May I appeal on personal grounds to the Minister to postpone the second reading? Technical colleges are interested in the Bill, and I cannot be here next week.

I will meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman, and put the second reading down for Wednesday fortnight.

Second reading on 26th February.

We have not seen this Bill, and according to the title, it is one to prohibit or regulate the importation of wheat. Is this Bill going to be read a second time before a large industrial population has had a chance of considering it? I would suggest Monday week for the second reading.

It is a very short Bill, and it will be available, probably this afternoon, to hon. members and the country. Hon. members must appreciate that unless we speedily pass this urgent measure, it will not be much good to pass it. We want to protect the wheat producers. The interests of the consumers will in no wise be affected under this Bill, and that being so, I ask the House to take the second reading at an early stage. When the Bill is before the House for second reading and hon. members feel that there is a necessity for further extension of time, the Government will be quite prepared to consider that.

Will these provisions apply from the moment of the Bill’s introduction ?

That is not so.

Second reading on 19th February.

I know perfectly well that taking up the attitude on this question that I am, I am espousing a very unpopular cause, more unpopular than I ever dreamt, and there has been a wave of expression of commendation from this House for the Minister’s Bill which left me aghast. Let me put my position, right at the outset, by moving as an amendment—

I do so in order that the matter may be completely and entirely enquired into, and that all interests involved may have an opportunity of an expression of their views, and I do that very largely to help the acting Leader of the Opposition out of the difficulty in which he and other hon. members, who sit behind him, are. He was also rather anxious that the matter should be sent to a select committee before the second reading; but for some reason or other—I am quite unable to tell what the reason is except that he indicated something, and I will deal with that in a moment—the hon. member did not feel inclined to move it. He said he did not do so, because he feared or knew that the Prime Minister would not accept it. That is a very extraordinary state of affairs, where you have the Leader of the Opposition, believing that he should move an amendment, does not do so because it does not meet with the approval of the people who introduced the matter. I always felt that if you do not agree with it, you should take the necessary action to throw out that with which you do not agree, and which has been introduced. The amendment which I moved leaves no doubt where we on these benches stand. It is an extraordinary thing for me that here in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa we have a measure introduced to restrict—and the practical effect will be to prohibit—the further introduction of whites into a country with a population of one and three-quarter million whites inhabiting a vast area, surrounded by about four times that number of natives; and I find it hard to reconcile the attitude of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) with all that he said and has written about the native question. I think every effort should be made to make up the balance rather than to make it disproportionate. I am espousing an unpopular cause because of the prejudice of the vast majority, I fear, of the white inhabitants of South Africa. Such restriction is very dangerous to the State, and in its incidence is decidedly unfair and insulting to one of the races inhabiting the Union. Under the circumstances the good sense of the House demands that the most complete proof shall be brought to bear by the Minister introducing the measure in favour of the passage of such a measure, the most complete proof to demonstrate the necessity for it. I hope to get the support of my old hon. friend the Minister of Defence on this question. The measure over rides the national safety by closing at least one avenue for the increase of the white population, especially in face of the painful factor mentioned by the Minister of the diminution of one section of the white population. I wonder why the Minister introduced the diminution of the British population ?

A net loss on immigration, not a decrease in population.

Oh, I see, there is no diminution but an increase. It is not that British people are not coming in; it is that British people coming in are offset to a minority by those going out. Why are they going out? Because the Government will not make the conditions in South Africa such as to attract British people to South Africa. Take your employment in the public service which represents roughly one-fifth of the workaday population, if not a fifth of the whole of the white population. No person can be employed in the public service unless he or she has been at least two years resident in South Africa.

Quite right.

But it is a factor in the departure of those persons of British stock we ought to be retaining here.

They do not all want to be civil servants.

No, but it is one of the factors. That section going out tells others. There are other circumstances, but the main circumstance is that this Government lacks vision, and does not make conditions in this country attractive to any race whoever they may be. The opportunities of employment are few, and so ill remunerated, that thousands of people have no desire to remain in South Africa. The Minister tried to make our bones shake and our withers wring by quoting percentages, and when he did so members on the other side of the House indicated their intense surprise and alarm, especially when he said that the nett result of the immigration of Jewish people— and let us not forget that it is the Jewish people of the world that the Government is directing its embargo against—

Of the world.

Yes, that is what it will amount to. May I draw the attention of members on that side of the House to the fact that the only real home of the Jewish people in the British commonwealth of nations has been specially included in this embargo—Palestine— and that despite the fact that the Minister is only able to point to the occasional circumstance of the ingress of 81 persons from Palestine, and also in spite of the fact that Palestine is being made attractive to the Jews, and that Jews will probably leave South Africa for Palestine. Now what was that percentage. It was 351 per cent., an increase of 351 per cent. I do not know what its particular relationship was, but 351 per cent, frightened members, and I venture to say that 350 per cent, on one is not very much. If the immigration is one today and is six next year, it is an increase of 500 per cent., but it is still only six. As a general rule the use of percentages is wrong and misleading, and does not give the right outlook, unless that percentage is of the whole, and the same whole all the time.

You are getting yourself into the hole.

Now let us apply these percentages to the whole; not the hole my hon. friend means. It is common cause that there are 71,000 Jews in South Africa. If we take that as a percentage of the total population of the Union of South Africa, it is precisely 4 per cent. Now the Minister says the annual net increase in round figures is 2,000. That is 114 per cent, of the total population of South Africa, so that it will take 10 years to make it 1 per cent, of the total population, and it means this: that you will take 1,000 years to get a Jewish population equal to the rest of the population. Wherein then lies the danger? Of course, if my hon. friend is incapable of working out the figures, he must take my figures. Now the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) quoted an authority—he spoke most authoritatively—that no country with a population of less than 2 per cent, per square mile has any right to consider limiting its immigration, but that is complicated very considerably, if it be true, by the fact that in South Africa that did not apply; it applied generally to the world. The problem in South Africa is complicated by the large native population. Now all we have had in percentages from the Minister I submit was valueless. That was given as the reason we should prohibit the influx of Jews from anywhere, but particularly from Lithuania. It shows how weak is the Minister’s case. When he embarked on figures, and tried to frighten us by the quotation of figures, in addition, some of his facts were wrong. He had hurled at us somewhat blood-thirstily the words “assimilability” and “menace.” Let us analyze these words. The seeker after knowledge of the future, if he looks up a dictionary to ascertain the meaning of “assimilability” will find the definition “see Malanism.” When you look up “Malanism” you will find: “capable of being swallowed, absorbed and digested or taken in by a political party; see also Duncanism; for construction, derivation, root and true balance, see Hofmeyrism.” Now what does the Minister mean? What are we expected to understand by “assimilability”? Do you mean marriage? Is it the objection that Jews do not intermarry with the older population? Whether they do or do not, what effect has it on the national character of South Africa? Hon. members who represent a particular section of the country on that side of the House ought to welcome inter-marriage, because that would at least preserve their purity of race. If there had been more consideration given in the past, we would not have had one other problem which South Africa has to-day; another “menace”; a menace of the body politic of South Africa. Do you mean by “assimilability” that their enterprise, energy and initiative are not shared by the rest of the population. If the Minister means that, then there is assimilability. Surely in that sense the Jews have played their part and also the Greeks, and I am not alone in my appreciation of the value of the “intrusion” of the Jews into South Africa. I have a right to quote from very much higher authority, because I was at one time almost on their level. The editor of the “Jewish Chronicle” used to write to people of weight for messages, and they were consistent; they are running all the time. There is a singular silence on that side of the House—

The man who ought to know. Now then, if you cheer you have no right to vote in favour of this Bill.

He still says it.

Oh, then, is it sheer talk; is it hypocrisy? I hesitate to believe that. I venture to believe we can depend on the support of the community if we say that no party has displayed the national—not Nationalist— ideals displayed by the Jews. There is no qualification whatsoever.

Who says that?

Who says that? A greater man than the hon. member. A man to whom the whole Dutch population in South Africa looks to with admiration and respect, Mr. T. J. Roos, the then Minister of Justice. We are gradually getting their support. Despite the unpopularity and the prejudice, we are gradually getting them. Their consciences are working.

Too much of a good thing.

You cannot have too much of a good thing. Surely you would like to hear what the Prime Minister said—

Well! Well! Well! I am not going to read all these messages to you, but I shall give you a final one by special request. These papers that I have are full of messages from the hon. the Minister of Lands. They only vary in language, not in sentiment. He says—

Is that unassimilability ?

Where is the menace? Where is the unassimilability and where is the menace? I cannot understand it. I am afraid these hon. members are inflicted with an inferiority complex. These people are too good for you evidently. I do not propose to read the messages sent either by the Minister of Defence or the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Boydell, because, as usual, they are very noncommittal indeed. I am going to read part of a message sent by a man who I always regarded as a man who weighed his words well, both in and out of the Cabinet, and certainly when he committed himself to writing, was very clear and explicit, and only put down what he really meant—Mr. E. W. Beyers—

Is that a menace? Is that a reason why you are so much concerned in prohibiting, or certainly drastically restricting the influx of further Jews into South Africa to build up the nation of South Africa?

Now read your own message.

That was pretty good, too. At all events, it had this merit, and you can make comparisons if you like, for I am very modest, it was perfectly honest and perfectly sincere.

Go on.

I am going to give you the very best, the final and culminating point of the apex of the pyramid, the Hon. D. F. Malan, Minister of the Interior, who said—

So long as they continue! Then the assumption surely is that in the estimation of the Minister of the Interior, the Jews in the past have been helping to build up this nation, using their best endeavours and talents in the direction of building up a great big South African nation. That is the true assumption, and an assumption that no one has a right to cavil at.

What did you say?

I said the right thing, of course. Does unassimilability mean that they did not vote right? Does it mean that? I have here, and it will be interesting to the House to listen to it, a statement of the Nationalist party candidate in Yeoville, Mr. H. J. Schlosberg, himself a prominent member of the Jewish community. In a constituency of 16,000

Jewish votes, 800 votes were polled which included 400 Nationalist votes, this is the statement—

That is what he said.

Who said?

Mr. Schlosberg. I do wish hon. members would pay me the compliment of listening to what I have to say. Mr. Schlosberg is a member of the Jewish community, and he stood as the Nationalist party candidate for Yeoville. I think that interesting gentleman has let the cat out of the bag.

When did he say that?

The other day. It is in the Cape Times of February 3rd, 1930, and he said it on the Rand. The hon. Minister can verify that, and I think he will credit me with making an accurate statement. Of course, the Minister may tell us that he has changed his mind since then and is against the Bill, or perhaps he won’t tell us that, The fact remains that hon. members on the other side are not voting in a block in favour of the Nationalist party, and, consequently, it is not in the best interests of South Africa. I wish hon. members were able to appreciate the facts. I do not think any interjection from the lengthy and able member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) will have much effect. Where is the menace? Menace connotes funk. Are you afraid of the Jews ?

No.

