announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on Subject of Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill, viz.: The Minister of Justice, Dr. Bremer, Messrs. Duncan, McMenamin, Nicholls, Payn, Dr. Potgieter, Dr. H. Reitz, Mr. Roper, Col. Stallard, Dr. N. J. van der Merwe and Mr. Wessels.

announced that he was the bearer of a message from his Excellency the Governor-General, which he handed to Mr. Speaker.

read the message as follows—

His Excellency the Governor-General, having considered the provisions of a Bill which his Ministers desire to submit to Parliament, viz., to provide for the separate representation in Parliament of natives in the Provinces of the Union other than the Cape of Good Hope; to provide for the registration of native voters in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope on a special voters’ roll; to provide for the separate representation in Parliament and in the Provincial Council of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope of native voters registered on such special roll; and to effect consequential modifications of the provisions of the South Africa Act, 1909, and having been advised by his Ministers that the said Bill falls within the provisions of sections 35 and 152 of the South Africa Act, 1909, hereby, under section 58 of that Act, convenes a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament for the purpose of considering a Bill to that effect. The Joint Sitting shall be held on Thursday, the 20th February, 1930, at 10.30 a.m.—ATHLONE, Governor-General.

I move, pursuant to notice—

In moving the motion I want to make clear as far as possible what lies behind it. In my speech on the second reading I tried to indicate some of the objections which, in common with many others on this side, I have for the actual form in which the Minister’s proposals are. This House by an overwhelming majority approved of the object which the Bill seeks to achieve, and the criticisms from this side dealt wholly with the method by which the objects which are proposed are to be achieved. I say that the whole machinery of the present Bill is crude, tactless and calculated, I will not say to divide, but to tread unnecessarily on the corns of people and to rouse antagonism when it is quite unnecessary that such antagonism should be aroused. The Bill provides a schedule in which are the names of 15 or so European countries in addition to the British commonwealth of nations. Clause 1 says that except in the case of countries which may appear on this schedule, for the rest of the world no new immigrants are to be allowed into South Africa unless they conform with certain requirements, and then only up to the number of 50; in other words, the whole of the world outside South Africa is divided into two categories—the sheep on the one side and the goats on the other; the sheep are the inhabitants of those countries whose names appear on this schedule, and the goats the inhabitants of those countries whose names do not appear on it. If you look at a map of Europe and go through the names of these countries and compare them with the names omitted you get some very startling results. It will be declared by this Parliament if this Bill passes into law in its present form, that the inhabitants of Portugal are desirable inhabitants of this country, but those of greece are not; that the inhabitants of Italy are desirable, but those of their first cousin of Roumania are to be declared undesirable. Swedes are to be welcimed, but Finns are to be excluded. Germany is to be put on the free list, if I may so put it, but her next neighbour Poland, parts of which were once a part of Germany, is to be excluded. What is left of the old Austria-Hungarian empire is to be on the favoured list, but Czecho-Slovakia is to be excluded. That is a very remarkable result. I was in Czecho-Slovakia some three months ago, and it is a country for which one is bound to have a great admiration and respect. It is intensely race conscious and is building up one of the finest and most progressive countries in Europe; and we are told that its inhabitants are to be put on the index expurgatoria as far as immigration into this country is concerned. It is remarkable if you consider that it contains the old kingdoms of Bohemia, the land of Huss, and Moravia, a country which has done so much for this country in missions. It is rather remarkable that we should tell its people that they are not desired in this country. This sort of thing, of telling some people they are wanted and some they are not, is not the least calculated to make better our relations with oversea states. Every year the Governor-General comes to this Parliament and in his speech says—

Can he continue to do so if we divide the nations of the world into the categories of “wanted” and “unwanted”? The Bill seeks its objects by unnecessary means, and treads on people’s corns in the most unwarranted fashion. It is most unscientific. Quite irrespective of the size or importance of a country and of the character of the immigration, the quantum of immigrants which is coming from that country is fixed at the arbitrary figure of 50, be the country small or large, or whether its people are desirable or not. Finally, I come to one of the most serious objections to this Bill, that is that an extremely influential and most sensitive portion of our own population here in South Africa see in this Bill in its present form a direct stigma and direct insult of all that they hold dear. They are racially proud people. They are deservedly proud of their origin and of the position they hold in South Africa, and they tell us that they see in this Bill, which excludes Lithuania, Poland and Latvia, from which so many of them are sprung, a direct insult to their Jewish nationality. If there is another way of achieving the common object which we had in passing the second reading of this Bill, then no stone should be left unturned to find that other way. I was surprised at the little care and attention which the Minister showed in his speech to that particular aspect of the matter. One would have thought that he would have taken the House into his confidence, and told us what researches he and his department had made into alternative methods; one would have thought that the Minister would have examined the American quota system, and seen how far it could be applied to this country. There was nothing of that kind in his speech. This particular part of the problem was left almost untouched. In the course of the second reading debate, alternative suggestions were put before him, and he was asked what he had to say concerning them. He said in reply to the suggestions which I made, that it involved cutting down the schedule to four or five countries, and, therefore, made what he admitted was an illiberal measure still more illiberal. That was a mere debating point on the part of the Minister. I submit that the amendments I have placed on the Order Paper would, if adopted, import some tinge and degree of liberality into what is admittedly an illiberal and narrow measure. A very large section of the country is watching the proceedings here to-day, and will expect the Minister to give better reasons than he has given up to the present for passing the Bill as it stands, and for the rejection of the alternative placed before him. Let me explain what is the system which I am asking leave for the committee to consider. The amendment which I propose to move appears on page 215 of the Order Paper. Hon. members who have studied the matter will know that for years past, the system of regulation and restriction in the United States has been on a quota fixed on a basis of the foreign-born population. What. I propose is to take the foreign-born population living in the Union as at the date of the last census, which is May, 1926, and allow 5 per cent, of those numbers to enter the Union. In my amendment. I have three per cent, down, but I am going to suggest five per cent. If you apply that right through the whole world, any question of discrimination disappears. In my amendment I have applied it to the whole world, with the exception of Great Britain and the British empire, Holland, Germany and France. You can justify that because the population of South Africa is drawn mainly from Great Britain, Holland, Germany and Fiance, and so we are admitting persons of the same racial stock as those from which our population has already been built up. Apart from those countries there is no discrimination against the rest of the world, there is no classifying the sheep from the goats, and there is no wounding of the national susceptibilities of any of the outside world. I am sure that the Minister will agree that if that can be done, it should be done. It will be asked how does this work out in practice. I would like to give you the figures of the principal countries of Europe. According to the 1926 Census, there were 1,478 Greeks living in South Africa, and on a 5 per cent, basis, 75 would be allowed to come into the country. In 1927 the number of Greek immigrants was 120, and in 1928 107. My hon. friend who sits behind me, who has the cause of the Greeks so much at heart, will see that under this suggestion, they will he benefitted by 50 per cent., as compared with the Bill. There were 1,521 Italian-born inhabitants of the Union in 1926, and on a 5 per cent, basis, 75 Italians would be allowed to enter the country. In 1927, there were 57 immigrants from Italy, and in 1928 there were 86. With regard to Russia, in 1926 there were 26,598 Russian-born inhabitants living in the Union.

Old Russia?

Present-day Russia. On a 5 per cent, basis that would allow 1,330 Russian-born people to come into the country. But in 1927 only 106 entered the Union, and in 1928, 109. We know that Russians are not allowed to emigrate and we know they are not coming into this country. Take Lithuania. The number of Lithuanians in the Union in 1926 was 2,295. On a 5 per cent, basis, that would allow 110 Lithuanian-born people to enter South Africa. From Latvia, in 1926, 633 persons were in South Africa. That would allow on a 5 per cent, basis 30 to enter the Union, or a minimum of 50, as opposed to 76 in 1927, and 269 in 1928. From Poland there were 1,609 inhabitants in the Union in 1926, and a 5 per cent, basis would give Poland 80. as opposed to 243 immigrants in 1927, and 365 in 1928. In other words, taking this 5 per. cent, basis, you will do all that the Bill sets out to do. The only countries the immigration from which into South Africa will be restricted will be countries of southern and eastern Europe, and it will be done in a manner which will not put them on any schedule, but strictly on the basis of the 1926 Census. That is the scheme followed in America, and this scheme is drafted on the American legislation. I think the House should give it its very serious consideration. Every test I have been able to make of my own amendment seems to show that it will do all that the Minister’s Bill is supposed to do, but on a much more liberal scale. It will preserve the minimum of 50, and protect us from immigration from southern and eastern Europe at a time when we are not getting immigration from any other source.

seconded.

Listening to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, two thoughts have occurred to me. The first is the question whether the hon. gentleman has forgotten that the second reading of this Bill has been passed, and passed by an overwhelming majority of 116 to 11. Three-quarters of what he said may be regarded as a second reading speech which, perhaps, the hon. member thought he should repeat again. The second thought that occurred to me was that if the Bill, as it has been passed at the second reading, is all that the hon. gentleman now says it is, how came he to vote for the second reading? Does he not realize what an unfortunate position he has placed his party in by voting for the second reading; instead of pointing out what he has, they all vote for the second reading. What the hon. gentleman suggests here is so far-reaching and so radical a change in the Bill that is now before the House; it makes the Bill so futile, if not absolutely worthless, that I think this alternative should have been threshed out before the second reading in select committee.

You would not have it.

I did not refuse the opportunity to discuss it; and not only that, but after the second reading was passed, the hon. gentleman had an opportunity of moving in the House that after a second reading the Bill should be referred to select committee. He did not do that, but now, at this stage, when it is difficult to consider far-reaching alterations, he moves this alternative to the Bill. It is impossible for the select committee at this stage to go thoroughly into such alternatives. What does the hon. gentleman really propose? He proposes, in the first place, if we compare his alternative with the Bill, to discard two of the main principles underlying the Bill. As hon. members will recollect, I told the House that there were three guiding principles in making that particular division between two groups of countries—three guiding principles I followed—the first was the American principle, underlying their Quota Act, namely, that the racial composition of the nation at a particular period shall remain unaltered. That was one principle. I said we were not justified in following that principle alone, and that there were two others. The second was assimilability. We do not want those who come to South Africa who are descendants of the same parent stocks as the people of South Africa, but we want those who are easily assimilable. We want as many good, assimilable immigrants in the country as possible.

You don’t offer them any inducement.

