; you will find that the descendants of these people are easily first in their examinations and particularly good in the Afrikaans language of which we are so proud. We also hear of their standard of living. I make bold to say that once these people come to the country, establish themselves and make an honest living, they live to a standard which is far better than that of most other people. It was suggested by one of the speakers this afternoon that this matter should go to a Select Committee before the second reading. I implore the Minister to accept the suggestion, and I can assure you that I am speaking on behalf of many thousands of law-abiding well-wishers of this country that they would appreciate this very much and be in a position to tender evidence before that Committee. The Jewish people feel very hurt and that it is a distinct slur or stigma on them. I appeal to my fellow men and to my fellow Afrikanders—I feel I am as thorough an Afrikander as my friends opposite—to give us justice and fair play and an opportunity of being heard.

The most remarkable thing in this debate is the attitude of hon. members opposite. There had not been a single word from the supporters of this Bill on the Government benches. This is a House of Debate. I suppose they have all been given instructions that they must not say one word. There are two aspects of this matter upon which I would like to say a few words; one is the right of South Africa to determine what, and discriminate against any, section of the world’s population should come to these shores, and the wisdom and necessity of adopting such a policy; and secondly we have it that there is a stigma naturally attached to these people we propose to exclude. The Minister emphasized that South Africa has an inalienable right to determine its own population. That right is not disputed anywhere in the world, and has been recognised all down the ages. But there is an unofficial opinion going round the world which has been emphasized in this House to-day that this right has its limits. It has been expressed that those oppressed people who will be kept from coming into the Union by this Bill are exercising an enormous amount of influence on the affairs of the world. We find these expressions of opinion heard in the League of Nations and that various peoples in the League should have equal rights for entrance into all the countries which are members of the League. We have had reference by the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) Mr. Robinson) to the international conference in Rome that the surplus populations of the world should be allowed into the open spaces. And then we have this spectacle writing itself into the mandates, and we have also agreements, treaties, entered into by various nations of the world, by which their nationals are admitted on the same terms as the nationals of other countries. Japan, India and China are all doing their best to see that this inalienable right of every nation to order its own population shall be watered down. It becomes obvious that if this watering down goes on very much longer, we shall not be in a position to claim that inalienable right to keep out people who are inimical to the welfare of South Africa. Therefore I think the time is quite ripe for the introduction of this Bill. If this Bill is not considered and passed it will become very difficult in future years for any Bill to be introduced at all. I consider this Bill urgently necessary for the reason that we are a very small population of Europeans with a very large population of natives. The Europeans are the dominant race, and if we are going to preserve our civilisation in South Africa it will depend very largely upon preserving harmonious relationship between the Europeans and the natives. Hitherto we have succeeded in preserving harmonious relations, but to-day we see them on the point of breaking down, and if these elements of disharmony being introduced from abroad succeeds in breaking down that harmony between the two races our position will be made increasingly difficult Europeans in this country have attained a similarity of outlook by a century of contact in South Africa, and by centuries of contact in Europe before they came to South Africa in trade and political institutions. They share a common conception of western political ideals. On the other side we have the native population, which is a homogeneous population, and it is to-day breaking down its tribal isolation, and a change is coming over the whole scheme of things in South Africa. That change is taking place with lightning rapidity. It must be within the recollection of many people in this House that Africa has stepped from darkness into daylight during their lifetime, and practically from savagery to civilization. It is beginning to tax all the wisdom of the Government here to preserve harmonious relations between the Government and the governed. I do not think there is anyone in this House who can hazard a guess at the changes which are going to take place in the African scene during the next ten years. It seems to me that one of the very essentials of our existence in South Africa is good government, and the very existence of that good government depends upon maintaining harmonious relationship between the two races. If anything is done to undermine the characteristics of the white stock, disharmony will make itself manifest. South Africa has reached the position it occupies to-day in civilization through many years of struggle and suffering to make this country for civilized man. It is the stern duty of any Government to-day to see that the heritage handed to them is carried on unimpaired, but if this stream of alien immigration from eastern Europe is to go on unchecked, it is going to be extraordinarily difficult. The whole environment from which these people come is antagonistic to the political ideals we have in South Africa. They have been brought up in a different atmosphere to that in which we have been brought up. The question is not should we admit these people, but dare we continue to do so in the interests of the future civilization of South Africa. What arguments are being used against it? We know that many of these people from eastern Europe have been as great patriots in South Africa as any one of us. They have added to the wealth, enlightenment and learning of South Africa just as well as any other section of the community, but the fact is that we are obtaining year by year, a larger stream of immigration which is alien in speech, thought and outlook, and which cannot contribute to the national unity. What is the argument? It is that the next generation will be different From the people that are coming into the country today very little can be hoped for. They are going to be assimilated, and will fit themselves into the national scheme. Can we afford to wait for the next generation? Are things not developing so rapidly on this African continent that there is not a single soul in this room who can say what the situation will be 20 years hence. The United States does not help us much. It is no example at all. There is no modern instance of any nation in the world doing what South Africa is attempting to do. There is no nation in the world that has such a colossal task of such complexity to face. We cannot be bound and guided by what is fit and proper in a country where they are building up a homogeneous population. They say the United States is a boiling pot. After a few years everyone who comes through is terribly boiled up and becomes mixed up with the population and a real American. My observation is that they consist very largely of isolated units, and that that boiling pot is not operating with that rapidity. The boiling pot in South Africa is operating more quickly than there. The change is coming so rapidly that isolated units will have no effect on the change. We have no time to wait for the assimilating process which is considered to be the end of immigration. In 20 years if we go on increasing at the present rate I ask the House to imagine what the character of this population will be 20 years hence. It is obvious to anyone from that point of view that the Government will be so undermined by people who have been nurtured and brought up at close quarters with the rebellion and that these are not the people we ought to welcome here in South Africa. I explained why I am giving this measure my support and it is expedient that it should be introduced.