I range myself on the side of the soberer and saner Ministers—not the present-day ones—who sent these messages to the Jewish Chronicle. I am satisfied that the infusion of Jews into South Africa has been all to the good, although, of course, you will find undesirables in all nations. At the same time there is a smaller proportion of the Jewish race who do not make good than of any other race in South Africa, and I say that, as an Englishman, and it is based on my experience. A menace! Why, their existence side by side with us is all to the good, and is an example. Take their home life. Have any hon. members been to a Jewish home? I have been to hundreds, and they are a shining example to every one of us, as to the way in which they keep their families. The best is not too good for their wives and children. Far from being a menace, they have the tendency to improve our national character and characteristics. Unemployment! When Jews are unemployed, they do not throw themselves upon the state. No, the Jews consume their own smoke as regards unemployment and dependency. [Time limit extended.] Never do you find Jews in the position of having to ask for state aid. They are looked after by their own community—a shining example to we who claim to be older, and, possibly, more superior races—the Dutch and the English. I am going to deal with children of that class to whom the Minister referred in rather biting terms when he said that the children who arrived in South Africa belonged to the poorer classes, and, therefore, presumably were less desirable. Have other hon. members taken sufficient interest in their children to attend their schools on prize distribution day? If they did they would find that, considering the number of Jews in this country, they occupy a disproportionately high position in the examination lists. Are you afraid of the Jew? I am not. If my son had not got the pluck to compete with the Jews scholastically and in every other direction, I would disown him. The result of the presence of the Jew in the class-room, and even in the playground, is an elevating one, because he places a spur on the ambitions of the others. It it the same with art. As to music, some of the best exponents of vocal and instrumental music are Jews. Science and agriculture—I need only point to these sincere messages, conceived in a spirit of truth on the part of the Minister of Agriculture, to the Jewish community. I want to emphasize the statement made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that no fewer than 1,000 out of the 71,000 Jews in South Africa are engaged sucessfully in agriculture; 800 of them are wholly and solely occupied in agriculture. Where, then, is the menace? Everything I have been able to discover regarding the effect of the Jew on our national character and nationhood has all been to the good. So where is the menace? It can have its roots only in prejudice, and, possibly, the fact that they are not being used as a political pawn by the Nationalist party. There are three very bad and dangerous foundations upon which we should not elevate the structure of our nation—expediency, funk and prejudice. I am afraid that the legislation projected by the Minister, and which I fear popular prejudice will carry in this House, is based on one or the other, if not all three, of these very bad foundations. If you wish to keep out undesirables, I am with you. If you wish to keep out undesirables, the Minister has all the power necessary under the Immigration Act. Not only can he prevent immigrants of any nationality whatever coming in who are undesirable, but he can turn them out should they succeed in entering the country by declaring them prohibited immigrants. So it is pretty evident that it is not undesirables he wishes to keep out as individuals. Despite what the Minister says, what mass meetings of Jews have asked for this Bill? A mass meeting of Jews at Benoni protested against the Bill on the grounds that it was unjust and illiberal, and that the admission of immigrants should Be based on their individual characteristics, and not on the country of origin. I heartily endorse every word of that. I deny the effect of one statement made by the Minister when he said that, in addition to the measure having support from all over the country, he had even received supporting messages from Jews themselves.

I never said that.

“Some Jews asked for it.”

I did not say that. It is true nevertheless.

I will deal with his asservations nevertheless. I know of one to whom the Minister is referring, a gentleman representing a trade union in this country, who, I understand, appealed to the Minister, who totally misunderstood him. He is the secretary of the tailors union.

Try again !

In case there should be any misunderstanding, I would say he takes up the attitude that all he asked the Minister to do, or will ask—because the Minister denies it—is to restrict the influx, not of Jews, but of people occupied in the tailoring trade while there is a slump in that trade and people are out of work.

The union ?

The secretary; that is the man who does it. Anyhow, that is the union’s interpretation, and either to-day or to-morrow you will find an official statement to that effect in the press. They do not mean the wholesale restriction of Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles or Russians. I believe that if a few Russians came in the Minister would call out the defence force, because he would be so startled. This union wants to make it perfectly clear that they do not want to be misinterpreted as to their actions or desires; they are not supporting the Minister’s Bill at all—the restriction of immigration as such, but merely ask the Minister for a temporary occupational restriction to be put into force for the moment. All I appeal to the Minister for is, do not insult races at all; you get nowhere. Do not insult peoples; do not pass legislative enactments referring to any people; why do you not do it to the Indian? You have precisely the same power with the Indian under the immigration law as you have with the Jew, and why do you not schedule the Indian? The Minister has given the whole case away. They are kept out by the immigration law. If you can keep out the Indian you can keep out the Jews who are undesirable. I appeal to the House, to the conscience and mind of hon. members, for heaven’s sake do not be driven and betrayed into passing such legislation on prejudice, funk, or expediency, but take your stand on what you believe to be right, and always have in mind its effect on the white population surrounded by hordes of natives Now is not the time to restrict any white races whatsoever from whatever places on the globe they may come.

I second the amendment, and in doing so I think that every hon. members should take notice of the Minister’s appeal when he hoped that no political bias would decide the decision of this House, and I hope that appeal will also be listened to by supporters of the Government, although addressed to the Opposition benches, and they must agree, after the statements which have been made from the Opposition benches that a case has been made out for further enquiry. We have the speeches of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), followed by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), both agreeing that a select committee was desirable, and that the result of further enquiry would be a better Bill, which would meet the requirements of and satisfy all sections of the people. The hon. gentleman said that if he thought the Bill was aimed at the Jewish community, he would not support it, but later on, by implication, said it was aimed at them. That is the same thing. If every hon. member of the Opposition benches, with the exception of Jewish hon. members, thought that if this was going to be the effect of the Bill, they would not vote for it, it is up to us to see that some enquiry is instituted. The Minister himself stated that they were not concerned with Jews or any other section, but only with the people of certain countries who were not assimilable. The position of people born in South-West Africa and in Kenya Colony and elsewhere under the Bill renders a reference of the Bill to select committee necessary. In spite of all the arguments brought forward, there still remains the fact that an organized section of the community, organized for the purpose of opposing this Bill, representing 70,000 citizens of this country, say that the measure casts a slur upon them, and in spite of what hon. members may have said to their constituents by letter and by telegram, these 70,000 people still take up an attitude of opposition to the Bill. Is it not fair that those people should have an opportunity of stating their position before a select committee? I agree with the necessity of having an immigration law sufficiently strict to see that fair play is done to all the people in the country, consistent with their aspirations and progress. It is a very curious thing that early in December a Jewish business man came to my store in Johannesburg and told me that this quota Bill was going to be introduced. I told him that it was nonsense. On the 30th December the same gentleman came along again, and said: “It is quite right: this quota Bill is going to be introduced.” As an illustration of the fact that many Jewish people will have no objection to a fair quota system, I may say that he told me that he quite recognized that even among the Jewish population to-day there are boys and girls who cannot get work, and that the Jewish people, in this respect, are feeling the economic pinch just as much as any other part of the population. They appreciate the desirability of immigration being restricted, where it is essential, in the economic interests of the people of this country. This person must have had an extraordinary imagination to tell me in December that this Bill was coming forward. On January 7th the Minister of Justice denied that such a Bill was coming forward. He did not know what the Minister of the Interior had in the back of his head. We know that in many Cabinets there is a Cabinet within the Cabinet. Everyone of us who has been engaged in political work for many years, and has served on executive committees in connection with political parties, has realized how easy it is for a small group to get control of an executive. In view of the statement of the Minister of Justice, it would appear that there is something of that sort in the Cabinet to-day. Although members on the other side, and some members of the Cabinet, think they have control, there is an imperio in imperium in the Cabinet. The position is serious, because if the Bill were passed as it now stands it would be a blot upon our statute book, as it picks out certain nations as being unfit to be associated with. Nations are not like individuals, in that they live for ever. Nations will live as long as the world lives, and the power of nations changes, the balance alters. There are many generations still to come, and if South Africa takes up this attitude and puts a mark against Greece and Russia and Lithuania, and other countries, the day may come when our successors will be very much ashamed of what we have done in this respect. I want to see an immigration law which will not exclude persons because they belong to a particular nation, but to see one which will lay down a quota on a fair basis, based on the population within the country, in the same way as the immigration law of the United States. We are entitled to do that, and to say to the world that we make no exceptions with regard to the peoples of the world, but merely say that on the basis of immigration in a certain year we are laying down a quota for each country. I contend that a case has been made out for further enquiries, and for a select committee to sit and take evidence, so that they may evolve something that will meet the requirements of hon. members supporting the Government, and also the requirements of the people of the country and will, at the same time, do justice to every citizen in South Africa.

I want to say a word or two in support of the Bill from an angle that has not been advanced so far. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that the Bill has been aimed at the Jew as a Jew. It is from that standpoint I want to add a few words. One association that has been urging the Minister to introduce this measure has 90 per cent, of its members Jews. After considering it, a deputation, largely composed of Jews, was sent to the Minister urging that the time had arrived for the introduction of this measure. They went to the Minister—everyone of them well-known members of the Jewish community—and urged the importance of bringing in the Bill. This association consisted not of the empolyees only, but also manufacturers. They pointed out to him that, as a result of the immigration from eastern Europe, it was becoming difficult to make a living at the present time. Many of the immigrants from eastern Europe are used to a very low standard of living, and are accustomed to work for periods far in excess of the ordinary hours of labour. They become a menace, because they exploit their employees and under-sell and under-cut the merchant tailor who is endeavouring to give good conditions. That is the point they put to the hon. Minister. If I thought that this Bill was aimed at the Jewish race, I would oppose the measure. My best supporters are probably Jews. The Bill is not aimed at Jews, but at this class of emigrant that is coming from eastern Europe. These people put their representations to the Minister.

Did they not ask for an occupational quota ?

No, they asked for restriction on immigration from eastern Europe, and the Bill does not give a race quota. It does not mention race or creed. It only says that from these countries the number of immigrants admitted shall be restrictede to a certain number; it does not mention race. It is on that ground that these men are coming in and are eating their way into the trade. They come here from a country with a low standard of life, and they are willing to accept a low standard in this country. On these grounds alone, that they are tending to bring down the standard of living in this country, a Bill of this kind is necessary. I hope the Minister is acquainted with this and will deal very fully with what that deputation did put up to him, as that was one of the reasons which induced him to introduce the Bill.

One of the most extraordinary features of the present discussion has been that hon. members on the Government benches have kept a silence on what is perhaps the most important and most controversial measure we have had before the House this session. It speaks volumes, not only of their discipline, but of their mentality that on a measure of this kind they are compelled to keen silence. In the 15 years’ experience I have had of parliamentary life I have never listened to a speech which was such a confession of ineptitude and failure as that of the hon. Minister.

Rot !

Did the hon. member say “rot”? Why, the Minister convicts himself out of his own mouth! The hon. Minister said that in six years of the greatest prosperity that this country has ever known, the net result of the population, the net gains to this country from immigration are—

(He admits that these figures are most alarming.) The net gain from alien stock has been 14,500. When you get down to fundamentals, every true South African must regard this as a confession of failure and ineptitude.

Your own record for the previous years was even worse !

The Minister knows very well that the period from 1914 to 1924 was absolutely abnormal. I say that no Government which has the real interests of this country at heart can get up and view, with complacency, the figures submitted by the Minister. The fact of this legislation being brought forward in this way and with this haste, is in itself proof of the failure of the Ministerial policy so far as the building up of a white population in South Africa is concerned. I am not surprised that the present Government has failed. “By their works ye shall know them.” I remember when the present Government first became the official Opposition in this House. I was here and listened to their speeches. I have looked up one or two of those speeches. In 1921, a full dress debate on immigration policy took place in this House and an attack was made by Dr. Malan against the South African party Government of the day in general, and his predecessor, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in particular. According to the Cape Times report—

What scoundrels !—

Nine years later the same person, now a Minister, gets up and announces the failure of his Government’s policy in these words—

That is the state of affairs rightly described by the Minister now as “most alarming.” But in 1921, that was the way they dealt with it in this House for the edification of the backveld. Let me give another quotation. Mr. C. W. Malan, on the same occasion—

Mark those words !—

An hon. member opposite says “hear, hear.” I expected those “hear, hears,” and yet they wonder at the existence at the state of affairs as he is described in the Minister’s speech.