The third principle to which I refer was that of the maintenance of a particular type of civilization. We in South Africa stand for the western European type of civilization, and we want to maintain that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) disagrees in regard to all principles of assimilability and the maintenance of western European type of civilization, and he wants us to restrict the whole scope of the Bill to this one American principle only. Now I think that our Bill is much more benevolent than what he proposes. We are accused of being illiberal. Now, if we do what the hon. gentleman suggests, do we make our Bill less directed against particular races? Certainly not. If you wish to apply the American principle of the composition of your nation at a particular period, then surely you exclude a good many other nations simply because they belong to other races. This is also discriminative. Now in what way is the principle of assimilability and the principle of the maintenance of the western European type of civilization—in what way is that more racial than the one which the hon. member proposes? Now, the hon. gentleman wishes to follow faithfully the American example, and introduce a quota on that one principle to which I have referred. Now it looks as if he has followed the American principle faithfully, but he has not. He must not forget that in introducing that system in America, America went back for 35 years to find a satisfactory basis. They went back to the year 1890, although they had census after census after that date, and had all possible available figures. The hon. gentleman does not do that. He wants us to take as our basis the last available census figures, namely, 1926. Further, I wish to point out that, if this motion of the hon. gentleman is accepted, then we get away, to a very large extent, from the very essential principle which we have already adopted: that is, that every intended immigrant coming into the country must be classed, or must fall under the quota of the country of his birth. The hon. gentleman proposes here that the Bill should only apply to aliens. In other words, that these aliens at the time they become naturalized shall not, in any way, be affected. What does that mean? That means that the whole bulk of people from, say, eastern Europe, or any other country, who have gone to Great Britain or to any of the dominions, and have become naturalized, have the door thrown wide open to them to come to South Africa and be admitted here. They have the right to be admitted here. If we grant that and alter our Bill in that respect, it encroaches upon this very essential principle. A very large number of British subjects, those who are naturalized as British subjects, go back from a British country to the land of their birth. They need not lose their British nationality by so doing. They may maintain it, and a very large section of them do maintain it. Not only that, but their children born in their own country, the land of their birth, if they have returned to that country, may maintain their British citizenship, and may remain British subjects as long as they live. So, if we adopt the hon. member’s motion, it will, in reality, open the door very wide to those people that under this Bill we want to exclude.

How many of the thousands of these people who come do you want to keep out under this Bill ?

Not very large numbers, but there are large numbers who have settled in other parts of the British empire, and they go back and still maintain their British citizenship.

Have you not got any figures ?

No, I have not got any figures. Even so, under the scheme of the hon. gentleman, how does that work out? In the first place, I wish to point out that it places very severe limits on certain European countries where, certainly, the people, if they wish to come to this country, would be considered to be most desirable immigrants. I refer to the Scandanavian countries. The people from those Scandanavian countries would be welcome in any country in the world as most desirable citizens. What good reason is there why the hon. member wants to apply a severe limit upon immigrants from those countries? It is quite true that they do not exhaust the quota of 50 at the present time. Why, if they do not exhaust the quota at the present time, put a limit in the future upon them? Further, the hon. member excludes Belgium. Why exclude Belgium? The people in England and Holland are all admitted free, and the people of Germany are admitted free, and the inhabitants of France are all admitted free, and they surround Belgium on all sides. They are admitted free to this country, and why should you make an exception of Belgium alone ?

You can move in the word “Belgium.”

Belgium, which as far as language is concerned, and as far as race is concerned, is very closely allied, on the one hand to France, and on the other hand to the Netherlands. Take the case of Switzerland. The hon. member wants to let in free people coming from Germany and France. What good reason is there to exclude, or to put a restriction on German-Switzerland? What good reason is there to put a restriction on French-Switzerland, which is the spiritual home, by the way, of the larger section of the people of South Africa? It is the home of Calvinism. Let us make a further comparison between the hon. member’s scheme and the scheme laid down in the Bill. If the Bill is accepted, then immigration from the four countries, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Russia will be limited to about 200. If we accept his scheme, then from these four countries no less than 967 can be admitted. That means, if we stick closely to his 3 per cent, increase every year, that we shall have to take into consideration the actual numbers coming to South Africa within the scope of his motion. From those four countries I have mentioned, of eastern Europe, the number of immigrants will be 70 per cent, of those arriving in this country. If that is the case, I ask the House, what is the use of introducing this measure? We might just as well have left it over. To show the House what really is the effect of what the hon. member moved, I will just take the instance of two of the countries of the world with the largest population, Russia, on the one hand, and the United States on the other. Our relations are friendly to both countries, and, as far as the United States are concerned, we cultivate specially friendly relations, and especially trade relations, with that country, and for that reason we have sent an ambassador there. But we also recognize that the people of the United States of America, if they come to South Africa, are especially assimilable, and the reason for that is that the history of the United States has very largely been the same as the history of the people in South Africa. The racial composition is, to a very large extent, the same. On the other hand, Russia, as far as its racial composition is concerned, has very little in common with South Africa. Not only that, but we know that there are influences emanating from that country about which we have a good deal of suspicion in this country. For that reason a measure was introduced a few days ago into this House to counteract those influences as much as we can. Generally speaking, if the people of Russia come to this country and can be assimilated, they are assimilated very slowly. Everyone will recognize that. Take these two countries side by side, both with a population of about 125,000,000. The hon. gentleman wishes to cut down the quota to the United States of America severely to 52 per annum, but to Russia he allows 798 per annum. The hon. gentleman has been to Europe. I am very much tempted to ask him whether he is serious or not? If he is not serious, why should the House further consider his motion, but if he is serious, I ask him when he went overseas did he go to Moscow ?

The only person who went to Moscow was the Minister of Justice.

In any case, if this is the effect of our attempt by this measure to control immigration to build up a homogeneous South African nation and to limit the United States to 52, and to allow 800 to Russia, then we are making ourselves the laughing stock of the world.

I listened with some attention to the Minister in order to ascertain what really was the answer he had to make to my hon. friend, but I have heard nothing but small debating points, small party points, small scores. The Minister forgets that we are dealing with a subject of very great importance. He spoke about building up a homogeneous South Africa. I say if we are going to build up a South Africa on the principles of this Bill then there is very little future for a white South Africa. If this is the line of policy we are going to follow, if we are going to build up the country on such principles as are laid down in the Bill, then I do not see much chance of a homogeneous or a white or a westernized South Africa. Another small debating point! The Minister went on to say that the situation in South Africa is very similar to that of the United States, but he forgets that the situation in the United States when they introduced immigration restrictions was just the opposite to what it is in South Africa. In the United States the population had reached what was then considered saturation point, and no discrimination was made between western and eastern Europe, or any other part of the world. The only governing consideration with the American leaders was this: that they had a larger population inside their frontiers than they could digest. They were in favour of what was called 100 per cent. Americanism, and they said they had an enormous population which spoke different tongues, followed different cultures, which was entirely unlike the original population of the United States, and it was at this stage, when the country had a population of 110,000,000, largely consisting of immigrants and the children of immigrants, that the United States said: “Now we must close the door; it is becoming too dangerous. We cannot assimilate all this population; we must have a breathing space.” That was the reason why they introduced the principle of restriction. But in South Africa the position is entirely different. Admittedly, our position is just the opposite and it is dangerously different from that of the United States. We have a huge country which, as regards white population, is practically empty. This huge country has a population of less than 2,000,000 whites. There may be good and wise reasons for the closing of our doors, but the Minister should not leave the country under the impression that what we are doing is on all fours with what the United States did. It is just the opposite. The position of the United States was forced on it by over-population, but we have a huge subcontinent under-populated. Yet we are to close the doors. If the Minister had then proceeded to follow the American quota system something might have been said for it. America, however, makes no distinction between one country and another. The Minister makes an enormous grievance that we are not admitting Americans wholesale under the amendment, but he forgets how many young South Africans go to the United States. The Americans make no distinction—they have simply taken a rigid quota. No country has the right to complain. It is admitted that any country can regulate the position of its own people. Immigration can be dealt with by a country as it thinks fit, but it must not do so in a way which draws unnecessarily invidious distinctions between different countries, and the United States has not done that. You can read the American Act and see it is a rigid rule which is applied to all countries. If the minister adopted the American quota system, he would be accepting the amendment, and that is all we ask. He says that at this stage we have to limit our population, and the country already is too full. I have heard that story before for many years.

The House said so the other day.

Another debating point. My hon. friend cannot get away from debating points. I can quite understand it being held in this House, as it was held on the second reading, that some form of restriction of immigration is necessary. I do not think the conclusion reached on the second reading can be taken to mean more than that—that the great majority in this House expressed the opinion that the question has to be dealt with, and that the indiscriminate admission of immigrants should no longer continue. I do not think the second reading vote went any further than that. The question must be dealt with, and there must be some form of restriction—I assume that is what the House voted upon. Behind that vote I do not go. If there is to be restriction, and we have to carry out the resolution carried on the second reading, it is a very important question what method we are going to adopt, and how the restriction is to be carried out. The method laid down in this Bill, I think this House and the country should not accept; this principle that we should divide the countries of Europe, the old world and the new world, into two classes—to have a white list and a black list. We should not do so by the legislation of the country. It is a dangerous thing, and a step which is going to react disastrously on this country. This method is invidious and illiberal, and it is a measure which is going to react disastrously on the reputation of this country. Take the distinction drawn between North and South America. From North America immigration is unlimited; from South America it is so severely restricted that there is practically to be none. What is the reason for this? I do not think you will find in the legislation of any country on earth so illiberal a Bill, so illiberal a provision and measures as you have here. Why should we in our youth and early days adopt a principle like this? We want friends in the world; we want markets, and we cannot flout the opinion of the world. Here we are going to brand two-thirds of the white people of the earth and say: “From your countries we are going to take but a small limited number.” The others are on a favoured basis. To my mind it is illiberal and dangerous, and is going to affect this country. We cannot play with these things. If we place other peoples on this footing, they will draw their own conclusion, and we cannot expect friendship, consideration and markets if we do this. I will strongly urge the Government at this late hour—the Minister says it is too late. It may be too late, if he finds the repercussions of this matter. I would urge him to take the long view. Do not be guided by debating points and party advantages. He may think he is passing a popular measure, but may find it like Dead Sea fruit. Stick to principles. This Bill not only draws these hopeless, invidious distinctions which we should avoid at all costs, but it does more. There are various ways of drawing distinctions, but this is the very worst way, by classifying countries openly in the law of the land.

made an interjection.