I feel that I cannot sit down quietly and allow the debate to close without saying a few words and without trying to controvert some of the arguments used by the Minister. This legislation has been introduced on theoritical and not practical grounds. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken says the Minister stated that the increase of Jewish population has in the last two years been about 300 per cent., if so they are totally wrong. I did not hear the Minister say so, but if he did, his figures are wrong and misleading. In 1911 the total number of Jews in this country was 46,919, whilst in 1921, ten years later, the figure was 62,103. The yearbook for 1927-’28 gives the figures for 1926, the total population being 1,676,660; out of which the Jewish population was 71,816, or a percentage of 4.28. The figures therefore cannot possibly show that there has been an increase of 300 per cent. I am not speaking as a Jew, although I am not ashamed of the fact. Later I will address the House on the subject of the Greeks. I have the honour of being the Consul for Greece in the Transvaal. But what a wonderful conspiracy of silence exists on the opposite side of the House. The Minister of the Interior may laugh, but if he sat on this side of the House he would not hesitate to laugh the whole measure out of existence. Why has the Minister introduced it? He must have assisted the Prime Minister in drafting H.E. the Governor-General’s recent speech at the opening of Parliament in which there was not a word mentioned about the intention to introduce this Bill. It is said the recent Bethal-Stellenbosch elections had something to do with it. We will see if the hon. Minister denies the fact. Will he deny that when His Excellency the Governor-General’s speech was prepared this Bill had not been prepared? Why was no mention of it made in that speech? Was it due to the fact that they were faced with these bye-elections in Bethal and Stellenbosch ?.

What would be the difference ?