Not State-aided.

And not State-aided land settlement when they came to this country?

Not State-aided immigration.

I am not speaking of State-aided immigration. I will read it again for the information of the hon. member-—

Does the hon. member still say “hear, hear”? I do not wonder that the Minister gets up and says that an alarming state of affairs has arisen in this country such as has made the introduction of this Bill necessary. Of course, the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) is honest and he typifies the attitude of this party during the last few years. It is a question not only of State-aided immigration, but also of atmosphere; and people coming to this country from overseas, especially from British countries, feel that the atmosphere has not been a receptive one. This Government is faced with the state of affairs I have mentioned not only because they have not encouraged immigration, but also because their whole attitude, and the attitude of their party, has been one of passive hostility to British immigration. They have done their best to make it impossible for anyone of these persons to enter the public service, or the railways, or the educational services of this country. I say further that the enormous loss of the British-born population in this country during the last five years (and that we know is a new feature of life in this country), is very largely due to the policy followed by this Government. I know it myself, and I am speaking with conviction and knowledge when I say that such measures as the Flag Bill and the German trade treaty Bill were responsible for turning many people away from this country, and their going to Rhodesia and elsewhere. You know it. You may laugh, but I know the feelings of the British section of this country better than the hon. gentleman who laughs. I have heard not one, but many people say, “I am leaving this country. It is no use to me.”

Why don’t you leave ?

Because I am too good a South African. For better or worse, I am here, and you will never get rid of me. I say this, and I make the statement of my own personal knowledge, that I know people who have left, and I am convinced that to the many hundreds of those who have gone, it is a question of atmosphere, of the atmosphere created by these measures.

Give us one name.

I say that the tact that the general immigration position has been so bad is merely an instance of the colossal stupidity and insularity of the Government, but I admit that it does not touch their honesty. When you come, however, to their handling of the Jewish immigration question, you are convinced from the outset of their hypocrisy and dishonesty. Their attitude all along has been unpatriotic and hypocritical. From 1921 to 1924, when this country was faced, as it is to-day, with an influx of post-war emigrants from Lithuania and south-eastern Europe, and when the South African party of the day tried to stop it with the measures at their hand, what support or help did we get from the then Nationalist party Opposition? It is all very well for the Minister to ask now that this question should he treated on broad South African lines and not in a party spirit, but did he and his friends then treat the matter in a non-party spirit, or ask whether the interests of South Africa were being served by the influx of these people? No, they did not. They did nothing but thwart and hinder the hon. member for Yeoville and the South African party Government in its efforts to invoke the Immigration Act, Section 4 (1) (a) to keep out that influx. I want to tell you what we did. With the machinery at our disposal, we were able to check that influx and turn away that invasion of those days. You remember the conditions. The war had just come to an end. The conditions in central and eastern Europe were more terrible then even than they are to-day, and thousands and thousands of people from those countries were looking to South Africa and to other parts of the world as a new haven, and we believed, quite rightly, that it was a very real menace to South Africa. So we took advantage of the only machinery then available, to try to keep these people out of our country. With what success? In 1921, Russia had long been classified in our books into component parts and the figures for that year must be taken as a whole. In 1921, there were 1,416 from Russia. In 1922 the number had been reduced to 200, and from Lithuania, the number was 477, giving a total of 677, or from 1,400 to 677 in one year. In 1923 there were 86 Russians, and 190 Lithuanians, a total of 276. Then what happened? There was a change of Government. The present Minister of the Interior and Mr. Tielman Roos, the stalking-horse of the Nationalist party in regard to the Jews, went up and down throughout the length and breadth of the country attacking the South African party Government because of its alleged anti-Semitic proclivities. I say quite definitely that the result of 1924 election and the overthrow of the South African party by a small vote was very largely, if not mainly, due to the Nationalists’ successful appeal to the Jewish vote of the day. The Nationalists gave a pledge that the machinery of Section 4 (1) (a) would not be used against any European in future. In other words, the Jews would then be able to come in whilst the wicked South African party had kept them out. If it were only the machinery that the Minister so disliked, why did he not introduce a Bill to amend it six years ago? The numbers went down in 1923 to 276 immigrants from the Russian provinces; but increased to 500 from Lithuania alone in 1924. In 1925 the arrivals from Lithuania totalled 869, and since there has been an increase of 351 per cent. For six years the Minister has had his attention drawn to the growing number of immigrants from these countries, and his attitude has been one of entire and utter passivity. In no way did he indicate that the Government was moving in the direction of this Bill. Instead, therefore, of these bouquets being thrown at the Minister of the Interior, as if he were a heaven-born statesman because he introduced the Bill, it is time he was told that despite his present appeal for the matter to be dealt with in a non-party atmosphere, his party was utterly unscrupulous in making it a party matter, and further, that he has allowed this menace to grow for six years, so that the Bill is six years overdue. We ask him why he has delayed. If the Bill was actually on his file and he intended introducing it two or three years ago, why did he not in common honesty make known his misgivings in some public utterance in regard to this Jewish immigration? Why did he wait to introduce the Bill until after the last general election, and why did his party in Johannesburg alone put up four Jewish candidates to try and persuade the Jewish voters that the Nationalists were their true friends and the South African party their hereditary enemies? The conduct of the Government in this matter reeks with hypocrisy from the very start.

The hon. member must not use the word “hypocrisy.”

I spoke of the Government as a whole.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy.”

I withdraw the word. The Jewish community have every right to say that they have not received good faith at the hands of the Government. I remember a speech made at Yeoville in 1924 during the general election by Mr. Tielman Roos, who came there with the express purpose of opposing the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). Mr. Roos raised this question of our keeping these people out by means of the immigration Act and condemned as a particular the present hon. member for Yeoville, who was then Minister of the Interior. Mr. Roos gave the people to understand that if they only turned out the wicked South African party, the Jews need never fear anything from their good friends the Nationalists. I will now speak of my own attitude in regard to the Bill. At the last general election I raised the question from the platform and I told my constituents that the influx of increasingly large numbers of people from southern and eastern Europe while we were receiving fewer people from the northern countries, was most unsound and unhealthy. Therefore I can speak with a clear conscience. After that speech several Jewish members of my constituents came to see me. I told them that that was my attitude and that if the Jews arrived in South Africa as a proportion of a general stream of immigration I would not object, but that they were the only source from which our population was being recruited from outside. That is an unhealthy state of affairs, and if it continues then the whole ethnological character of the country would be changed, and we have the right to say that immigration shall be so controlled as to conform to the existing ethnological conditions of South Africa. We do not want to keep people out because they are Jews or Lithuanians, but we do want to restrict their numbers so that they shall conform with the present ethnological conditions.

That is what we are doing.

“There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth, than over 99 just men.” I congratulate the Minister at long last and after two elections coming to a true view of what the needs of the country are on this side. I support the Bill and I am glad it was introduced, but my criticism is that it was delayed for six years. I believe the Bill should be supported everywhere, because we cannot afford to look with equinimity on the stream of immigration into South Africa which differs radically from the existing composition of the people. Two thousand people from Lithuania are welcome to come here if they come only as a proportion of a larger stream, but they are the whole stream, and because they are the whole stream, that is an absolutely unsound state of affairs.

It is not their fault.

I quite agree, and I am sorry we have to take this action. We do not take it from any anti-semitic feeling but in the promotion of the interests of our people. I am sorry that the Government has so altered its policy that eastern and southern Europe are the only sources from which we are recruiting our population. I quite agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) that when the stream of Nordic immigration again starts to flow we can open our gates a little wider; until that day comes a Bill like this is necessary. I want to ask our Jewish friends where they stand. A lot has been said of the unnecessary stigma which is put on the Jewish people by this Bill. Do they, like the hon. member for Durban (Stain ford Hill) (Mr. Robinson), want us to open our doors to Lithuanians because they are poor and oppressed? Are they to be allowed to come in in the same numbers as in the past? Or do they accept the view that the present position is unsound and unhealthy from the true South African point of view? If this is so, could not merely the machinery to bring about that end be altered, and some other means adopted to attain the desired end? Our Jewish community tells us that the present Bill is anathema to them because it casts a stigma on every person of Jewish birth in this country. I am not sure myself whether it does cast a stigma. There is not a word about the Jews in the Bill. Mr. Gandhi, one of the most astute politicians we have had in this country, once said—

How can we so alter the Bill as to attain the result which the great majority on this side of the House wish to attain in common with hon. members sitting on the Government benches without hurting anyone’s feelings. The Minister, in the crudest possible way, puts down in the schedule a list of countries whose inhabitants will be allowed to come into South Africa, and says to the rest of the world, “You will not be allowed in, except on a quota basis.” It is impossible to find any real logic in that. On what principle is a Portuguese allowed in and a Greek excluded: an Austrian from the new Austria allowed in, but a Bohemian and a Hungarian excluded? That is the crudest possible way that could be thought of; if the Minister had deliberately sought to tread on the corns of the Jewish, and of these other communities, he could not have done so better. I thought the Minister might have told us in more detail how far he had considered alternatives to the present proposals. That portion of his speech, admirable as the rest of it was, was a disappointment. Let me suggest two possible alternatives; the first has already been mentioned; instead of putting a few nations amongst the goats and the others amongst the sheep, that we impose a quota on the whole world on the principle of the American legislation. Should we not, in South Africa, follow that American precedent? We cannot go back to the time prior to Union, but we have the Union census of 1911, when conditions were normal, and it gives the figures of the foreign-born population of the Union, which in round figures are: Great Britain, 182,000; Austria-Hungary, 1,500; Germany, 12,800; Holland, 5,400, and Russia. 24,000. Suppose you take a two per cent, quota of that, and that would allow more subjects of the British commonwealth than are now coming in, and as regards the influx from the whole of the former Russian countries would restrict it to something like 400 or 500 a year. Lithuania would probably not have more than 250 to 300. That is one method that can be conveniently explored. Subject to what the Minister may have to say in his reply, it is our intention to move, when the House goes into committee, that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to have power to consider amendments of the Bill based on this particular proposal. We would appreciate it if the Minister would give consideration to this matter, and tell us what the views of his officials are upon it. Supposing the Minister is convinced that is not a practical way, there is another alternative. Why cannot he reduce the schedule of the Bill simply to those countries on the stocks of whose people South Africa has been built and say he will admit, free of quota, people from the British empire, Holland, Germany and France, from whose stocks the people of this country have sprung, and from other races we will let in on quota only. If that is done I have the assurance of my Jewish friends on this side, and with those I have discussed the matter, that much of the objection to this Bill will disappear. I mention these two points of constructive criticism because it does add force to what my Leader says, and surely it is the better course to discharge the second reading and have these matters I have adumbrated thoroughly investigated, always having it understood that the great majority on this side support the principle of the Bill. When an extremely drastic piece of legislation, the Class Areas Bill, was before the House three or more years ago, there was strong objection to it from the Indian population in this country and from India itself, and to our surprise the Minister came to the House and said, “In deference to the representations I have received, I have decided to move that the order for the second reading be discharged, and that the whole matter be referred to a select committee.” If it could be done in a spirit of compromise between the two parties, there is no reason why that course should not be followed now. The great majority on our side are just as keen as the Nationalists on seeing something effective done, and done as early as possible, to put an end to the present state of affairs, but we do demand that whatever be done be done in such a way as not to offend the susceptibilities of one of the most important sections of our population to-day. We will never lend ourselves to anything which is in form or in substance anti-semitic. We believe that South Africa owes a tremendous lot to the Jewish inhabitants who have grown up with us. I will never allow myself to be described as an anti-Semite. Many of the best friends I have in this world are persons of Jewish birth. I have not one particle of feeling against the Jew as such, but that does not stop me as a South African from saying that we cannot afford to keep an open door to immigration to any extent from southern and eastern Europe. I would suggest to my Jewish friends that they should give us credit in taking up the position we do, not from petty or sordid motives, but from a single eye to what we believe to be the just demands of the future of South Africa.