My hon. friend may depend on it, the final form of the amendment has not been reached yet. I want the Government to adopt the principle of being absolutely impartial and making no distinctions, and treating all countries on the same basis, and, therefore, avoiding the risk of hurting the susceptibilities of large numbers in the world. There is no doubt this Bill is aimed at a certain particular type of immigrant. I should be very sorry to see that we should, by the law of this land, cast a stigma on a portion of the population of South Africa. They may not be popular, there may be feeling, but they have done their share in the upbuilding of South Africa. If this Bill becomes law, there will be no place in this country for a man like Sammy Marks, men by the score who have been the best of South Africans, and who have done as much as, if not more, to build up the financial and industrial power of this country than others. It is running a great risk. It ill becomes us, a young people, who owe so much to every section of the white race here in South Africa, and have preached in season and out of season, the doctrine of equality and friendship, that we should, at this stage, reverse our policy and single out—because that is what, in essence, this Bill does—one particular ingredient of our people, and say: “We have quite enough of you; we want other—people of Nordic races and of western Europe—but we are getting overloaded with you.” Do not let us trade on the existing prejudices of to-day; do not let us put on the statute hook a principle which to-day applies to A, but to-morrow will apply to B, and thereafter to C. That is not the way to build up South Africa, to use the expression of the Minister. Let us have the open door as long as possible, and restrict the type of immigrant which we cannot digest, on lines approved of and followed by other countries like the U.S.A., but do not let us put this black mark, this stigma, not only on these countries, but also, that is what it comes to, on these people.

Are you in favour of limitation at all ?

If the House, by a majority, decides on a limitation, let there be one. I say I cannot argue behind that, but let the restriction, if there is to be restriction, be by methods which will stand the light of day and which we can justify at the bar of the world. I should like to know what he has to say to the consuls for South America where we want to increase our trade when he draws these distinctions between them. If a Spaniard comes from Spain he is welcome, but if he comes from the Argentine, he is not. A Portuguese citizen is treated with similar inconsistency. How can we defend such a state of affairs? It makes us look ridiculous, but it is more than ridiculous, it is dangerous. It is going to react on this country, and I would ask the Government before they embark on legislation of this kind, which is a blow in the face to many peoples whom we want to have as friends in the world, to think once and twice before they take the last step. I want to ask them not to adopt the attitude of the Minister, and say: “You have passed the second reading, and you must swallow the rest.” I am not going to swallow the rest, because, I think, it would be a mistake for which this country would pay. We Dutch people in this country have not been hostile to these peoples; they have been our friends. Why should we now declare war against them ?

It is not war.

It is not intended that we should declare war. I agree with my hon. friend, but the method adopted is such that it is open to that construction; susceptible people would put that interpretation upon it. I do not assume that it is intended, but it bears that construction, and we should not pass any legislation through this House which can be accepted by any portion of the world as a deliberate treading on their feelings, and wounding of their susceptibilities. For these reasons, I shall vote for the motion of my hon. friend. When it comes to the actual scheme to amend the Bill, that will require to be closely looked into, because it will be a very difficult matter. I should like to see this matter referred to a select committee, but whatever the Government does, I hope they will not stick to the method they have adopted here, because the Bill, as it stands, will lead to the wounding of susceptibilities.

I am not taking part in this discussion, because I want the second reading debate over again, but I rise after the speech made by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to find out where he stands. The hon. member came here like a deus ex machina at the end of the actual debate on this matter. I do not know whether he actually appeared to make himself ridiculous, or to make his followers, who heartily voted for the second reading, ridiculous; or whether he appeared here to show us what a ridiculous machine the South African party is. I should be glad to hear from the late acting leader of the Opposition, Mr. Krige, how far he and other hon. members of the South African party agree with what the leader of the Opposition has said this afternoon. If they agree, then I should like to know why in heaven’s name they supported a second reading, or am I to assume that the hon. member for Standerton rose to-day to show how the South African party is split from top to bottom, and that it now stands by the side of the eleven who voted against it? We want to know what the Opposition support in this matter, and what they do not support. I do not wish to reproach my friend who voted for the second reading. After what they did, however, and after the support they promised, we were given such a scene this afternoon that we have the right to ask where they now stand; how much right and honesty there is in the whole thing. Where does the hon. member for Standerton stand? He has danced an egg dance here which very much excels that of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr). Every time he was asked what he wanted he replied: “Those are small debating points,” and that we must look at principles. He argued that we ought to be able to look the whole world in the face. That is precisely that old bombastic method once more which our friend is so accustomed to when he has been completely beaten, and does not know where he is, or how to get out of the difficulty. Then he says with the most serious face: “Look at me, on what a high pedestal I stand.” But giant or dwarf, I want to know from the hon. member where he stands. He told us that he thinks that the second reading merely decided that there must be some form of restriction or other in general. In general !

Yes.

What then is the form of the restriction? Did he tell us? No, he was very careful. He will just as little say what the form is as he has hitherto said what the form of restriction must be in the native legislation. Here he has, according to some, preached a doctrine in this connection which entirely conflicts with our views; he gave lectures in Europe, and the people then said: “Smuts talks just the same as Hertzog.” I must, however, give him the credit of never allowing himself to be caught out. That is, unfortunately, the leader and the leadership under whom the South African party has already struck the rocks, and I must say that if I, this afternoon, were a member of that South African party, I would say: “This is the final cause to drive me out of the party.” Just imagine a leader who in a big national question like this is too frightened—shall I put it that way—to lead, or any rate, to be able to lead on a big problem about which the whole of South Africa has been engaged during the past days in deep consideration, and in connection with which more than half has already been concluded, the leader comes here and, instead of leading, he says unintelligible things. He commenced by saying that they must pardon him a little—that was practically what it amounted to—if he did not precisely agree with what his own party had done, inasmuch as he was not here, and did not know what had happened. The hon. member says that we must be able to look the world in the face. I say that what is more important than the world is that we must look the interests of South Africa in the face, and this is precisely what the leader of the Opposition has never yet been able to do, and never yet has done. Mention a single great question where the leader of the Opposition has not exhibited uncertainty, jumped about, and given no lead, just as he has done this afternoon. We are concerned here with a very big question, and if the hon. member says that in America they did so and so, I say that every nation ought to do what its own interests demand, and what the circumstances of the country require to be done. What I particularly want to challenge in the hon. member is that, in the circumstances, when he cannot defend himself as was the case to-day, he immediately wants to convey the impression: “You, of course, know nothing of the American law, you also know nothing of the contributory causes which induced America to do what they did; you, as a matter of fact, know but little of what influenced America to do it.” But he said, inter alia, that America treated one country like another. The Minister of the Interior at once interjected that that was not the case. Let us, however, just indicate the inaccuracy of the statement of the hon. member for Standerton. Take the case of Italy before the American Act on immigration restriction was passed, and thereafter. Before the Act was passed, Italy sent in one year 222,260 emigrants to America, and after the Act, 3,695.

I did not say the contrary.

But yet you said that America treated all countries alike.

They put all countries under an equal quota.

On the other hand take England. Before the Act 79,000 immigrants came from England, and after the Act, 62,000. England, although before that time it had sent far less immigrants than Italy, sent 62,000, and Italy only 3,000. Is that equal treatment? We have regarded the whole question from the point of view of the interests of South Africa. The position taken up by the hon. member I leave to the other side of the House. We have debated points because they contain truths, and are necessary in the interests of our country. The whole speech of the hon. member induces us to ask what the intentions of the Opposition are. Can it support its leader? I do not doubt that hon. members will continue to support us. I very much deplore that the hon. member for Standerton was not at his post to give a lead, but after the progress we have made has intervened to talk as he has done this afternoon. As for the amendment, I agree fully with what the Minister of the Interior has said. The hon. member for Standerton said that he would show us that he does not support it. I also can say that whatever he may do, we on this side can assure him that the Bill is going through, because it is in the real interests of South Africa. He speaks here as if the Bill were not entirely intended in the interests of South Africa, but was in conflict with them. We are firmly convinced that it is a necessity, and an urgent necessity, that a Bill of this kind should be passed in South Africa. In the first place, we are not prepared to have a further strong element here which will practically be a fifth, to break up into pieces and limit our national character, and our national unity. We already have the natives, the Indians, the coloured people and the Europeans, four great national classes, all of whom stand apart from each other, and live almost as a separate unit. We feel that if we allow this streaming in to continue, just as certain as the Indians came here and led to a new national group, we shall be creating a fifth national group by such admission. We with our small numbers are not able to assimilate the great flood of the past few years. The hon. member for Standerton points to America, and says that only when the population numbered 100,000,000, or thereabouts, did America decide on a restriction of immigration. Do you think that it is easier for us to assimilate the stream than America with its large population? That is the question. Of course, it was easier for America, but she stopped the big stream for the same reason that we want to do so. Undoubtedly those immigrants will form another foreign nation in South Africa. I cannot but be deeply disappointed at the attitude of the leader of the Opposition. I cannot, however, believe that they will adopt a different attitude now that their leader has returned.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister has imported into this debate so much unnecessary heat and so much unnecessary party feeling. I do not know whether it is the spectacle of my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) suddenly appearing in this House that has led him to this expression of feeling. We on this side of the House have hitherto, in regard to this Bill, helped the hon. Minister and the Government. We have testified by our vote on the second reading of this Bill that we approve of the principle. When I spoke on the occasion of the second reading, I approved of the principle, but we all made it perfectly clear that while we approved of the need for restricting immigration so long as it is in the unbalanced condition in which it is now, so long as people coming from certain countries bear so large a proportion to the total number, everyone of us made it clear that we did not like the method which it is proposed to bring in under this Bill. We went so far as this. We said that we would like to have the Bill sent to select committee before the second reading.

Why did you not vote for it to go to select committee ?

We wanted it to go to select committee in order that these defects might be cured to the utmost extent. But we considered that if the Minister regarded the motion as a motion hostile to the Bill we should not support it. We said that we should do our best to help the Minister to improve the Bill, and we said that we should do our best to improve it after the second reading. That was the attitude we took up then, and that is the attitude we take up to-day. We nude it quite clear that there were two points on which we thought this Bill ought to be recast, two defects which we thought ought to be remedied. One was that it should be cast in such a form as not to impose upon a section of these people any sense of racial stigma. This Bill as it stands does give to a large section of the people a sense of a racial stigma.

You said it did not.

And I say so still. I say it gives to a large section of the people in this country a sense of racial stigma. I also say that I do not think this Bill intends to convey that sense of racial stigma.

Your hon. friend said it did.