Very much indeed. You would have lost Stellenbosch too. There is something mysterious in not mentioning this Bill in His Excellency’s speech. It will be within the memory of this House that when the hon. Minister first mentioned this Bill I asked for time so that an opportunity might be afforded to people up-country to make themselves acquainted with its provisons. Now the public in the short space of a few days have had an opportunity of discussing the Bill and the out-cry against it has been immense I am not going to weary the House by reading the telegrams I have before me, but they represent the strongest feeling against the Bill. It has been said that a few Jews supported this, measure. Why? I can only infer that they also are in fear of the competition of these new immigrants. Dare we allow the impressive speech of the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) to go without taking some notice of it? Will the hon. Minister in reply tell us in all solemnity who asked him to bring in this Bill. And was he asked before the Governor-General’s speech was in course of preparation or after? There is something sinister at the back of this. I have strong language at my command to express my view, but will content myself by merely saying that this Bill is an insult to the intelligence of the hon. Minister, to the Cabinet, and to the people of this country. I would like to enlist the sympathy of the hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz). A few days back he ridiculed the Coupon Bill in this House, and the House largely, on account of his speech, rejected it. In the course of it he referred to a lot of don’ts. He would be wise if he left his seat and prevailed on the Minister to include this Bill among the don’ts. We have so many don’ts in this country that the Minster is creating for himself a bed of thorns if this measure becomes law. Who is going to administer this Bill? The Minister? An hon. member who was once a member of this House coined the words “jobs for pals.” I can see jobs for pals sticking out here. When this Bill has been in operation for a year or two the hon. Minister, if he is still occupying the seat he now occupies, will find this will make his hair stand on end. The Minister started in a most extraordinary way. He said he hoped the Bill would not be used as a party measure, that it would not help his party—nay. might damage it, but not content with saying this, he asked this side of the House not to deal with it as a party measure. During his remarks he threw out a most unworthy threat that if there was opposition to this Bill it might lead to an awakening of anti-semitism. Surely he had no right to say that. He could not terrify any of us by saying it might lead to anti-semitism. When the Minister goes to bed to-night I trust he will reconsider some of the remarks he made to-day and regret that he ever made them. Then he gave several reasons why he had introduced the Bill; more illogical and inconsequential reasons could not have been introduced. He said, inter alia, that there was a stream of immigration, but he was not able to point out that the stream which had been coming in had been to the detriment of the country. The hon. Minister is practically on his trial. He has submitted this Bill for the consideration of the House as a jury and he has not proved his case. He says immigration has been on the increase: whereas some of the old stock was emigrating. Who are the old stock? Where do they come from? They come from Germany, France, Holland, Great Britain and all parts of the world, but he has not told us or proved why this old stock is leaving our shores. Can he point out, and has he proved to the satisfaction of the House that these people who have come into the country have been a curse to the country? On the contrary, we have evidence on all sides that they have not only not been a curse, but a great benefit. I shall not mention any names, but it should be known by this House that when recently it was decided to apply for funds for the purpose of purchasing radium, the first gift to that fund of £500 was made by a Jew. The House must be aware of the fact that whenever people apply to the public for any charity or anything of that nature, the Jews are the first people to put their hands in their pockets. That cannot be denied. Another reason the Minister gave was that the present law was evaded. We know that many laws are evaded. Whose duty is it to see that there is no evasion? In whose hands is the administration of the law placed, but in the hands of the Government and its satellites, and if they are unable to cope with evasions, they should lay the blame upon their own shoulders, and not upon the unfortunate people who are coming to this country. They have come into this country because they believed that it was a haven to which they would come and would be justly treated. Is the stigma in this Bill just treatment? Surely, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) said, there must be sufficient brains among hon. members in the Cabinet and the people at the back of them, and those who are responsible for this Bill, to draw up a measure, or to have used the existing laws in such a manner as to enable them to restrict this immigration to the country of undesirables and to avoid this unfortunate stigma. The hon. Minister also said that some people came to this country and that their names were not filled in on the necessary forms. Whose fault is this? Perhaps the hon. Minister will let us see those forms. I ask him why it is possible that those forms, which are used on our borders, are not filled in properly? I cannot understand it. The other day the Government was defied by a legal gentleman in Natal who it is stated refused to comply with the regulations laid down by the Government. What have they done? I will quote a few words from a speech by the Prime Minister uttered recently at a public meeting at Johannesburg. They were quoted at a meeting held here and are as follows—