I appreciate the applause of the other side of the House. It is not every day I get it. The last speaker, who has just sat down, and various speakers opposite, referred sneeringly that members on this side had not taken a larger part in the debate. The Minister who opened it so fully expressed what we feel here, that it is not necessary for us to speak. We do not speak with many voices on this side; we are unanimous on this measure. What he said is the opinion of all of us, and why should we repeat it. The rules of the House, moreover, prohibit that being done. The last speaker, however, has compelled me to say a few words on the matter. I think if there is one speech in this debate which is to be deplored, it is the one he has just made. He introduced the worst form of racial bitterness. He went further and dragged in strong party feeling. These two things were in his speech. I challenge anyone to analyse three-quarters of his speech, and to say that it is not full of racial bitterness and political envy. If his charges were only based on facts, then one might admit them, but that is not the case. He reproaches the present Government for being responsible for the decrease in the number of British immigrants.

Particularly you with your republican propaganda,

He blames the policy of the present Government. Were conditions better under the previous Government? Did more come in then? He has now said that since we came into power, during the last six years, conditions were normal, and that when they were in office, conditions were abnormal. I did not expect a compliment like that. An abnormal state of affairs prevailed fourteen years ago, but when we came into office everything suddenly became normal. The hon. member said so, but he knows very well that even in their time there were normal years, and I want to ask him whether the immigrants of British descent were more under the previous Government than during the past six years. The hon. member, however, goes further, and he has to-day undoubtedly done much harm to British immigration by his speech. Anyone reading his speech in England will not be able to say anything else but: “There must be some truth in it, that it is made impossible in South Africa for English immigrants.” The hon. member said that the position was such that they did not remain long, but returned overseas.

Quite true.

Can the hon. member give facts? The only fact which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) gave is that if immigrants of British descent come here they have to wait two years before they can be employed in the Government service. Does he wish that, although there is a long list of South Africans who possess the qualifications, many of whom are graduates, who want to enter the Government service, we must put them all behind people from abroad? Moreover, I want to point out that just as many, and even more, English-speaking than Dutch-speaking people, were appointed during recent years. Does the hon. member wish to overlook all the South Africans who have been waiting for years? The hon. member said that the Government was creating an atmosphere here which frightened away our immigrants. I challenge the hon. member to mention one fact. He referred to the flag and the German treaty. It is not the flag and the German treaty which possibly offended certain persons, but the misrepresentation of facts. The false representation of facts which has taken place, and the agitation which has prevented a calm discussion of the subject on its merits. Those things were based on pure South Africanism, and nothing else. If we spoke about the republicanism, then it was not because we wanted to go against the English, because there are many English people who are republicans. Why then may we not talk about it without its being said that we want to hurt people? I challenge the hon. member to mention anything by which we made it unpleasant for English immigrants. On the contrary, the Government of the country was always very friendly, and the immigrants have always been received by the Government and the Dutch-speaking people in the most pleasant way, and included in the social life. The hon. member never ought to drag that thing into the debate. But then he went further, and pretended that during the last six years we merely wanted to mislead the Jewish friends for party political purposes. I call that a low charge. As if we had now suddenly turned upon our friends.

It is true.

The hon. member now confirms what I consider a low complaint. He says that otherwise we ought to have had the “common honesty” to introduce the Bill six years ago, or to have announced our intentions. I ask him whether he has not the common sense to know that if years beforehand such a scheme were made known, it would not have made the influx much larger still. This Government to-day acts in an honest and honourable way, and we are still just as good, if not better, friends of our Jewish compatriots as hon. members opposite. I prefer a Government which openly and frankly says what its intention is. The hon. member has even quoted figures to establish what I say. He argues that during the latter years of the South African party Government the numbers of immigrants from Lithuania, Poland and Latvia very much decreased, and that when we came into office it increased at once. I think that is correct. The South African party preferred to do things in the dark, so that the Immigration Department was brought into a hopeless position. They pretended to the Jews that they were good friends, but behindhand in the dark the Immigration Department was engaged in putting out and keeping out all they could. I have, myself, heard a good deal from immigration officials about it. Our Minister said that there is an Act in the country, and that it must be honestly administered, so that Jewish immigrants also should be dealt with according to law.

That we said as well.

I shall be able quite easily to give the hon. member facts where the immigration officials said “no,” while the immigrant was subsequently admitted because they had influence, and pressure was exercised on their behalf to get them in. Can the hon. member give any other reason why the numbers decreased so much during the last year of the South African party Government ?

We kept them out.

How? According to law ?

We did not only keep out Jews.

After we got into office more Jews immigrated.

For election purposes.

Did you possibly keep them out for election purposes? Can you mention one case where the Government allowed a Jew to come in in conflict to the law? The Government applied the Act honestly and made no distinctions. Our Government has always been honest towards them, and the figures of the hon. member himself prove it. Why did we not introduce it six years ago? Why did not hon. members introduce it twenty years ago, if they feel so strongly about it? I think it is deplorable for such arguments to be used in this direction. We must be very careful not to hurt people, but the object is to stop the big stream of elements which do not easily assimilate with our population, and are foreign to the characteristics of the population of South Africa. I can understand the attitude of the members on the benches, because they are under the influence of the leaders of that party. We have been great friends of the Jews, and still are so. The Minister has rightly said that we must take care that in South Africa no embittered feelings arise against the Jewish compatriots, and I am sorry that the hon. members for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and Stamford Hill (Mr. Robinson) made out as if the Minister objected to their co-religionists, and wished that their co-religionists, who were already in the country, for their own benefit, would support the Bill. The Minister did not say so, but spoke about South African Jewry and about the Jewish affairs in general, which might be injured. So many panegyrics on the Jews have been heard that I fear they themselves are sick of them. I will not follow the example. If there is one who sympathizes with the struggle the Jews have had to make in the past, then it is ourselves who have had to go through a big national struggle. I shall welcome it if the Jews were to succeed in building up a nation in Palestine once more, which they can call their own.

Because you want to be rid of them.

No, not for that reason, but because I regard their struggle sympathetically from a national point of view. Does the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) want to oppose the Bill? I shall be glad to hear him speak, if so. The explanation of this Bill has been very clearly given by the Minister of the Interior, and it is not necessary for me to say any more. I only want to touch on a few points to remove misunderstanding. A matter like this cannot be postponed any longer, and be referred beforehand to a select committee. What kind of evidence will be given before the select committee? The Jews will adduce the same arguments as we have already heard here. They will say it is a blot on their race. We can only say that it is not so. What other evidence can there be? If the intention is for the matter to be deliberated over, then it can be done much better in the committee of the whole House than in the select committee. If there are any proposals, the House can debate them in committee. If hon. members have, practical proposals, not the kind of proposal that we have had here, then they can be debated if we have the assurance that they are not considered as a blot on the Jews, and that they will be effective to guarantee our country against unbalanced immigration. I do not see the least reason for the matter going to a select committee. It will merely be a sort of waste of time, which is becoming a habit of late. If hon. members do not know what to do, or will not openly express their conviction, then a select committee is suggested. We are getting tired of that kind of thing. If hon. members opposite cannot come to agreement, then a select committee or a national convention is suggested. Let us dispose of the matter, and reserve the time which we are now occupying for debating the matter in the House in committee. Let us discuss the matter here without dragging racial bitterness and political prejudice into the matter.

This House, after having examined the immigration statistics of this country, is bound to conclude that immediate legislation is necessary in order to rectify our present lob-sided immigration policy. I am not talking about the question of over-immigration, but of our lob-sided immigration policy. Figures show very clearly that, during the past six years, this lob-sidedness has become so pronounced that one asks oneself the question, why the Minister at this late stage has come to the conclusion that he came to a fortnight ago. There is no doubt the whole House agrees that the principle of this Bill is correct. But the Jewish community, rightly or wrongly, look upon this Bill as a slur upon their national character and a blot on their escutcheon. The Jewish community number 71,000 people to-day. They are a small community, but an influential one. They are a community that have assisted for generations the national life of South Africa. On the other hand, they are a community which assist themselves. They do not require assistance from anybody else. If hon. members of the other side of the House were allowed to speak their minds, they would tell us that this Jewish section for generations has bought their produce. They have bought wool from the farmers for the last one hundred years. They have bought the fruit crop, beef, mutton and maize, and they have bought the ostrich farmers’ feathers. Those buyers are still stuck with the feathers to-day. It is not always the man who buys the feathers who makes the profit. He cannot sell them to-day, for the price of feather-dusters. I maintain that the Jews are an asset to this country. I say, further, and I do not think it is a great exaggeration to say it, that if it were not for that section of the community, this country to-day would still be cattle farming on the site where Johannesburg now stands. I put this suggestion to the Minister on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The suggestion is one by which the Minister can retain the effectiveness of his present Bill and take a stigma from the Jewish race. The world should be divided into two groups, the restricted group and the unrestricted group. In the unrestricted group we would have Great Britain and the dominions, France, Germany and Holland. In the restricted group there would be the rest of the world, even America, yes, and even Portugal: in fact, the whole world, with the exception of Great Britain, the dominions, France, Holland and Germany. You would abolish the present basis as indicated in the Bill, and substitute a percentage basis plus a minimum. Foreign countries would then be able to choose whichever figures is the greater. I will give an example of it. Lithuania for the last six or seven years has let in 10,917 immigrants, or an average of about 1,800 a year. If we take 3 per cent, of 1,800 we get 54. Lithuania will, therefore, ask for the percentage basis. If we take, for instance, Greece, that country has something like 200 immigrants a year. She examines our conditions, and she finds that 3 per cent, amounts to six. As an alternative she can either take six a year or go on the alternative scheme of 50. Then take Assyria. Assyria sends in six per annum. She would come under the minimum figure of 50. This looks to me to be a feasible scheme, and I should like the Minister to consider this matter of a percentage basis with a minimum. What is more, the Minister could regulate the percentage or the minimum to a nicety, so that he comes out exactly as he stands to-day, and the effectiveness of his Bill will be retained while the stigma placed upon the Jewish race will be removed. I have spoken to influential Jewish people who have been worrying about this Bill, and they contend that, if a basis of that description could be found, they would be perfectly satisfied. I feel that this is a reasonable request. I also feel that it is a workable scheme, and I hope the Minister will give it his very serious attention. I feel that if an amendment of this sort is brought up, I shall support it. If no amendment of this description is brought up, I shall be compelled to vote against the Bill.