He did not. He says the same as I do. We should amend the Bill, and we can still preserve its essential object so as not to give these people any sense of a racial stigma. We made it quite clear that we do not like a Bill which puts a large number of the countries of the world with whom we should be on friendly relations, on to a sort of black list. I made that clear.

You want to extend the list ?

The Minister may argue that, but it extends that list on intelligible grounds. It puts on one side the countries from whose people the people of South Africa have very largely sprung. The countries mentioned in the amendment are the countries from whose people the people of South Africa have largely sprung. What we want to get away from is, without any justification, putting countries in Europe, in South America and elsewhere on the black list, and thereby putting an international black mark against them. We think you should avoid that if it is possible to do so. Surely the fact that we move an amendment which is intended as far as possible to meet that difficulty should be accepted. The whole object of the amendment is to meet that difficulty and to give us this control over immigration without the unnecessary defects which will cause us trouble internationally and internally. Surely an amendment intended to meet that should meet with a better reception than it met from the prime Minister. The Prime Minister tells us that they are looking not at the world’s interests, but at South Africa’s interests. So are we. We say: Do not let South Africa, which, after all, is a little people, unnecessarily go and give a slap in the face to the greater number of countries in the world. Do not let us unnecessarily incur their wrath, or make bad friends among the nations of the world, when every one of our interests points to our having as many friends outside South Africa as we can. Do not let us unnecessarily cause bad feelings and bad friends of those countries, whom we now propose to put on the black list. We say that there is another way of achieving this object, and this amendment is designed to achieve that end. What argument did the Minister advance against this method that we suggest?

He said it was futile.

Yes, I know he said it is futile, but it is very easy to say that it is futile without showing grounds for the suggestion. The Minister said: “Look what you are going to do. You will restrict immigrants to a very small number and will allow immigrants from Russia to the extent of 800 or 900, and he thought that that was a reductio ad absurdum argument. He called it a debating point. So it is a debating point. It has no relation to actual practical facts. The Minister knows that under this amendment it will be possible for 800 or 900 immigrants to come from Russia. In fact, however, and in practice, people are not coming from Russia to South Africa. They cannot come. They are not allowed to come.

It may change any day.

Yes, it may, but what is the fact? It is a fact that some day it may change. Are we going to weigh that against the tremendous advantage we obtain from such a principle as this which does not discriminate unnecessarily between one country and another? Supposing that 800 people do come from Russia. It will not swamp us, and it will not endanger our social policy. If we find, after some years of experience that this quota system has worked out differently from what we expected, it will be perfectly simple for us to alter it. The U.S.A. did that, and why cannot we do the same? It is not a law of the Medes and Persians which is going to last for over. The circumstances of this country may change any day: we may find, I hope we shall, that we shall have a big stream of immigration coming to South Africa, and our position in regard to people from southern and eastern Europe may be entirely different, and the position that we are up against to-day may have changed. The Prime Minister rather ridiculed the system proposed under the amendment because the American system imposes a large restruction on Latin populations and a less restriction on the British. Nevertheless, the American procedure does not place a stigma on the Italians. We want to achieve our purpose without unnecessarily injuring people. In our Bill a number of countries are left off the schedule.

They get a quota.

They get 50. A large country like the Argentine and a small country like Lithuania get 50 each. This is unnecessarily hurting the feelings of countries which are excluded, and if we can find a better system, why not adopt it? If we find that we are being flooded with Russian immigrants, we can still take steps to stop it. How many immigrants are coming from Russia now? What we are out for is a principle which can be enforced without injuring the susceptibilities of other countries of the world, and of other races than our own. We are not here to exclude a particular race, but to obtain certain control over immigration, to see that so long as the immigration from countries which are more directly associated with our own forbears, is so small that other immigrants must not be allowed to come in in overwhelming proportions. We want a balanced immigration, but not to put a black mark against particular countries, but to try and secure the people coming here from other races are not overwhelmingly of a different racial origin or of a different type. We have given our support to the Bill on these grounds alone—that we believe in the necessity for restricting immigration because the people from the countries where we had our origin are very much too small in number in proportion to people coming from southern and eastern Europe. Do not let us show we are so barren in statesmanship that this is the only measure we can devise to adjust the balance and to keep a proportion which we all think is necessary. We made in it perfectly clear that there are two defects in this Bill which I have already indicated, and we shall try to do something to remedy these defects and to remove these blots. Just as the Minister, when he moved the second reading of the Bill, asked for our co-operation, so we ask for the co-operation of hon. members opposite when we say it is up to them and to South Africa that we do not pass a Bill that is going to be a blot on the statute book, and to endanger our relations with other countries.

The advent of the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts), who we are all glad to see back again after his travels, has transformed the situation somewhat. We are glad to hear from him that he is in favour of the Bill, but we all of us have a very shrewd suspicion that if he had been here a fortnight ago the Opposition might have found some common ground instead of the grounds which the hon. gentleman has just explained. But the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) spoke with a very different voice when they led the Opposition.

No.

The hon. member for Caledon did not know what lead to give He said he was not going to be responsible for opposing the Bill, and the hon. member for Yeoville gave it his whole-hearted blessing.

Only the principle.

It reminded me of those twin stars, the only evidence of whose duality is apparently their eclipse of one by the other. The only interpretation that can be given to the remarks of the right hon. member for Standerton is that he is opposed to the Bill. The whole tenour of his speech was that America had reached saturation point, and that we are very far from reaching it. So the argument was that we should not have any restrictions at all. I wonder why he came forward with that argument to-day. We thoroughly understand the views of the hon. members for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski), Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson), and Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), and they do them honour, although I think they take a wholly unjustified view of the aim and ideas behind the measure as being directed against their race, but outside of them the unanimous feeling in the Opposition was not only in favour of the Bill, but that it was long overdue, and that restrictions of this character should take place. The rising star of the Opposition, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) spoke for 40 minutes; for half that time he pointed out how he disliked the Bill because it appeared to discriminate between certain classes, and for the second 20 minutes he explained he was supporting the Bill because it excluded certain people who were precisely of the same class he had previously referred to. Every one of them really felt that the country required such a Bill to be passed, but with the exception of the few hon. members I have mentioned, tried to save their faces because of certain considerations outside. The right hon. gentleman said that a stigma would be placed on certain countries. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) proposed in his motion that we mention by name Holland, Germany and France. We put them on a white list, and put the rest of the world on a black list. He said what an absurd thing the quota list was. But I suppose 50 men from Brazil have not come in during the last 25 years. The hon. members opposite went on to say that they would have voted for getting to the [select committee before second reading. I would ask the hon. member, who is usually so candid (Mr. Duncan), if that is not entirely an afterthought on his part.

made an interjection.

There would have been no necessity for this instruction if they had a motion to go into select committee before second reading. They voted for the second reading, which debars them from considering this without an instruction. They now say they are not in support of the Bill, and one cannot make out what their position is. But a week ago they all voted for this Bill. I suppose most hon. members opposite are in support of the method of the Bill.

No.

In spite of all this talk about casting a stigma, our plan is on a better and broader basis, and brings it in on broader lines than by the method of hon. members opposite, and does so on a perfectly conceivable system. The people and the stocks of this country come from western European people, or western European culture. We take all the countries of what was Europe when the principal immigration into this country came, and lumped them altogether. We placed no restrictions on them, but from other countries we allow 50 in every year. In spite of what hon. members say, I do not believe for a moment there is any other country in the world affected which will take umbrage at the method adopted, which I venture to say is an easy one. I hope the House will reject the hon. member’s motion, and that hon. members opposite will not take too severely the lecture of their master, who has just come back, on their error of last week.

The presence of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has brought the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence to their feet. When the measure was first before the House we had one mass of silence to show “how unanimous” they were on the Bill. I say with all deference they have not made any contribution to the merits of the matter now before the House. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would have at least told us whether he still agrees with the views he so well expressed a few months ago—expressed with such eloquence and to the delight of the people. If he has changed his mind, we might expect him to tell us what has brought it about. The Minister of Defence has not old us anything. If we followed the line of argument he pursued, the Minister would not have been eligible to come to South Africa; he was born in Gibraltar.

Which is in the British commonwealth.

But the Minister says, if a man is a British citizen that is not enough; he has to be born there. The Prime Minister told us we have sufficient problems in South Africa—the native, coloured, Indian and European population problems—and that unless you passed this Bill you were giving us another, a fifth problem, but which can be that fifth section, except the race to which I have the honour to belong? If he analyzed the official figures of the Government, 94 per cent, of the people you are to-day trying to exclude are members of the Jewish community. He must be referring to the people he lauded up to the skies a few months ago at a banquet. The Minister said that the feeling that this is aimed at the members of the Jewish community is unjustified. Yet during the discussion, he advised us that if we allowed more and more members of the Jewish community to come into South Africa it would aggravate anti-Semitism. Then he tells us that the Bill is not aimed at the Jewish community. I listened, with regret, to the reply the Minister made to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I suppose I would not be in order if I were to accuse the hon. the Minister of hypocrisy. If I am in order, I want to deliberately say that the Minister, in his reply, has exemplified what one can only term hypocrisy. I say it because of this. He said: “What is the good of bringing this matter in now? It should have come before a select committee of the House.” The members of the Jewish community asked him to meet them before the introduction of the Bill. He refused; he was too busy. On the Wednesday before the vote was taken he received a deputation dealing with the matter, and we asked the Minister to send the Bill to a select committee so that we could put forward alternative proposals which might ease the situation as far as we are concerned. That request was put forward by us officially. We have not had a reply. He was going to consult the Prime Minister about it, and when he dealt with the matter in this House he did not even indicate what attitude he was going to take up. I do not regard this resolution before the House as a solution, or as something I am very much in favour of, but I say that of two evils, I must choose the lesser. But on the occasion of the deputation we suggested another method. We said that if the matter could go to a select committee before the second reading, we might be able to put forward proposals by which a quota could be fixed on an occupational basis. We have had no reply.

I told you at once that it was impossible.