I challenge hon. members opposite to express their views on this Bill. Some illuminating letters on this measure have been published in the Press and a notable contribution was made by Mr. S. Ginsberg, a very competent gentleman, who in the course of a letter published in the Cape Times on the 6th inst. wrote—

The Minister said he introduced the Bill in the interests of the Jews. Will he kindly tell us the number of Jews and who they are who asked him to bring forward legislation of this kind? I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and congratulate him on the manner in which he spoke and the fair way in which he treated the subject. The principal objection to the Bill is the method of rejection employed by the Government. If it is necessary to restrict immigration, by all means let us do so, but the necessity has not yet been shown. I would very much like to know who are the people behind the Bill. I contend that the Act of 1913, if carried out in its entirety, would have been sufficient to keep out undesirables. The idea of that Act was to restrict the entry of people who were following a calling of which there were already sufficient in the country. Suppose, for instance, we had an ample number of tailors, no more would be admitted until circumstances warranted. I wish to thank the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) and the hon. member for Johannesburg North (Mr. Hofmeyr) for their splendid contributions to the debate. With regard to the Greeks, the Census returns of 1927-28 show there are only 2,404 in the Union, or 14 per cent, of the whole population, so why are the Greeks excluded from the schedule? I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that of the people who recently came into the country, the preponderating number were Jews and Greeks. It is a stigma not alone on the Jews but on the Greeks too, and I cannot use words too strongly in condemnation of the action of the Minister. In my humble opinion the Bill is quite unnecessary, and the Minister would be well advised if he accepted the suggestions thrown out on several occasions during the debate to ask for the discharge of the second reading and send the Bill to a select committee. The people up-country have not had an opportunity of communicating with their representatives in the House except by telegram, nor of carefully studying the provisions of the Bill, which are very drastic and far-reaching.

I hope the Minister will now accept the adjournment. I move—

seconded.

I want to acknowledge the extreme courtesy of the Prime Minister, and the manner in which it was displayed this evening towards one who, however wrong he may be, however politically opposed he may be, at all events he was honestly opposed, whether politically right or wrong, and more particularly in view of the fact that it is notorius that I am one of the few diametrically opposed to the Bill. I should have thought that under those circumstances, the lateness of the hour—

The hon. member must not comment on the vote.

I am commenting on the action of the Prime Minister anterior to the vote.

That is not germane to the question.

After the very hot day we have had; the apparent slump on the other side of either information or intellect; and whatever may have caused that slump, all these things combined, surely it was only a matter of elementary decency that I should have had a full forty minutes to speak. What on earth is being gained by the other side ?

The hon. member must speak to the Bill.

I do not wish to pursue that any further. I am sure the Prime Minister and those who sit alongside of him—those lovers of freedom and justice—like the hon. the Minister of Defence—are delighted and thankful for your protection. I want to say straight out I am dealing no more with the adjournment, that I am opposed to the Bill in toto. I propose to do no egg bouncing, no tight rope walking; that also applies to hon. members on that side. At least those members who have spoken on this side of the House were not afraid to do the egg bouncing, but hon. members on that side were afraid because they might break the egg. I have listened to one very significant thing the Minister has not said. I like listening to the Minister of the Interior; he at least is honest, blunt and straightforward, but I was very disappointed to find that not on one occasion all through his speech has he advanced a single reason why this Bill should be introduced at all. Another very significant thing is this that in introducing he appealed to hon. members on both sides of the House, particularly on this side, that this should be treated as a non-party measure. That is why there is absolute silence on that side of the House. How can the hon. the Minister look this House in the face and say that that side of the House has treated it as a non-party measure. Surely we must be regarded as fools if we believe that no hon. members on that side of the House have any elementary sense of justice and have not received instructions not to speak. This is the sort of non-party tactics. I wonder why the Minister for Defence is not speaking to-night.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed on 12th February.