I do not wish to inflict a long speech upon the House, but I desire to make my own position perfectly clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding whatsoever in regard thereto. I am wholly in favour of this Bill; I, indeed, believe it is overdue, and I would like to put before the House what has not yet been placed before it, and that is what I consider to be the position of the man in the street in regard to this measure. The man in the street, whether in town or country, is absolutely and unreservedly in favour of the Bill. We are all agreed upon it. Why? There must be a good reason for that unanimity. That reason is directly connected with the class of persons who come to this country, but it is not directed against the Jew qua Jew. There is nothing of that sort in the mind of the man in the street, but he knows that a very considerable section who arrive here from the non-scheduled countries should not be allowed to reach these shores. That feeling is due to a lack of character, to a lack of commercial morality, and to the manner in which these immigrants conduct themselves. There is no question that this is the position, and there is no doubt that the man in the street has good cause to realize it. The objection of the man in the street and the objection, I venture to say of 99 per cent, of the members of this House, is to the character of the people who arrive here from four countries in particular. The Jewish citizens who have done so much for this country—and there are many of them— have, unfortunately never raised their voices against these immigrants, and in this respect they have fallen short. It is an unfortunate trait in Jewish character that if a man be a Jew—be has character good, bad or indifferent— that is all that is required of him by other Jews, and no objection is made to his admission by men who have made the name of the Jewish race famous. The class of immigrant I refer to is totally unacquainted with even the elementary principles of honesty and of straight forward business dealings.

Have you ever taught them ?

They require a lot of teaching, but our gaols are doing that. I quite appreciate that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is placed in a difficult position, but I did not put him there. I am not referring to him or to any other members who have the honour of belonging to this House. I would be the last to say anything against them, because there is nothing to be said against them. But when they talk about a “stigma,” I would say there is no man in this House who looks upon the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) in any less favourable light now than he did before, because of the introduction of this Bill. That also applies to the hon. member for Troyeville and other hon. members who happen to be of that race. People do not look upon them less favourably because of this Bill. They deserve well of the country, and the country is indebted to them, but that does not alter the fact that there is a certain class—a class that is doing harm, and whose members are unfitted to claim and exercise the privilege of being citizens of this country. Let me take an example, one outside the limits of the Union. Two years ago there was a series of long firm swindles in England.

Are you referring to Hatry ?

He was a thief, and he got what he deserved. Without exception, the people concerned in these long firm swindles were either Poles or Russians, and the evil was only stamped out by giving them from eight to fifteen years’ imprisonment. They came from the class we are endeavouring to keep out. In this country only last week we had in the public press a report of some gentleman of this particular race who carried on in the Transvaal a business as a speculator for twelve or fourteen months. He went insolvent, and the Reserve Bank are in for £100,000 and Barclays Bank for £20,000, and the dividend is to be 6d. in the £ !

That man is a Christian.

If that is so, I will withdraw it. But sometimes, as we know, they take other names! I am told he is a Jew, but having no personal knowledge I will withdraw it. We will take another case. The Minister of Mines knows all about this—the Requisite Stores case. Who were mixed up in that? The very same class we are endeavouring to keep out by some method or other. The hon. member for Troyeville made a great point in his speech of referring to the wonderful number of factories and businesses which have been created, and also industries which have been introduced here by members of his race. He mentioned furniture and boot factories, etc. So far so good. It is a credit to them and it is all to the benefit of the country. But why did he not mention the liquor trade—a trade which is dear to my heart, and equally so to my pocket! It is also a favourite trade or industry with the Jewish element. But the hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) left that out. I think the House will remember that within the last two years a very large sum was paid to the Government by a certain firm of wine merchants, whose directorate is controlled, governed and owned almost entirely by Jews. I think the amount was something like £40,000, and was paid to avoid being brought into court in connection with a contravention of the excise laws. Let me also refer the hon. members to what occurred in Cape Town in 1918, and I do so in furtherance of my argument as to the real reason for the man in the street giving his whole-hearted support to this Bill. In the licensing court of Cape Town, in March, 1918, the following remarks were made to the court on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association by their representative—

Thus even in 1918 in one trade an attempt was made to exclude the class of men aimed at by this Bill. We have been told that the Jewish population in the Union is something like 70,000 or about 4 per cent, of the total of Europeans. Do you think that the proportion of the Jewish insolvencies amongst the white population of the Union is limited to 4 per cent.? Is it not more like 40 per cent.? I have a very good idea from my 25 years’ experience of legal practice in Cape Town. What is the proportion in our criminal records for convictions for theft and so forth ?

Is it 4 per cent.? It is very much less.

How many have been prosecuted for fraudulent insolvency and convicted? I say, therefore, that the possibility of a stigma being cast on South African Jews is due solely to their own failure to discriminate between those who desire to enter the Union who are good and desirable and those who are not; so that, if there is any stigma, which I do not for a moment admit, it is due entirely to the existence of this undesirable class, and not to the better class Jews in this country, of whom I know a great many. This idea of commercial morality in business may not appeal, however, to this class whom we desire to exclude under this Bill. Another thing I find with that particular class the Minister is aiming at, not of Jews altogether, is that they are intolerant in the extreme, and I think that even the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is becoming a little bit intolerant in interrupting a nervous speaker in his maiden speech! The proportion of those Jews who have been found guilty of offences, such as culpable insolvency, is far ahead of that of any other white race; it is alone sufficient to be the cause and the reason of the man in the street taking up the attitude he adopts. The man in the street believes, and I agree with him, that this Bill is overdue. I am not debating it from the party point of view. It required a considerable amount of courage to bring in that Bill, and the Minister is entitled to every credit for having done so. There I differ to some extent from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who has suggested it has been brought in from a sense of fear. I can only say I would consider it a crime for any party to make any political capital out of this Bill, which, I hope, will go through without alterations, unless in the direction of strengthening its present provisions.

In the 1820 Settlers Association—which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Gardens—and in our activities there, we do not, arid never have, discriminated against Jews as a religious sect or people. I am here as a South African prepared to support this Bill whole-heartedly on its broad principles, but I will not now give reasons why it should be altered in some degree, as they have already been given fully by my colleagues on this side of the House. In the past I and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), on account of our attitude on this subject, have been called anti-Semitic by the late member for Hanover Street and others, but without any grounds whatever. I want to say that I dissociate myself, and, I am sure, the majority of my party, from some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Castle (Mr. MacCallum) this afternoon. I am very sorry that he has made the remarks I refer to. It does not matter to me whether a man is a Jew or a Gentile; that has nothing to do with the principle of this Bill. The main thing is whether we are going to see, as far as possible, that the population of this country is homogeneous and composed mainly of people of the original stocks on which the nation is founded. I cannot be persuaded that any discrimination against Jews, as such, is made. I know that they have stated that this measure is directed against them. Some of my best friends are Jews, and Jews from most European countries can come in here under this Bill. I have discussed this matter with Jewish friends of mine who deprecated such a large proportion of the type coming in who are now allowed freely to enter the country. They say that there is a type coming in which is not a credit to the Jewish people. I think it has been made perfectly clear that the majority of us on this side of the House are in accord with the principle of this Bill, and I add my small voice to the requests of other members in asking the Minister to see whether, after the second reading is taken, some means cannot be adopted to remove the stigma—you can call it a fancied stigma, if you like—from the minds of the Jewish population. Let it be made perfectly clear that the measure is not anti-Semitic, but anti-type. I support what has been said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that Ministers and their following have done little in the past to help us in getting men of the right type into South Africa. You have got to face the fact that we must get people in from other countries, if we mean to build up a strong white population in this country. It is hopeless to wait for natural increase to attain the desired end. You have got to go in for the encouragement of immigration, and I want to see this Government, if it remains longer—I hope not very much longer—alter their attitude in this respect. When this Bill goes through, I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Interior will do all they can to see that some encouragement is given in the direction of the introduction of the right kind of people. I repeat that I deprecate anything in the nature of an attack upon the Jews as Jews, and I dissociate myself from some remarks that have been made in the course of the debate.

I support the amendment. The speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. MacCallum)—

The hon. member will have to confine himself to the amendment.

I am going to do so. The speech we have listened to from the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) is the strongest possible reason why the amendment should be accepted. We have listened to a series of wild statements, unsubstantiated by any figures, and if these statements fairly represent the opinion of the man in the street, there is a case for the investigation of the question in select committee before we decide on legislation on the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle).

I do not think I ought to detain the House long, yet I want to make a few remarks. Firstly, I wish to express my deep and high appreciation of the way in which the House has dealt with this matter. Everybody understands that the whole matter is one of a very delicate kind, and if here and there an unfortunate speech, or an unfortunate statement has been made, then it can be understood that it only arose owing to the nature of this difficult and delicate question. But everyone will admit that the House has maintained its honour in this debate. I should also like to express a word of thanks to the Opposition in the House. In introducing the Bill I appealed to the House not to debate the Bill in a party spirit. I do not want to say for a moment that every hon. member complied with that. There were undoubtedly members who could not resist the temptation to make party capital, and of substituting party considerations for the interests of the country. On the whole, however, I can say that we are indebted to so many hon. members of the Opposition who honestly and courageously stated that they were in favour of the Bill, and that, although they would like to see amendments in it, they were still hearty supporters of the Bill. I, myself, as a responsible Minister who introduced the Bill, want to express my hearty thanks to those members of the Opposition, and I think that I must single out and specially mention one name. It is that of my predecessor, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I think the honest and courageous way in which he, in spite of amendments he would like to see, welcomed the Bill, does him credit. It shows that he does not put party interests before those of the country. The House has never yet been ashamed to say that it has great respect for the hon. member, and his action in this matter has undoubtedly greatly increased that respect. I also wish to express a word of thanks to the hon. members who are of Jewish descent. While they were speaking everyone appreciated that they felt deeply on the matter and that they took part in the debate because they felt it to be their duty to put their side of the case. But I am glad that these hon. members of Jewish descent showed an exceptional amount of self-control during the debate. I also want just to mention a few points on which there was a considerable amount of misunderstanding with speakers. The first to come to my mind is in connection with something raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). He associated this Bill, and the provisions of it, with treaties which exist, or ought to exist, between the Union on the one hand and some of the countries to which the restrictions in the Bill apply, on the other. He especially mentioned Greece, and said that in 1886 a treaty was entered into between Greece and the old Cape Colony. Well, it is entirely a new thing in a new light that the Cape Colony at that time had so much power and such a status that it was able to enter into a treaty. If it is so, then I am much surprised that the hon. member still throws doubt on that status to-day, as he did not so long ago. In any case I am not standing here as one who has gone particularly into this matter. The Prime Minister will possibly be able to give the House more information later on. But as the hon. member spoke of the granting of most favoured treatment, I want to say that when we speak of that it cannot mean anything else but that the most favoured treatment only applies in connection with trade, and I do not believe that the hon. member doubts that it includes nothing more. I have always thought, and I think the House also, that it only applies restrictively. But, if I may use a further argument, then the hon. member will admit that the restrictions he has mentioned in connection with most favoured treatment were not only applied to Greece by our country. I know of one country, the United States of America, which has a most favoured treaty with the whole world, and as I have already explained, it is just the United States which imposes more restrictions on those countries in this connection, than any other country. If our restriction, therefore, conflicts with that, i.e., the supposed treaty with Greece, then the American restrictions conflict with it in the same way.

Not on the same scale.