The Minister said there were difficulties. Now, when a proposal is put forward to make certain alterations, the Minister says it is too late. When the suggestion is made that the quota should apply to aliens, he asks what about those people who are naturalized in the British commonwealth of nations? He objects to a suggestion that the quota should apply to all alients, because that might give an opportunity to people who become naturalized in the British commonwealth of nations, and the Minister who showed so much love for the British commonwealth on Monday last said: “Oh no; aliens who have become naturalized in the British commonwealth would then be able to enter South Africa.” What becomes of the British Nationality Bill, which provides for reciprocity between South Africa and the other dominions? That is to be treated as a scrap of paper. The Minister tells us that we have got to maintain western standards of civilization. Is it not a fact that the people he is trying to exclude are maintaining those standards as well as the people in South Africa at the present moment? I ask you to compare —I say it with regret and not out of any disparagement—the standards of the Jewish community here with the statement by a prominent member of his party, a Mr. Isabel, about certain standards of life applying in certain parts of South Africa. Can the western standards of civilization of members of the Jewish community possibly be compared with the standards referred to by that gentleman? If you say that South Africa must be kept open to the original stocks of the country, then I say that my community can equally claim with the Huguenots to have borne a hand in the building up of South Africa. Years before there was a single Dutchman or Englishman in South Africa, members of the Jewish community landed in South Africa with the Portuguese. Years after that, when they were expelled from Portugal, they helped in the general development of Holland, and assisted in rendering possible the opening up of South Africa to white civilization. I would refer the Minister to a statement made in 1652 by a deputation led by Mr. B. Israel, who said that the Jews enjoyed a good part of the Dutch East India Company. You will find that in Natal, 17 years before Natal was annexed to Great Britain, and 10 years before a single Dutchman had landed in Natal, the native chiefs then in control gave a concession to Mr. Nathaniel Isaacs, a member of the Jewish community. He handed over the concession to the British, so that they could increase their territory. We are told that by allowing this stock to continue to come in we are going to add a fearful burden to the difficulties of this country, and we are asked to believe it does not refer to members of the Jewish community. The hon. Minister of Defence, other hon. Ministers, and the silent phalanx behind them, who are now having tea, are not concerned with these points at present; they have decided on them. But the hon. Prime Minister himself has referred to the fact that the Jewish people were amongst the most trustworthy who fought on commando in the Boer war, and that in the late war Jews also rendered distinguished services. The greater percentage of these people who fell and sacrificed themselves were members of the Jewish community coming from Lithuania. If at this late stage the hon. Minister is really anxious to remove the stigma and secure some justice for a very large section of the South African population, he will agree to an instruction being given to the committee, so that the Bill can be modified to some extent.

I move—

I move this because it is well known when such restricting legislation is introduced it is very necessary to put it into operation as soon as possible, otherwise the influx during the few months before the coming into operation of the Act of people, who, under the Act, will not be able to enter, but make use of the opportunity of still coming in, will be very great.

That would mean that from now for the next 4½ months a large number of those undesirable persons would come, and, if we pass the principle that we must keep undesirable immigrants out of the country, then we must see to it that they do not come into the country in large masses during the last month. I may say that I know from personal experience that that will be the case, because I was in America just before the Quota Act came into force. I shall not forget the impression made on me, how, immediately before the Act came into operation, the number of mose undesirable immigrants from Europe increased. I travelled with those immigrants on the ship, and I passed a day with them on Ellis Island to see what kind of people went there. During those last few weeks the ships could not carry all the people that wanted to travel to America. My impression was that on the whole it was a very undesirable kind of people who tried to still enter the United States. I believe the United States was very sorry that it did not bring the Act into operation sooner, and I hope we shall not make the same mistake of leaving the door open any longer. I also move to substitute “33” for “25.” The object is to get the correct proportion; from May to the end of the year is eight months, instead of the six months from July, which is proposed in the Bill. For that reason I want to raise the number from 25 to 33, so that in proportion to the 50 immigrants which will be permitted per annum, the exact number shall be admitted for eight months.

I congratulate the hon. member, and I suppose he is speaking on behalf of his party, on the accurate method under which he has calculated that under this amendment instead of there being 25, there will be 33 immigrants. I hope that the committee will not support the amendment. The amendment tells us that the matter is so dangerous, so urgent and imperative, that, instead of the provisions of this law taking effect from July 1st, South Africa will be ruined if it does not take effect from the 1st May. That is the biggest insult that can be levelled against the intelligence of this House and the country. But reasoned opinion does not expect that this matter shall be dealt with by the Government on the basis of intelligence. I submit that it is the biggest insult to the Minister of the Interior and to the Government for a member of the Government party to get up in this House and to propose that the operation of this clause shall take effect on the 1st May rather than on the 1st July. I want to ask why, if the mater is so very urgent, that two months make all the difference between the salvation and ruination of South Africa, what has happened since 1924? I have the figures here. I find from the figures which they so strenuously object to, and to the population to which they so strenuously object, there has been a very considerable influx of immigrants since 1924. From year to year that influx has been increasing, and if, in the opinion of the Minister, 50 is the maximum that can be allowed consistent with the safety of South Africa, then I want to know from the Minister how it is that it has taken him from 1924 till now to realize the danger which faces South Africa. The Minister decided that it was very much better to come out with these restrictive proposals after the general election rather than before. I agree with him that it was much safer. How is it if the Government was so anxious to save South Africa that the Minister did not introduce the Bill in 1925? He allowed 1926 and 1927 to pass and did nothing. Was it because that he thought the establishment of a national flag was of much more importance than the averting of this terrible calamity with which he says South Africa is threatened unless immigration is controlled and restricted? How was it the Government waited for five years without saying a word about a subject which now they declare to be highly dangerous? Not a hint was given to any of the electors during the last election that any such legislation was contemplated. Now the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) comes along and insults his party by saying that they suddenly discovered the matter was so urgent that if a few individuals were allowed to come in between now and July, South Africa must be ruined. I can only assume that the speed with which the Government is rushing the Bill through is due to prejudice.

I would like some information about Clause 1, and to point out that all the disqualifications affecting the entry of persons under the existing law still stand. In addition, the Minister proposes to introduce an entirely new principle—that is regulation of immigration by mere administrative decree. Sub-section (1) lays it down that no person shall be admitted unless his entry has been approved in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed, and unless he is in possession of written authority in such form as may be prescribed by regulation. Not only in respect of non-scheduled, but scheduled, countries is there to be a system whereby admission will be by the authority of persons outside the Union, and these persons are not specified. The Minister must have determined ere this in what form the authority will be used, and I ask him what exactly does he mean by this power to control immigration by regulation. On what principles will immigrants be admitted? The Government ask for the widest powers in framing these regulations, and they do not say that the regulations shall not be inconsistent with the Act, except in certain sub-clauses. A very important principle is involved, as the Government is endeavouring to administer the country by administrative Acts. The fact that the Minister is not able to define the principles on which he proposes to frame the regulation shows a very sad deficiency of legislative capacity on the part of the Minister of the Interior. Since then the numbers the Minister put them on the Table?

Since the Minister in charge of the Bill made his speeches last week on this Bill, I have looked to see what the newspapers have had to say about them. With few exceptions, the newspapers congratulated him on his eloquence and clear exposition, but his inconsistency was not dealt with, so I propose to deal briefly with it. Up to the time the Minister came into office, the admission of these so-called undesirables was fairly considered and restricted under the 1913 Act by the hon. member for Yeoville, the then Minister of the Interior. Since then the numbers increased enormously. The other evening I admonished the Minister so far that I thought he would spend some uncomfortable nights, but nothing seems to move him. Ever since the Minister came into office, the number of immigrants has increased. We are endeavouring to soften down the clause, but the Minister is actually trying to harden it, as he wishes to cut down the period by two months. He has not explained why, or are the reasons so feeble that it is not capable of explanation? One would have thought that once this amendment was moved, the Minister would get precedence and express his views thereon, but he remains silent. We want to be just to the people outside, and I say this Bill is a travesty of justice.

I move—

Under Section 1, power to decide not only whether 50 immigrants may come in, but that no man may come in from a particular country, will rest with the Minister. Supposing this House decides there shall be a quota of 50 from a particular country, the Minister would still have that power as the section stands. We have power to say to let 50 men in, but one may be more suitable to come in than another. We have gone too far, and the time has arrived to cry halt to this system whereby everything is handed over to the Minister. My amendment will not defeat the object of the Bill at all, and by deleting subsection (1) 50 people will have to pass the provisions of the immigration law, and to prove that they are desirable citizens. That is all that you want—you want to keep out undesirable people. If the House really means what it says, that power should be taken from the Minister and acted upon under the present immigration law and immigration authorities. The Minister might wait until the 30th December of a particular year and say that nobody is to come in. But then some particular friend of the Government may say “We have some particular friends of the Government, and will you let them in,” and the Minister may let them in.

Out of evil some good may come. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in referring a little while ago to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said that it antedated the coming into force of this Bill, but does my hon. friend not realize there would be such wholesale rejoicing on the Government side, that we might get recognition from that Government of 1st May as a holiday. The 1st April would be most appropriate, but by Act of Parliament we have no need to stereotype our present position. I am very much opposed to this clause, and the more I think of it the more I realize how insulting it is to the people with whom it is proposed to deal; the more we contemplate the position the more we realize that the Minister has an Immigration Act to keep out undesirables. Every person who is an undesirable can, without question, be kept out. This Bill is intended to insult a whole race. It is laying down our attitude towards these people in the eyes of the world, because in these days things are done legislatively in a small place, small in consequence, like South Africa, are observed by the whole world, and will have its effects on national relations. It goes down into history that South Africa, by this effort of its Government, is intending a legislative insult against a people of the world, that the Government writes down in the eyes of the world that the whole Jewish race is a race of undesirables.

Nonsense.

The Minister himself frankly admitted that he had ample power under the Immigration Act to keep out Indians. When I suggested to him that he had refrained from including Indians in the schedule he said: “I have the power to keep them out.” I retorted at once that he had exactly the same power to keep out undesirable Lithuanians, Poles, Latvians and Russians. We can only read into it one thing, that the intention of the Government is to give a slap in the face to the Jewish race. Do hon. members realise where we are getting to? All over the world you find jurists and thinkers and in adverting against the tendency of modern times to abrogate the powers of Parliament and confer them upon Ministers and in consequence upon officials. By this sort of legislation we are making despotism by Act of Parliament. I have a right to call upon this House to pause and think. We are conferring upon the Minister a power no Parliament has a right to confer, namely, to decide in his own right which person shall come in and which person shall not come in. That is very dangerous. Under this Bill as it stands the Minister could keep out the founder of the church of which he was a shining light before he became a journalist. It is very painful to contemplate, but it is nevertheless true. There is another point. The Minister will not permit under any circumstances any of these individuals to come in unless first possessed of an authority signed by the Minister or some person whom he may appoint. This is a very real difficulty to persons who may be desirable and who may be within the quota. The Minister may have his authority in London, and someone in Rome, and someone in Amsterdam. The point is this that this limitation by the appointment of individuals in those centres will become absolutely prohibitive, because Lithuanians will find it a physical impossibility, unless they are enormously rich, to get into touch with the organizing officers. The geographical position of Lithuania and the other countries more particularly referred to will make it impossible for people in those countries to get the authority laid down as necessary. This Bill is bad in every way. It has been conceived in a most repressive spirit. It has not been properly considered. The fact that the Minister was able to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that this was an amendment that should have been considered in select committee before the second reading shows that the Minister has not explored all the methods whereby he might have made it so much easier for people to accept the position.