The hon. member is quite wrong. America has made no distinction between America and the other countries to whom its quota system restriction applies. If, however, the hon. member is not yet convinced, then I may add this. There is something else besides most favoured treatment. There is such a thing as the preference which one country gives to another who feels that it is in closer connection with that country. We have such a thing as the British Commonwealth of Nations, and even in the British Commonwealth of Nations the right is acknowledged that one country can exclude the subjects of the other country. This is also done in practice in our case with regard to India, in spite of the fact that there is a special relation between us and the other countries of the British commonwealth. When the hon. member also labours under a further misunderstanding, when he complains that in the case of countries coming under the quota it will not be possible for their nationals to come and travel in our country. If he refers to that part of the Bill dealing with regulations, he will see that special provision is made for the countries to which the restriction applies being given temporary permits. Therefore, if a country is placed under restrictions with regard to the immigration of people who want to come and live here permanently, it does not mean that people are excluded who want to come here to travel. Then there is another matter on which further misunderstanding exists, viz., passports. The hon. member says that if the relative clause of the Bill is passed the passports can be demanded as a matter of right, and that our consuls overseas can refuse on instructions from the Minister to attach a visa to passports. He asks what power is here being given to the Minister. To indicate the danger he used a bogey and asked: “Who knows that the Government may not possibly use that power to stop immigration from England, e.g.,?” I do not think that he could have seriously intended that question. But still, I want to point out to him that passports are not a new thing; they are general amongst the nations of the world, and what is being done here is merely to grant legal sanctions to something which is already being done by almost all the nations in the world. But he will appreciate why it has to be in this Bill as well, and that is to meet the objection which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) had. He pointed out that if the quota were full for a particular country that we should not allow people to come here as if the quota were not full. He would like us to do something to assure that that will not take place, and the only way is to give instructions to our consuls when the quota is full, so that they will grant no further visas, and the people can be warned in this manner. A plea has been made by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) and I think also by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) on behalf of one country, Greece, which they think should not be excluded. I am one of the first to admit that western civilization has much to thank Greece for, and I would gladly acknowledge that Greece for years on end has stood as the bulwark of the western against the eastern civilization. That is true, but hon. members forget that Greece for successive generations was under the sovereignity of Turkey, and this altered the internal conditions of Greece to a great extent. Many large foreign elements came and established themselves in Greece. It can be said that that is all true, but in introducing the debate, I, myself, pointed out that Greece has got about 1½ million Greeks, who live outside the boundaries in Roumania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Russia, to come and live within the borders, and that just as many foreigners, such as Roumanians, Bulgarians, and Turks, were sent out of Greece in exchange for those others. Their object was to get a homogeneous population. Hon. members would admit that the only way to apply the Bill is to put a person under the quote of his native country. We cannot apply the quota system in any other way. What will now be the case of Greece? Those 1½ million who were sent out of Greece, but were born there, and were really not Greeks, will all have the right to come into our country as Greeks. If we are going to raise Greece’s restriction the intention of the law will be stultified. It is much better to leave Greece as it is. In any case Greece hardly exhausts the quota of fifty which they will have, and in any case there is the extra quota of 1,000 so that persons from Greece who are deserving are always given the further opportunity of coming into the country. I just want to say a few words about the attitude taken up by various groups of members who took part in the debate. There are several members who object on the grounds that we are going too fast, that we ought to take more time and make a thorough enquiry. That was the feeling of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Krige) in his speech. He said that America and Australia, who had controlled their immigration, took months and years before arriving at the system which was ultimately adopted. That may be true, but the hon. member will admit that for us after all the enquiry and experiments of the United States and of Australia, it is no longer a new matter, so that we need not make so many experiments to find out what the best system is. We can draw conclusions from their experience, and we have actually thoroughly considered the various methods. They ultimately arrived at this quota system. Australia and the United States agree that this system gives the most satisfaction, and that it is impossible to investigate the character, qualifications and conduct of each immigrant who applies to be admitted. The result of an enquiry over years was that the best system is to treat the countries under the quota system.

They, however, did not single out certain countries.

Yes, they also took a quota of a certain year. But I am now speaking about the system in general. Hon. members were in favour of postponement and they gave as a reason that I should first consult the Jewish community in the country. I ask hon. members who think like this, if I, as the Minister responsible for this Bill had first submitted the matter to the Jews and consulted with them about it, whether that would not have been a clear admission that the Bill was directly against the Jews? That I certainly do not admit. The Bill was not drafted on the grounds of race, or religious belief, and if I had gone to the Jews before the Bill was introduced, I should have admitted that it was directed against them. But it would not then be only against the Jews, but also against other nations, such as the Greeks who are named here. Then all the nationalities represented in our country would have had to be consulted, unless we admit that it was directed against the Jews. There is another group of members who take up the attitude that the Bill is a good one, and who have no objection to the principle, and who, for the most part, are not against the quota system, or against the intention of the Bill, but who say that the Government has acted dishonestly. The question is asked in cold blood why the Government did not use the question at the last election as a plank in their election platform, or why it was not raised during the recent by-election. If this Bill were to be made a party political matter, or if I had to answer charges of party politics in this connection, I could point out that my predecessor suspended the restriction of Section 4 (a) (1) of the Immigration Act, which led to the result that a large number of Jews who would otherwise have come to our country, were kept out of it, immediately before the general election of 1924. When we came into office, the Bill fortunately was suspended, but it was done immediately before the election. I could have made that charge in my speech, but I did not do so.

The 1924 election came unexpectedly.

Yes, the section was immediately suspended, probably when it was decided to have an election. The point I want to make is that I do not believe that any side can consider it a right thing for this Government to make a matter of this kind a plank on the election platform. The Leader of the Opposition said that we ought not to hurt the feelings of the Jewish community in our country, and he suggested that the Government referred the Bill to a select committee, but he did not move to that effect. Why not? Because he is afraid that it will then become a party political matter. How can hon. members then expect us to make it a question for the general election. It was not in the interests of peace in the country, and of the Jewish community, to make it a matter for the platform. To-day we can handle the question on its merits. After an election, when there is a calmer atmosphere, is the proper time to deal with a matter of this kind, and not the time just before an election. I just want to refer in addition to another group, namely, those who support the Government but for other reasons than those influencing the Government to introduce it. I have gone into their reasons. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) was one of the members who very much emphasized that he did not welcome the Bill with anti-semitic feelings. He deplored that the Bill is everywhere received with those feelings. What does his own attitude amount to? He welcomes the Bill and goes so far as to say that if those steps are taken to get control over immigration the results will be calamitous. There must therefore be control. Thereafter the hon. member appeals to the Jewish community by saying that their number was already so large that it ought not to increase further because it was not in their interests. He says that it will arouse feelings against them. He says immigration must be controlled, otherwise there will be unfortunate results; at the same time he warns the Jews that it is in their interests us well. He comes to the same result as lead us to introduce the Bill. What does the hon. member, or what do hon. members propose then? How can it be done differently than is done in this Bill? One member, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was sufficiently courageous to say that we ought to use the powers we had under the existing law to keep undesirables out. What then? Are we to use the powers in the way the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) did? Was the Jewish community satisfied then? Did they say that the Act ought to apply equally to all nations of the world? No, they said what they are saying now, that it was only directed against the Jews. The amendment of the hon. member for Benoni, and other members who spoke on those lines would simply mean that the feelings of the Jews would be just as much excited, and that our Immigration Department would come into great confusion. I do not want to go into all the arguments. I have well studied the matter and considered the various possibilities and arrangements. I can come to no other result than that proposed in the Bill. I only want to deal further with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who said that the Jewish community would be satisfied if more and not less restriction were imposed. He argues that we must apply the quota to all countries who are now excluded. I cannot understand that with the best will in the world. The complaint is that we are not liberal enough, and the hon. member now wants to be much less liberal. I think that the countries from which our population was originally built up, and who are so closely connected with us that they can easily be assimilated, may come in without restriction, and that those nations can assist to maintain western civilization here. Those are the great principles, and we have logically and consistently acted upon them. I hope that the House will pass the second reading without any objection by a large majority.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move as an amendment— That sub-section (a) be deleted.

The hon. member should have given notice of his amendment.

Amendments, as agreed to in committee, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments having been agreed to,

The Bill, as amended, was adopted and read a third time.

I move—

The reason for this is that it is unreasonable for the Minister to expect farmers to pack hides and skins when sending them to the market, because that is the power given under the Bill. Every farmer knows that when we send wool to be sold we collect the hides and skins and send them to be sold through the wool brokers. I think the requirement under the Bill is unreasonable. If you enforce this the farmers will not accept it in its present form. There is not a word about export in this Bill; it is not intended for export, but for sale within the Union. I must object to the inclusion of hides and skins, and I would like to know from the Minister what is his reason for including them. If this is for export let him move an amendment confining it to export; if it is only for sending to our markets, let us be clear that that is so. I am certain that not a single farmer on the other side of the House is going to agree to such a provision. When skins and hides arrive in the Cape Town market they are opened up, and for export repacked again.

I second the amendment, that hides and skins should not be included under the provisions of this Bill because hides and skins accumulate from deaths of stock and from the few animals slaughtered for home consumption, thus farmers only have a few on hand at any time, and they would be of different qualities and grades, necessitating the opening of a bale or bundles when being sold to arrive at a value and then having to be repacked again, all extra work and expense without any benefit. Then it becomes impossible for natives and poor people who only have an odd skin or two for sale at the country store. Farmers send their skins to their nearest towns whenever opportunity offers, they do not wish to collect them. It is imposing an arduous duty upon them to insist on their making up their skins in parcels. It will be unnecessary expense and trouble. No farmer goes in for skin production as a business. It is not on the same footing as wool, lucerne or anything else. I think every farmer will agree that it will be giving the farmer unnecessary trouble to provide that he must pack his skins before sending them to market. I beg to second the amendment.

I should like to know how the Minister of Agriculture can put an Act on the statute book which is quite impracticable. It seems to me most wonderful. If, e.g., a farmer, as happens every day on the countryside, has hides or skins of three or four cattle that he wants to sell, then he must make them into bundles according to the directions, and when he gets to the shopkeeper he must cut them open again. It is another matter if the Bill is to be applied to the man who exports skins, but as it stands it will apply to the man on the countryside. I hope that the Minister will take the hides and skins out of the Bill. If that is not possible, let him make the Bill applicable to hides and skins for export, but not to those for sale in the villages.

I take exception to the whole of this clause. On Friday last when I endeavoured to delay the passage of this measure in order to afford more time for consideration, the Minister retorted, that I was wrong, as I always was wrong. If to be at variance with the Minister on this, and other similar matters, is to be in the wrong, I accept the charge. But the Minister, I think, should at least bear in mind, that I represent one of the premier sheep districts of the Union, and speak on behalf of some of its most advanced farmers. For several years we have, in that district, been devoting much attention to the improvement of our methods. Every season classes for a dozen or more young farmers are held at convenient centres, and lasting for a week or more, under expert supervision aided by local farmers (also certified), at which they are instructed in the sorting, classification and packing of wool. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) remarked that “during the last ten years, the progress made in this respect was wonderful.” I endorse that, and would point out, that all this has been done by voluntary efforts on the part of our wool farmers and, that being so, I would like to know what on earth is the Government’s excuse or plea for putting their finger, a great bureaucratic finger, into this matter, usurping the control of those who have made a success of it, and handing it over to a Government department. It is surprising that the people of the country have not got up in protest against action of this kind. It all means additional expense and unnecessary trouble, and tends to put up the cost of living by introducing numbers of people into State employment who have to live on the farming industry. The farmers are hit badly enough as it is. I mentioned the other day that ex-President Coolidge had intimated that it was a most objectionable policy to interfere with the freedom of the subject. I notice that the present President of America has identified himself with that. He says it is not the Government’s function to interfere with industries, and above all with the farming industry. We disregard that, and prefer taking a leaf out of Australia’s book where they have tried to nationalize everything with disastrous results. I don’t know of a single case in which they have succeeded. One of their recent adventures was to start a ranching concern in order to undercut the farmers. They succeeded for a little while in shutting up a number of private individuals, but they themselves collapsed after a time. Now I wish to support the view which has been stated by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). When bundles of skins are suitably tied up for transit on the railways what is the good of sorting them in the elaborate way laid down here? They have to be re-opened when they reach the coast. This is imposing wholly unnecessary restrictions. I hope the Minister will note the protest uttered against the interference offered in this connection.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that we are asked here to pass a law which will affect every sheep farmer in South Africa. No one appears to know exactly what his idea is. Will the Minister tell us what we are doing? I want the Minister to place himself in the position of a farmer who is forwarding his wool to market. With this wool he has a number of sheep skins. Some are lambs with two months’ wool on them, some nethers with six months’ wool on them, and the balance ewes, with nine months’ wool. Now what is to be done in this case to avoid non-compliance with this law? How is the farmer to pack these skins in compliance with the Act? If he says that this does not apply to farmers, and we can send all we like, as usual, then that is all right, but he should say so. This applies to every farmer who is sending these loose skins.

The regulations will tell you that.

Exactly, but no one knows either on this side of the House or opposite what those regulations are going to be.

I gave my views and criticisms on this Bill during the main debate before the second reading and do not want to repeat them, but I would like to endorse what the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) has said and also to bring to the Minister’s notice another important aspect of the case. In my constituency a very large portion of the grain is grown by bysaaiers or bywoners. This class of farmer is seldom allowed to run more than 30 sheep. What is his position? Under this Bill he might be required to class his wool into several classes and forbidden to sell it unless packed according to any regulation the Minister may see fit to impose. His clip does not even fill one bale. How can he class it or pack it as instructed by the Minister? And if he does not he cannot market it. The Minister must consider the interests of this important section of the farmers, who are hardworking and industrious. The same remarks apply to the small farmer who runs a few sheep as a side line more or less. I also heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) in connection with the marketing of skins and hides. Many small farmers only kill sheep for their own use, say, two or three a month. They would therefore have skins of six, eight, ten and twelve months growth of wool, and after shearing there would be the shorn skins. They have not enough to make up into bundles of any one class. They usually sell direct to their storekeeper. Are these people to be debarred from selling their skins because they cannot comply with the regulations? The Minister is a reasonable man, I know, and so before going any further I would like him to indicate how he intends to frame his regulations, allowed for under this Bill, to meet this class of farmer.

I move—

Before I explain why I want to leave out the word “wheat,” I will first speak on hides and skins. What happens on farms is that the poor white, or some of the people we have been talking about this afternoon, go about in a cart to sell skins which have come chiefly from the slaughter of animals for private consumption on farms. This man comes to the farmer or by owner, then according to the regulations, which the Minister is proposing in Clause 3, no farmer or bywoner will have the right to sell to him, unless he keeps the hides or skins in such a state or so packed as the regulations of the Agricultural Department prescribe. I admit that skins and hides are exported, but what happens when they are? It does not matter how the farmer packs them on the farm, the skins are again pressed at the port and put into a form such as the exporter or the ships want it in. I think if the Minister wants to make provision about that class of produce, then he must act at the ports because a farmer possibly makes up a big bundle, and when it gets to the port its condition is altered once more. It is however, unreasonable to expect the ordinary-farmer who slaughters for personal use to pack his skins according to the departmental regulations, because it is impossible. The hon. member for Brits (Dr. H. Reitz) said with reference to the Coupons Bill that things were coming to such a pass that we could not turn ourselves without coming up against a regulation or a statute. The practical application of the Bill will cause much trouble on the countryside. Now I come to wheat. Wheat is not exported. We have not enough for our own consumption. The Minister can therefore not use the argument, and yet it is here proposed for corn to be packed according to departmental regulations before it can be sold. You, Mr. Speaker, who are well acquainted with conditions in the wheat district know what happens there. The bywoner, or fruit farmer in districts like the Paarl—I take my own district where there are only fruit farmers—must buy all wheat or other grain from their neighbour who is a grain farmer. Now the Minister says that if a farmer sells half a muid of wheat to his neighbour, that it is illegal, unless he carries out certain regulations which will be laid down. The Minister will create intolerable conditions in practice. The wheat farmers already have sufficient trouble, and now the Minister proposes to say that they may not sell their produce without complying with the regulations. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Minister, but he is going to make the life of the farmer impossible.

Am I likely to make my own life impossible?

Well, the Minister may have his own way of living, but I speak as a farmer who knows the farmers just as well as the Minister does. I have therefore the fullest confidence in moving the deletion of the word “wheat.”

I second the amendment. I hope to Heaven that the Minister when he brings these regulations in, will leave us out. I hope he will leave the Transkei out of these regulations. We have had one experience of regulations in connection with the Weights and Measures Act. There are all sorts of regulations under that Act. You have traders who live from 30 and 40 miles away from any magistracy, and they have to bring their scales in to have them examined. The hon. the Minister of the Interior knows of the trouble that is caused. If they have to come in 30 or 40 miles they have to cart their scales by ox-wagon to the Government officer. They are then tested and if they are condemned they have to buy new scales, and it costs them from £10 to £15. That is what these regulations mean. The regulations dealing with these matters entail not only a tremendous lot of trouble and expense but also endless worry. If we had members who understood the conditions of the country and appreciated the difficulties that these men in the country have to contend against, I would say nothing against it; but I represent a part of the country which produces half the skins that are produced in the Cape Province, and I feel doubtful as to what will happen under these regulations. The country is getting mighty tired of them. They have killed our cattle industry in the Transkei and there is now danger of interference with our hides.

I just want to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture as a practical man, and I want to show him from a practical point of view what trouble he will cause the farmers under this clause. Clause 2 laid down—

We have not got to Clause 2 yet,

If Clause 2 is passed and hides and skins are included under Clause 1, then I have no objection if it only refers to hides and skins for export. The practical difficulty is that the farmer will send away small quantities of skins. There are various types and qualities of skins, and he surely cannot make up every two skins into a bundle. The practice is that the farmer makes up the skins into a bundle, and sends them to a broker at the harbour. If the Minister will insert the word “export”

It is there.

It is not there, but if the hon. member will insert it I shall have no objection.

I should like the Minister to tell me the object of this Bill. It must mean something or other. It is intended to apply to merchandize which is exported or sent to the local market. If the intention is to apply it to the local market, then I shall never be able to support it. If it is only to apply to export, then we have no objection. But then there must be no objection on the Minister’s part to make it plain in the Bill that it does only apply to export. If he leaves it as it is he can, himself, see what confusion it will cause in the areas where the natives trade, or are in the majority. The Minister recently paid me the compliment that I was commencing to be sensible. I hope he will give me the opportunity of paying him the same compliment.

In connection with the argument of hon. members who object to this clause, it seems to me they take the view that the clause provides that a farmer who sells one or two skins must pack them. That is not the case. Clause 1 provides that hides and skins fall under the Act. Clause 2 lays down that they may not be sold if they do not comply with regulations still to be issued. It is in the discretion of the Minister to stipulate whether the skins must be packed or not. It is not laid down in the Act, but the regulations will have to settle it.

Do you want to hand over the whole farming population to the Minister?

I am prepared at any rate to leave that to the Minister. It is ridiculous to think that the Minister will issue regulations that the farmer must make up every two or three skins into a separate bundle. Or that the farmers should pack their skins in the way mentioned here. The method of packing will be prescribed in regulations, and it is clear to me that the regulations are only intended to apply in the case of export, or the sale of large quantities, and not of one or two skins. Clause 2 says quite clearly—

Here, therefore, we see that the regulations were laid down how the goods must be packed. It is not fixed in the Act. Who says that the Minister will lay down that two or three skins must be packed? We must leave it to his sound common sense. We have never yet had a baboon as Minister of Agriculture.

The Minister will be very well advised to agree to the deletion of hides and skins from Clause 1. I do not see how the Minister is going to enforce the clause in the case of a farmer who sends a few hides and skins to his merchant, for instance, and asks him to give the farmer credit for their value in his current account. It is impossible to apply the provision to persons who do not directly export hides and skins. Does the Minister expect the farmer selling locally to take a few hides or skins to an officer to weigh them and to pay a weighing fee and comply with the other formalities? The Minister is anticipating far too much if he expects the farmer to comply with these vexatious and irritating regulations. His own front benches are against him, which should be sufficient to deter him. It is unreasonable to expect the native to comply with such regulations; and hawkers who go round collecting hides, one here and another there, are they also to be packed in accordance with regulations? These vexatious and irritating restrictions constitute an unnecessary interference with the farmer.

It seems to me that hon. members are kicking up the dust, but as in the case of a turkey, they are doing it crossways. Do they really think that the Minister has so little sense that he will compel individual farmers when they send a few skins to the town to comply with the regulations in regard to packing?

We are dealing with the Bill.

The Minister will not make regulations that every farmer sending a few skins must pack them in specific bales, and put marks on them. When we send wool and skins to the ports the brokers always ask us to pack well, so that damage is not done.

But, according to Clause 2, the packing also applies to the sale of skins in the country.

The Minister will make regulations under Clause 4, and he will surely not make such foolish regulations.

We are hedged about with far too many conditions and regulations as it is, but this Bill proposes to add still further to the number. Men have been investigating market conditions, but their efforts have had as much effect as a broody hen trying to hatch out china eggs. The Bill will add to the burdens already placed on the over-weighted shoulders of the producer, who will be placed in a very awkward position owing to these unnecessary and irritating regulations. The duty of the Government is to act and to direct, and the Minister—both in his own and the farming interests—would be well advised to leave this matter alone.

I want to associate myself with hon. members opposite and urge that the provisions be only applied in the case of export. It is very nice, I think, that we as farmers do not make party matters of the farmers’ interests, and I think we ought not to permit it. I agree with hon. members, and with the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), but the question here is not what the intention of the Minister is, but what is put into the Bill, and this is very clear. I am not at all afraid so long as the present Minister of Agriculture is in office, but should it happen that a Unionist some day becomes a Minister of Agriculture, who knows nothing about agriculture, then the farmers would have a hard time under the Act.

I would like the Minister to tell me how Clause 2 will affect the tobacco farmers in the Western Province, before I move an amendment. We produce about 1,000,000 lbs. of Turkish tobacco. It is not put into bales on the farms. If the Minister says that it must be done on the farms on all packets of tobacco, then we have the position that when the tobacco reaches the town it must again be undone for grading, and then be rebaled. We do not send our bales overseas, but to the United Tobacco Company.

What is the position with reference to wheat? If it only refers to weight I am satisfied, but if it also refers to grading, I must object. There are many farmers who have thrashing machines. I know of one who bought a machine last year for £1,000 without a grader. He will then simply have to throw it on the scrap heap.