I want to submit as an amendment to add a proviso at the end of sub-section 2 so that my amendment as a whole will read—

Is not the Minister going to take any notice of the amendment ?

The amendments are coming in still.

Yes, but the Chairman was on the point of putting the question when the hon. gentleman moved the amendment. I got the impression—and I think those behind me also—that the Government’s policy is to push this Bill through by sheer force, and to take no notice of anything intended to modify the Bill. The policy of the Government seems to be the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. I congratulate them on the discipline they are observing and the faithfulness they have shown. Fortunately, hon. members on this side of the House do not look upon it that their duties in Parliament are those of mere vote-registrars; they are ready to pay some heed to the opinions of the country. What does this first sub-section mean? Does it mean that some different regulations are going to be applied in regard to the scheduled countries? Or does it mean that immigrants from scheduled countries are to come in without any restriction whatever; that as regards them, the Act of 1913 and the restrictions the hon. Minister has proposed are to be abolished? I should have thought the words of sub-section (1) would apply to any immigrants coming in. What different restriction does the Minister mean to put in force in regard to this section? as to differentiation of scheduled countries from non-scheduled countries.

That is dealt with in sub-section (2).

Sub-section (2); I quite agree, but what does sub-section (1) mean? This Bill is not only going to impose a quota, but it is going to impose other restrictions as to which we have no information. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart), I hope the House will not take that seriously. We do not want to make this Bill a panic Bill; we do not want to show we are afraid to face two months’ immigration from these countries. It is ridiculous to suppose that we are going to be swamped with immigrants in the short space of two months; things do not happen quite as quickly as that; it takes these people a long time to make their arrangements to leave their homes to come to South Africa. We want to show that we are not in a state of panic in this matter. I do hope the hon. the Minister will not think it necessary to accept this amendment because it is one that is not needed. It will have no serious practical effect but it will give to this Bill the character of a panic measure and produce the impression that we have lost our heads. Will the hon. Minister give us some information as to what particular legislation is contemplated under sub-section (1)?

It seems to me that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) now wants to do everything to get as quickly as possible out of the difficult position in which he and other hon. members of this Party are placed. They want to get away from this debate as quickly as possible. I have been waiting all the time to reply simply because hon. members who introduced amendments had not yet completed their speeches on the amendments. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) rose several times to speak on his amendment and it is surely clear that I ought first to listen to what members had to say before I could reply. Before I go further I just want to point out that there is a clerical mistake in the Afrikaans text where it says: “From the first day of July, 1930, may … to no one.” The little word “to” must be deleted. Perhaps it is just as well that I should at once explain the machinery which will be created if the Bill passes and what regulations will be drafted. The whole machinery is very simple, and so far as I can see contains nothing secret or superfluous. It will be demanded of those countrnes which are being restricted that immigrants shall have not only their passport properly made out and provided with the necessary visa—that is demanded of anybody in every country—but over and above that it will be demanded that the immigrants from restricted countries shall have a written permit in terms of this quota Act which will give them entrance into the country. The hon. member for Yeoville particularly will admit that it is necessary. It is quite impossible to delete sub-clause (1), because that would mean that people would come from various countries not knowing whether they would be admitted or not, not knowing whether the quota of their country was already exhausted or not. Then we should have to choose from among the numbers of applicants in our harbours, who have possibly come with their families of great extent, and they will have to be sent back again. The sub-clause is therefore absolutely necessary. The machinery in short will be that the applicant for admission to South Africa from the restricted countries will have to hand over his application on a prescribed form giving all the required information to our overseas representative or in countries where we do not have our own consuls, to the British consul to do the work for us. They can if they wish make enquiry and note anything on the application they may wish to. The applications with such remarks are sent through the overseas officials to the department of the Interior, and the department will then make the decision and choose the number from the possible number of immigrants that may come from such a country. The regulations will simply be drawn up in accordance with that machinery. The hon. member for Troyeville has put down two amendments on the order paper which I cannot accept, simply because if we are to make the quota 250 for each country, we might just as well have let the Bill drop. That would be no restriction at all, and then the difficulties and unpleasantnesses which we are having are not worth the trouble. What applies to one amendment applies to the other. He wishes, if the quota of a restricted country is not exhausted, the surplus to be carried over to the country whose quota is actually exhausted. That will have the same effect, and the feeling in this House as well as the feeling outside of it, is such that these amendments cannot be accepted. I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). Whether I am to accept it or not depends entirely whether there is actually a justifiable fear that there will be a special influx just before this Act comes into force, and further on the question whether it is possible to put into order the necessary machinery for the carrying out of the Act on the date he mentions in his amendment. If it is thought desirable to pass this Bill in order to keep certain classes out, then it is certainly also desirable to stop special influx if there is a danger of it. I think that there is, as a matter of fact, a well-grounded fear of a special influx. I have not yet given hon. members the figures in connection with the position this year. I can inform the house that since the beginning of this year, as many as 400 of these immigrants have entered, and that we have no less than 700 guarantees in our hands of persons who still want to enter. This indicates what a large waiting mass there is. It is easy to understand that, if it is made clear that there will be restrictions, that there will then be a special rush to South Africa. When Parliament passes Acts in regard to the importation of goods, it is always understood that as soon as a resolution is taken by Parliament, it comes into force at once. Here we have an analogous case.

No.

If Parliament considers that there is a certain type of immigrant who is not desirable, and who must, therefore, be restricted, then a special influx is also undesirable. I inserted “1st July” because I did not expect that the Bill would be so popular in the country, and that the Opposition would support me so much. I doubted very much whether everything would be in order by the 1st July. I understand that as far as this House is concerned, this Bill will be through before the end of this week, and I do not expect the difficulties to be any greater in the other House than here. Moreover, I have made enquiries, and find that about the time mentioned in the amendment the machinery can be ready, and I am, therefore, prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand.

From the statement which has just been delivered by the hon. the Minister it is perfectly clear what induced the hon. member (Mr. Swart) to move the amendment. The hon. member has been induced to move it on information given to him and evidently at the request of the hon. the Minister. If that is so, is it not stange that the hon. the Minister did not introduce the amendment himself? We are told that 400 people have come into the country since the 1st of January and that there are 700 more waiting. How did these 400 people come into the country? Did they walk in or did they come through the instrumentality or agency of the Minister? Is it not an admitted fact that no foreigner can come into this country unless with the leave of the Minister under the 1913 Act? Every foreigner is excluded. Yet here foreigners have come in, and I think the whole thing is inconsistent with the statement made by the Minister. I shall show that the hon. the Minister is giving away the assets of the country. I refer to the word “asset” because the Prime Minister, speaking at a banquet in Johannesburg lately given to Dr. Brainin, said, “the Jews make fine citizens, and are an asset to any nation.”

You don’t deny that ?

No, but you do. You are doing it by your Bill and by the statements which your Ministers have been making. The Prime Minister asked “You don’t deny it?” He therefore admits at this moment that the Jews are still assets. Why then should he not get up and destroy this Bill? The Prime Minister would not have used the word “asset” unless he thought they were such.

Are you an asset?

Yes, I am a better asset to the country than you are. I think these interjections are very improper. I am sorry to see the hon. gentleman, who professes to be a friend of mine, making such an interjection. It is easy enough to keep out undesirables. The existing Act gives all the necessary powers. It is passing strange why the Minister has not answered the question why he has allowed the number of so-called undesirables to increase since he came into office in 1924. Because the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) put on the screw to resist immigration when he was in office, he was called an anti-Semite. The more one thinks over this Bill the more disgusted one becomes.

I am very glad the Minister has given us a statement. He has accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) thereby admitting that the Government has allowed the country to drift into such a dangerous position that How he has to rush into legislation. The people will not congratulate the Government on its acceptance of the position that it is responsible for a state of affairs which need such panic legislation. There are only three countries the Minister is concerned about, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. I am proposing that the 2,000 people who came from these countries in one year should be reduced to 750. Surely the Minister cannot contend that that would tear up the whole object of the Bill. Even then, these 750 would have to pass a test of desirability, and unless they are desirable they will not be allowed to land. We have heard that owing to the fact that British people are migrating from the Union, it is imperative that we should keep out immigrants from the three countries I have named. I take it he is going to take some action, that some encouragement is to be given British people to come to South Africa, and once that is done—not by a policy of repression but by one of encouragement—the danger of which he is speaking will have been minimized very materially, and therefore I take it there will be no reason whatever why there will not be such an influx as to make the ratio again what it was. As to the next part of my amendment, I submit it is reasonable. By putting in the word “person” the effect will be that say a Lithuanian child in arms came to England, Scotland, Australia or Rhodesia, under the provisions of this clause, if that individual has been brought up in the British dominions and become a citizen—he may have become a member of Parliament or a Minister—he will be prevented from coming to South Africa because of an accident of birth. What is worse is that under the provisions of this Bill, his children, who may have been born in the British dominions, could be prevented from coming to South Africa. Surely the Minister who is to be congratulated on his admission of the value of British people from the British dominions, does not want to exclude people from there. We passed a Naturalization Act and made provision for reciprocity. Surely the Minister cannot now, in the light of that legislation and that sudden anxiety of his for the well being of British people, tear up that legislation. The Minister should seriously consider the seriousness of this proposal.