I do not quite understand what my hon. friends mean by their motion to completely exclude skins and hides. We must surely assume that a little common sense will be used. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. de Souza) also wants to exclude wheat. We have just had a wheat conference here and the farmers ask the Government to arrange for wheat to be graded. The so-called “fair average wheat” is imported here from Australia, but the millers want ours to be graded. My experience is that the more the farmers organize and market their produce in the best possible way, the less the buyer can abuse his position and depress the farmer’s prices. As far as I can see, the object is not to impose a levy and regulations and restrictions on farmers as such, but to give them proper protection when produce is exported, as well as the sale of it in the local market. If we are to put all the provisions in connection with all the agricultural produce, which will be restrictive, carefully into the Bill, then we should have a top-heavy Act, and we shall not know where we are. Therefore, the Minister is given powers to make regulations, but he will not use the regulations to inconvenience the farmers. They are principally meant for the millers, dealers, and for exporters. The dealers who expose skins and hides for sale. I think something must be done. We also want to export lucerne, and it must be properly packed. What chance have we otherwise to actually attain something ?

What does the clause say.

I am just explaining it. If the hon. member were to apply his broad views, with which he accuses us of narrow-mindedness, in connection with this clause, he would not ask the question. The Bill, first o! all, says what produce shall be included, and in another clause that they can only be exposed for sale in specific circumstances, and in a later clause it gives the Minister power to issue regulations for various produce. Let us look at the matter properly. There must be such development that everyone can proudly look at the marking of our produce, and the Minister must see that we develop in that direction. If my hon. friends opposite are so frightened of regulations which may be issued, then I also commence to be afraid of the day when they, although it is improbable, will once more form a Government. If my friends are so afraid, there seems to be reason for anxiety in the future. Do the hon. members, however, think that a Minister of Agriculture in the twentieth century will do such foolish things and hamper the farmers in such a way?

I can quite see it is the Minister’s intention to endeavour to see that farmers have their produce in a better marketing condition, and so far I am entirely with him. The Minister interrupted the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) when the hon. member said that the Minister would not make any regulations that would go against himself, because he is a practical farmer, but I would like to remind the Minister that conditions vary a great deal in South Africa. I hope that the Minister will consult the advisory boards of the agricultural unions before he applies any regulations to any of the districts.

We realize that the Minister was aiming at an ideal, but the moment he wished to put it into practice he found he was surrounded by difficulties. The conditions of the country vary to such an extent that you cannot by regulation meet all the conditions existent in the various parts of the Union. I can imagine farmers sitting with hundreds of regulations before them prior to sending their skins to market, reading them to make sure they are not contravening the law. Our farmers will resent this very much. Although the Minister may disagree with the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton), there is a good deal of sound common sense in what he says. If the intention of the Minister is to prevent fraud, dishonesty and unlawful packing, that object can be attained by other means than those proposed in this particular Bill. As first introduced, I called it an omnibus bill of regulations dealing with farmers’ products. With regard to the question of wool, the progressive farmer to-day realizes that if he has got to meet the requirements of the market, he has to class his wool, bale it, and mark it, and on the bale he has got to put the class of his wool, the name of his farm and his own name. The average man will do that, but there are people in this country who sell wool in sugar pockets and some in grain bags. I can understand the difficulties that are going to arise. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the whole measure. It has been criticized generally on both sides of the House on account of the practical difficulties in the way of the attainment of the ideal he aims at.

We can possibly shorten the discussion a great deal if I explain now. Let me say at once that I cannot exactly congratulate hon. members opposite who represent farmers on their arguments to-night. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) is a representative of his agricultural union. The hon. member is a member of the agricultural board, and on that board he was honest enough to recommend this legislation, and now he is so brazen as to oppose the Bill. What confidence am I to put in the hon. member as a member of the agricultural board in future? Is it not my duty to draw the attention of his agricultural union on that action? Hon. members must understand that this proposal was considered by the advisory board.

Advisory board farmers did not ask for the regulations as indicated in this Bill.

Let me point out that the contents of this Bill were submitted to the advisory board of the Agricultural Union. The hon. member never made any objection to it, and never spoke about export produce alone. Take, e.g., lucerne; it has been pointed out how many cows of the farmers die in consequence of pieces of wire in the lucerne, and the Bill also proposes regulations with regard to lucerne.

We meant export.

Do the cows die here or abroad? This shows how little confidence I can repose in hon. members opposite. The dairy farmers have repeatedly said that they would no longer buy lucerne on account of the cows dying through the pieces of wire, and they therefore ask for an Act which would prevent lucerne being packed with wire.

There was a promise made to us that the department was going to investigate.

Yes, the hon. members want to run away again. They usually want to run away when they get into trouble. The hon. member knows very well that lucerne is one of the things which will fall under this Bill. Why otherwise was the Bill submitted to the advisory board? Was it not to get their views? Now I come to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). I do not blame him for saying: “Look at that impossible Bill of yours, which proposes that meat or maize must be weighed, and that the scales shall be inspected.” The hon. member therefore wishes fraud to be perpetrated by the middleman who does not have his scales correct. It looks as if he wants to protect that class of man, because I am not prepared to do so. Let me now come to the provision in connection with wool. We have suffered heavy losses through bad packing of wool. Only last week a case of bad packing happened at Port Elizabeth, which was worse than we had ever heard of before. That bad packing was partly the fault of the bad conditions of the wool market. I do not say that it is a daily occurence, but there are certain people against whom we must be on our guard. They are the people and the natives who do not mark their wool. I am convinced that there is not a single farmer to-day who objects to his wool being marked. I now come to wheat. The acting leader of the Opposition objects to applying the Bill to wheat, but he had his opportunity of moving amendments in committee.

I did do so.

The hon. member had an opportunity of making other proposals, and he did not do so. Did the hon. member talk when we were in committee of the man who wanted to sell or exchange half a bag of wheat? No, but the Caledon electors together with representatives of other parts of the country, at their congress, asked for proper measures to be taken for the packing of wheat, and they asked for legislation. I am a farmer myself and hon. members cannot expect me to make regulations injurious to myself, and my fellow farmers. If the country, however, asks for legislation for packing and grading, I must introduce it. Let me explain that I shall make no regulations which will affect the farmers injuriously. This Government has since 1924 done everything to assist the wheat farmers, who have had sufficiently hard times. The hon. leader of the Opposition said that if we put a tax on the importation of wheat it would be injurious to the wheat farmers.

I deny it.

You said it in 1925.

It is totally untrue.

I can show it to the hon. member. It is in Hansard.

Where is it in Mansard? Quote it.

Only last year I quoted what the hon. member had said in 1925 when the Minister of Finance-proposed a certain measure for the protection of farmers.

And what did I say then when you quoted it?

Yes, the hon. member is now having a bad time. I feel sorry for a man who cannot take the punishment he deserves. Now I come to tobacco. Are we not to grade tobacco seeing that the tobacco planters themselves ask for it? An hon. member has said that it will cause trouble, but we shall not make such regulations as will cause trouble. We must, however, make regulations for the grading of tobacco so that the buyer knows that he is getting a particular kind of tobacco when he buys a certain grade. Can hon. members mention a single case where my departmental regulations press too heavily on the farmers? And yet all my departmental Acts are applied by means of regulations. Now they remain silent opposite. Hon. members are much concerned about the hides. They are afraid of the smouse who buys hides and skins on the farms and who will be obliged to grade the hides. If hon. members walked about less and sat and listened more in the House they would have heard that at the committee stage I pointed out that we had lost about £1,000,000 on hides and skins because they have been badly packed. Are we then to allow this to continue, or to provide for better packing?

They are for export.

Are we then also exporting all our tobacco and do we not also use our own lucerne? Is there not also a part of our wool bought in our own country? Do hon. members wish to alter the Bill in such a way that produce which is used in this country must not be packed and marked? The Bill must be drafted as it has been done, and the House must have sufficient confidence in me to know that I would take the best measures for protecting the farmers. As for the man who buys up skins and hides, I want to point out further that he sometimes sends the skins direct to an agent abroad, and are we then to remain passive when those people pack all kinds of hides and skins together, and cause heavy losses because they do not grade our skins and hides. No, I must have the power to regulate it.

It is not contained in the Bill.

Yes, there are many things that are not in the Bill. I get the power, however, to make regulations, and I will not make them so as to inconvenience the farming population. For all the years that I have been in the position of seeing to the advance of farmers interests hon. members can throw nothing in my face that I have done against their interests.

The simultaneous dipping.

There may still be backward farmers who do not know that that was for their benefit. The whole country acknowledges that simultaneous dipping was good for the sheep.

The Minister must confine himself to the Bill.

Very well, I will do so. I think now that I have explained the matter, the House understands what the object is.

Not yet.

Yes, there are people who cannot understand anything. I cannot comprehend the brain of the hon. member. I have not yet acquired that gift. I hope, however, that the matter is now clear and that the House will go to the vote.

Question put: That the words “hides, skins”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the new clause,

I move—

There are going to be great difficulties with regard to hides and skins. We want to protect our produce from abuse. If our produce leaves our shores in a proper state and as it is described to be that is what we must aim at now. I, as a farmer, have aimed at this for more years than I can remember, not that it always paid. Let us try, first of all, to put a check on the evil which is the greater. The greatest evil is stuff which goes from our shores and reaches the averseas market not in the condition it should be. Some of the strongest speeches came from the Minister’s own benches, but when it came to a division it was a different thing. If the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) was so desirous of considering the matter from the non-party point, he should have come over to vote on this side.

I second the amendment. When this Bill was under discussion I addressed myself to the Minister in terms of this amendment, and suggested that he make the clause applicable only to agricultural produce for export, and if he did, he would get the whole-hearted support of hon. members on this side of the House. I ask the Minister to consider this from the broader point of view. Farmers are objecting and protesting as vigorously as they can against being governed by regulations, as they are, by the Minister. Such a principle of government can be justified only in regard to the products of agriculture which are to be sent out beyond our borders to compete with the rest of the world. Surely our farmers ought to be free with regard to the sale of their produce in this country, and not have these petty regulations imposed upon them.

I have another amendment.

No, the hon. member has already spoken on this clause. He cannot now move an amendment.

I only spoke about the motion regarding skins and hides, and I now want to move an amendment.

No, the hon. member should have availed himself of his previous opportunity. He cannot now move an amendment, but he can speak on the amendment which has been moved.

I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben). We are not making a party question of farming matters. We voted on a motion to exclude skins and hides.

The hon. member cannot now revert to that.

I could not vote for that motion, nor for the amendment which is now moved, because it refers to all produce to which the regulations will in such an event only apply in the case of export. What about lucerne and such things? We must protect our market. We have conferences here between millers and grain farmers and what good will such conferences be if we throw over their resolutions in Parliament. We should merely be making ourselves ridiculous. If the hon. member were to propose that the regulations should only apply to skins and hides for export, I would be in favour of it. The Minister says that he will accept such a motion, and then the whole difficulty is solved. We do not want to give the farmer unnecessary trouble. The Minister has assured us that he will draw the regulations so as not to incommode the farmer. But let it be made clear in the Bill. The Minister will not always be in office, and the regulations may be administered by an official. We do not know what difficulties he might cause. I am glad that the Minister has expressed his willingness to accept such an amendment.;

I move, as an amendment—

It will possibly be better for me to move it myself in the Senate. Without the advice of the legal advisers we might have to alter the whole clause to make it clear that it only applies to “skins and hides”

On that assurance may I withdraw my amendment?

With leave of the House, amendment’s withdrawn.

New Clause 1, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.