After listening to the description of the machinery of the Bill which the Minister has given, with regard to application for admission to the country, I think the Committee is entitled to know how it will work out in practice. The Minister says it is simple. I will follow it in the several stages which he has set. He says, first of all, a passport will be required, issued by the country in which the applicant may live for the time being, and that must bear a proper visa. The applicant must also have in his possession a written authority issued by the Department of the Interior after an application form has been filled in by the applicant in the foreign country, and, in those cases where we may have representatives in that country, endorsed by them and accompanied by a report from them. In other cases, where we may have no such representative, it must be accompanied by a report from the British consul. I do not understand quite how this is to be applied. If the person desiring to enter the Union is to secure a written authority in this way, I presume that when he arrives here, the Minister will have no option but to admit him, but when I come to look at the sections of the original Act, I find there are a number of things which must be performed at the ports of the Union. Under Section 4 a language test is imposed. That test must be to the satisfaction of the immigration officer, and if the immigrant is dissatisfied with the decision, then to the satisfaction of a board of appeal. What is to happen in future? Is the applicant to submit to a language test before some officer abroad or, after authority is issued, is it proposed to apply a further test upon the arrival of the immigrant within the Union? If an immigrant arrives here who has not been able to comply with the language test, will the Minister exclude him? It seems that the Minister is endeavouring to escape from the duties cast upon him under the original Act, and he proposes to carry out in another country the duties prescribed here. Let me take the first step for an application for a visa. Under this Bill the endorsement of any passport will be left purely in the hands of the Minister or of some person appointed by him. The same point will arise under Section 6. I take it no passport will be endorsed entitling him to travel to the Union unless he is in possession of written authority from the Minister. Therefore, the whole application of the immigration laws of the future will be dealt with by the Department as a matter of administration, and there will be no right to appeal. I should like to know how that is to be worked. When those applications reach the Minister, on what principle are they to be decided? At his own sweet will? Let us suppose that he is still afflicted with the idea underlying his famous slogan that all jobs in the public service should be filled by Nationalists, and suppose he comes to the conclusion that none except those who are prepared to be Nationalists are to be allowed to enter the Union. I think this is a very dangerous power to be put into the Minister’s hands. When friends of the applicants come to the Minister, I wonder what sort of principle will he apply; will he inquire into the antecedents of the friends of the applicant? It opens up the door to a new system of political patronage. From a practical administrative point of view, the Minister is taking on himself an unnecessary burden. From some knowledge of the Minister’s methods, I think the burden is one which will be too great for him. I want the Committee to realize that we are introducing in Clause 1 a system of immigration which is dependent on the mere goodwill of the Minister, not so much as to what he may think of applicants, but as to what he may think of applicants’ friends. I feel that there will be no consistency in the manner in which the Minister will apply his principle; if there is to be any principle, how will the Minister deal with these matters? The other day the Minister said he felt it impossible to entrust the selection of immigrants to persons 5,000 or 6,000 miles away who have no knowledge of the conditions of this country; yet now he proposes to impose on persons a long distance away the duty of reporting on applicants.

I want to emphasize the point which has been raised by my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). He suggested substituting “aliens” for “persons.” It is pretty evident as the Bill stands today, people who are already citizens of the British commonwealth of nations, but happen to have been born outside, but have been considered from the point of view of examination by citizens of other portions of the British commonwealth of nations—not unimportant portions, I may say—having been considered by them to be fit and proper persons, having completely filled the bill, they will be supposed to be the right type to become British citizens in other portions of the British commonweath, and they may and probably will, almost certainly will, be prohibited under this clause if the quota has been reached before these people make application. That is a most unthinkable state of affairs. What becomes of your reciprocity? Supposing other parts of the British Empire, when this Bill becomes law, have it among the statutes on their shelves, and they see a determination on the part of the Union of South Africa to discriminate against British citizens in other parts of the world, is it not likely to lead to complications? Supposing they say, “If the Union of South Africa will not permit our citizens to go into the Union of South Africa because they have reached their 50,” and they retaliate, and they have real reciprocity, and they say “All right, when you are prepared to allow our citizens to go within your borders and become residents and domiciled in South Africa, we are prepared to allow your citizens to live within our borders.” There is the possibility of citizens of the Union of South Africa being desirous of going to other parts of the British commonwealth of nations. Supposing they say, “When you allow ours to go into South Africa we shall allow yours to come into our country. But, per contra, if you do not allow ours to come in, we shall not allow yours.” Then there comes the question of the good feeling we have been talking about between us and other parts of the British commonwealth of nations, and the good feeling between us and the centre of that British commonwealth of nations which, by implication or insinuation the hon. Minister intended to engender in this House when he used that fear more by way of a bogey than for the purpose of creating good feeling. Supposing he is sincere that that good feeling should be engendered that we and he hope for. It is something that you cannot calculate in terms of a quota, or of actual mechanical and physical reciprocity, but in terms of evidence on the part of the government of a nation to be decent, and in terms of well-being to extend heartfelt reciprocity. Supposing these people turn against us. What are we going to do? I have a great many instances, and I think the Minister of Agriculture may be able to bear me out, and the Minister of Lands, in a secondary degree, of the positive deleterious effect on South African trade of the absence of that good feeling, or rather the positive creation of ill-feeling engendered by means of the German treaty.

In continuation of my remarks I will explain as an example of what I mean the instinctive objection of people of other parts of the British commonwealth of nations to anything which may emanate from South Africa as a result of the feeling that may be caused by passing an Act of a controversial nature, which, although the purport may not be there, may have the effect of casting back on other portions of the commonwealth, particularly the central portion, what to them is a very real thing, and their intense dislike to anything that may be regarded as an infringement of the rights of these people who are citizens of the British commonwealth of nations. The whole Bill should go into the melting pot so that all avenues may be explored and all implications be considered before we set our seal on the measure. The Minister himself in his speech this afternoon indicated most clearly that he realized that he had not given sufficient consideration to all the implications of this legislation, for he said that the thing which the hon. member moved ought to have been considered by a select committee before the principle had been established. We should cut out the word “persons and substitute the word “aliens.” It is a very real menace to good feeling between South Africa and her sister dominions, this throwing in the face of the rest of the British commonwealth of nations the determination on the part of the Union not to admit certain people into the Union, and therefore stigmatizing as thoroughly undesirable people whom the rest of the commonwealth have decided are fit and proper persons to become naturalized British subjects, wherever they might have been born, or whatever their race might be. That is a point the House has to consider very carefully indeed. I want to warn hon. members over there; rightly or wrongly—I think wrongly—we have built up our trade, our markets, or endeavoured to do so for our primary products on the principle of export—wool, butter, fruit and eggs— and not with an eye to supplying the home market, but chiefly the British market. You are jeopardising that by saying to the rest of the British commonwealth: “You are no judge of what is a decent citizen; your are no judge, Mr. Great Britain, what is the type of man to become a citizen of the British empire.” We agree South Africans are the people who know best. [Time limit.]

I would like to claim the attention of the Minister in the matter. I think, after what has been said, deeply as the Minister may be engaged, he does not indicate, I hope, by that that he considers all criticism of this Bill as worthy of contempt. Whether we are to be overborne by the disciplined battalions who sit behind the hon. gentleman or not, here is a point which deserves the most careful consideration of the Committee. May I point out to the hon. gentleman he has a great opportunity of making a gesture, I will not call it a magnificent gesture, but a friendly gesture of which that commonwealth of which we form a part, may be proud. The Minister has recognised that, because in the very forefront of his Schedule he included the British commonwealth of nations, but when we come to Section 1 he does not distinguish between one who is a British subject and an alien. Let me give some examples: Take an Englishman who has one child born in Surrey and the other in Japan. Under this Bill the first child is an Englishman and entitled to be admitted to South Africa, and under this the other is a Japanese. A man who is a British subject and is born in Japan is considered a Japanese, and his child shall be deemed to have been born in the same country as he was. This matter illustrates that this Bill has not had the consideration, certainly at the hands of the whole of hon. members opposite, that it should have had. We know the Minister has been considering, framing and re-framing it for two years. We know the Minister of Justice knew of it when he went to Bethal, but kept it securely locked up in his attache case. Here is an opportunity for hon. members to say we shall deal in this clause not with persons but with aliens, and draw no distinction between any British subjects whatever. If a British subject comes to South Africa, he is subject to the existing procedure under the Immigration Act, which confers on the Minister wide powers. I think the amendment is a judicious one, and will go a long way to satisfy a certain section of public opinion.

I am sorry the Minister is treating the Committee with such contempt, which, after all, is the deciding body to deal with this matter. I hope that the Minister will find the time has come when he must pay some little attention. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said that he found the Bill was more popular than he had thought, but he has no evidence that the Bill is popular at all, because it was never submitted to the vote of the people of South Africa, and he shirked that. He performed what is known as the “confidence trick” on the people. The only popularity it has is on his side of the House, and hon. members over there are not dealing with the matter on its merits. I put it to the Minister that the figure should be altered from 50 to 250, but the Minister has not replied to the argument I submitted. I want to ask the Minister this: When he came to the conclusion that the safety of South Africa demanded that not more than 50 people should come into the country from another country, had he investigated this and come to a considered opinion? Has he come to the considered opinion that 50 and not more than 50 should be entitled to enter South Africa from a particular country? Is the figure decided upon based on information, investigation and knowledge? If so, I think the Committee should have the information. If it is based on ignorance and prejudice, then what evidence have we that 250 would be dangerous to South Africa? We are entitled to know what is the proportion that he thinks is safe, and what is the proportion he thinks is dangerous. I hope that the Minister will give us some reasoned explanation of how he arrived at the figure. We have dealt with the question of substituting the word “alien for the word “person.” I gave the Minister an illustration of an individual who may have come as an infant in arms to one of the British dominions, have settled there, become a useful citizen, married and had children, and then his child, if he wants to come to South Africa, will be told, “You are not qualified to come to South Africa, your father was an alien when he went to a British country.” From a purely South African point of view, the Minister should agree that this provision should only apply to aliens, because it is possible that ardent supporters of the National party not born in the country may he awkwardly placed as far as their descendants are concerned under this Bill. How many aliens will be affected? Very few, but the principle involved is a serious one. The Minister remains silent. There can be only two inferences to be drawn from the Minister’s obstinacy; The one is that he desires definitely to deal with the Jewish people, and to throw a stigma on them, and the other is that he desires to throw a stigma on British citizenship.

I feel that I have had a most remarkable confirmation of the remark I made this afternoon that this Bill displays the tendency of the Government to substitute administrative control for the control of Parliament. We have had a good deal of discussion for the purpose of assisting the Minister, but whether he is occupied with the framing of another Flag Bill or of an election address for Stellenbosch; I do not know. He does not deign to take notice. There is the risk, if this Bill passes, of our being tied hand and foot to a despotic Minister. I have here some extracts from a book called “The New Despotism,” which has recently come into the hands of our librarian. I want to ask the Committee to consider what some of the chief features of this new despotism is, and in what way they are manifested by the Minister. The author of this book points out that the theories of the gentlemen who profess this new method of government are these. First of all, “that “the business of the executive is to govern.” When I look at the serried ranks on the other side, afraid to utter a single word on this very important question, I begin to understand what is meant by the statement that the business of Government is to govern. Have you ever seen such a subservient body of retainers? The Minister of Mines and Industries is reduced to a few casual interjections as his contribution to this serious subject.

He has a broad smile.

Yes, he has never had anything else but surely Cabinet Ministers are expected to contribute something useful to a debate. Let me quote the next rule, “The only persons fit to govern are the experts.” Well, with that one might really disagree but with the possible exception of the Minister of Mines and Industries there are none but experts on the other side of the House.

Which clause is the hon. gentleman dealing with?

I am dealing with this attempt in Section 1 to make the whole of our immigration law a matter of administrative policy, a procedure which is entirely contrary to the basis of our constitution. Then the author says “an expert must deal with things as they are. The ‘four-square’ man makes the best of existing circumstances.” Undoubtedly the Minister is doing so tonight. These “four-square” men are very well in their way, but they are apt to obstruct the work of a committee of this kind. I am contending for the sovereignity of Parliament. Heretofore, we have regulated immigration according to a well-conceived Act. Immigrants have to conform to certain requirements. Persons of good character must be able to satisfy a language test, but the Minister has introduced a Bill under which that system of law laid down by Parliament, after careful consideration, is made subject to the mere whim of an individual. I want the committee to realise that. I want to let the country outside know that this Government is unable to define in any clear language what it wants or what it intends to do, and finds refuge in a clause of this character—“Immigration in future in respect of persons not born within certain countries shall not be permitted.” The House might be prepared to sanction this. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask my friends on that side of the House what is their real objection to the amendment. The Bill says it is for “the limitation of certain alien immigrants.” Now everybody knows this is meant to restrict the immigration of Jews. Let us be honest and candid. I have been in Johannesburg since the earliest days, and I have seen the parents of the present Jews come there who knew no language but their own—could not speak either English or Afrikaans—and who it was thought, must prove a failure in a country like, this, but; most of them make good and their children have been well conducted citizens. Whatever the Jew in himself may be, he does try to make his children a bit better than he is, and Christians might well learn a lesson from him. In this land of inertia and indolence where men have neither the will nor the desire to work, the introduction of the Jewish race is a very good thing, they are temperate, thrifty, and possess the spirit of industry. Those of us who dabble in farming know that few men who are put in charge of our farms make a success of their job. If I could find a Lithuanian farmer I would give him charge of my farm for three years and let him stay there for nothing, and I should thereby make a profit. Then again, as has been said this afternoon, this country is crying out for more people. There are only 70,000 Jews in this country. I am going to call a spade a spade. I am going to say this, that with our great areas, if we cannot make a profit out of those 70,000 Jews it is time we made way for some other people to come in. In everybody’s experience here we have never yet had any of these people we are legislating against, come on the dole. We have not got to find them jobs on the railways when they come to this country. In fact they make good citizens That is the first essential we want in this country. I quite understand that on the other side they possibly think we need to call a halt, but we need not do that. What we want is somebody to come here and stick to their jobs. That is what we get from these people that you are putting restrictions on. In the past I have taken the strongest objection to repressive legislation. I believe in South Africa there is room for everybody, no matter what their faults may be they will live up to their environment and make good. Do not for God’s sake say, “You shall not come here because you are a Jew; because we are afraid of losing our land.” The position really is that you are afraid of going under. Well, if we cannot compete against them we deserve to go under. To tell these people that they cannot come into this country is absolute nonsense. We are adopting panicky legislation which will react against us bye and bye. There are men of the Jewish faith in this country who have made good and helped the country. A famous book says that the first helping hand that was given in the war of 1899 came from the Russian people who sent the Dutch forces an ambulance. The Jews support the Nazareth Home and every charitable object in Johannesburg. In the early days of St. John’s College, with which I was once intimately connected, when we were stoney broke and had no money we went to a few of our Jewish friends and they gave us the money willingly, and these are the people you say are not good enough for South Africa. It is nonsensical to reject people not because of their vices but because of their virtues. If they crowd us out it will be entirely our own fault.

If we require any justification for girding at the despotism of the other side we find it in the attitude of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. This is a Parliament or supposed to be. Members are sent here to represent their constituncies and to give expression to their views in regard to legislation on the stocks. They have to come to a decision based upon discussions, debates and arguments brought to bear either in support or against. On that basis I shall come back to the Minister’s extreme discourtesy to us. The weight of the debate has been on this side of the House, and the nett result must be inevitably the throwing out of this first clause, and perhaps, subsequently, the rest of the Bill. I take exception to the attitude adopted by the Minister of the Interior. I take the strongest exception to it. I am impressed with the discourtesy used, employed and directed against this side of the House by the Minister. I cast my mind back to the olden days, when the hon. the Minister himself took up the same attitude I am adopting now. The Ministers then expressed their dissent, strong objection and resentment of the discourteous treatment of the big battalions on the other side of the House, who would not even take the trouble to reply to arguments.

But they were arguments.

They were arguments, were they? That may be the hon. member’s Idea in that particular case, but at all events he is living in the past. I ask you to look upon the other side of the House. The whole of them are trying to look intelligent while the hon. Minister is trying to avoid looking blank. To hear them talk about arguments is very laughable indeed. Cannot you speak? Is the imbargo laid upon you, or have you not got the capacity to speak? I want seriously to turn the attention of the House to this fact, that here is a majority of members sitting on the Government side of the House passing repressive legislation, insulting a whole race, without one single argument in favour or justification for the conduct they are pursuing, and the Ministerial benches are almost empty. Despite the fact, as pointed out in his brilliant speech by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) just now, I am interested to see the Minister of Justice here also with a smile on his face. He must have an elastic conscience, or perhaps he has no conscience at all. Perhaps it is a Bethal conscience.

At all events I have not been obstructive.

No, but you have been instructed to say nothing, and you are religiously and studiously trying to obey what you have been told to do.

You mentioned the quota system in October.

Yes, but since October the hon. gentleman went on a crusade in the Transvaal. Not a holy crusade by any means. He went on a round of the districts of Bethal and incidentally he promised the farmers everything. Why not make a few more convicts and let them out to the farmers—but not in Bethal, but find other fields to conquer. The Minister went to Bethal and talked about everything under the sun and he told the electors, including the Jews and the Greeks, that there was no such thing in the eyes of the Government as restricting immigration.

I said nothing of the kind.

That is just the trouble; you said nothing of the kind.

I beg the Minister’s pardon, he left out the Greeks. In his talks to the Jews of the Bethal district he was at great pains to convey to them that the Government had no intention of introducing legislation of a restrictive nature in regard to Jews.

The hon. member should confine himself to the amendment.

I bow to your ruling, but I must press the point home. There has been a volte face in regard to this position since the Bethal election, and that being so, how on earth do those people on that side of the House claim the right to sit there in complete silence while arguments are being directed against this legislation. That is why I brought in the Bethal election. Here you have a republican Minister of the Interior, quite prepared not only to allow, but to encourage the influx of Facist Italians, and the same measures to keep out republican Russians. What an extraordinary state of affairs! He was going to haul down the British flag, If necessary, to establish a republic. Who are to sit on the board which will decide regarding the admission of immigrants after the quota has been exhausted ?

The Committee is discussing Clause 1 which does not refer to the board.

You are to be congratulated, sir, as you have awakened the Government side. I am only bringing in that clause because Clause 1 depends on it. [Time limit.]

I did not intend to speak on this clause and the proposed amendment, but after listening to the sour, conceited and self-assertive member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) I am obliged to say something. The hon. member a few days ago came along with the old jeremiad that the Nationalist party has robbed the S.A. party of one of its garments after the other, so that it practically has no principle and policy left. Now it is noticeable that as regards this principle of the Bill, viz., the restriction of immigration from certain parts of Europe, the matter was raised during the recent election by the Saps in my constituency. They raised the argument that we ought to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and they repeated time and again that the Nationalist party had neglected its duty scandalously in not putting any restriction on undesirable immigration. When the Bill was introduced I feared that we should have the same vain repetition about the adoption of their principles. On Wednesday I was even strengthened in the idea because hon. members opposite enthusiastically welcomed the restrictive principle, excepting the hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) and Hospital (Mr. Henderson) and almost to a man they crossed over to vote with us; to-day the leader of the Opposition is back and never in my life have I seen such an exhibition. The whole party like a flock of brainless sheep followed their leader with regard to the same principle. Their attitude on the amendment coincides with their attitude this afternoon, but how sadly they have fallen away from their attitude of last Wednesday. As for the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) who has a poetical sense, I want—

To a point of order, I did not speak on the Bill.

The hon. member cannot debate the principle.

I am speaking on the amendment with regard to restriction. I am speaking about the contradictory attitude of the Opposition with regard to the principle of restriction, about the slavish way they have followed their leader this afternoon, and I suggest that the hon. member for Salt River, in accordance with the words and melody “Mary had a little lamb,” should try to interpret the mental attitude of hon. members opposite who have so meekly followed behind “Mary.” It is now proposed to substitute “1st May” for “1st July,” and this is being strongly opposed by the Opposition. On Wednesday, however, they argued that the measure was long overdue, how then can they now oppose this principle? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has turned up, has put the naughty children in their place, with the result that they are now trying to put right what apparently they muddled last Wednesday. The hon. member for Standerton rejects the whole principle and the bulk of hon. members opposite who respected it on Wednesday to-day reject it.

Who rejects the principle?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) especially. It was a sad change of front. We look upon the hon. member with respect, but even he is a blind opportunist. If hon. members opposite want to be consistent and as courageous as they were last Wednesday they stand by their principle, then they will gain respect for their attitude once more. How can it be explained that since the hon. member for Standerton appeared the whole party has turned round? Did they become afraid of their own courage? Are they afraid of their manliness last Wednesday? By this amendment they apparently want to get our Jewish friends on their side once more. It is a sad attempt. We have never yet admitted that this Bill and the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) were intended to keep out Jewish immigrants. We stand by the attitude which the Opposition also adopted last Wednesday, viz., that it is desirable to keep undesirable immigrants, especially those from southern and eastern Europe, out. It is not nice of hon. members opposite trying to make political capital out of the matter. [Time limit.]

It is rather amusing for the hon. member to extract a little party honey out of this; it will not carry him very far. According to him everybody who does not swallow this Bill whole—every word and letter of it—is opposed to it. I challenge the hon. member to look back on the attitude adopted by hon. members on this side when the second reading was discussed, and to say where we made what he calls a volte face. Almost every speaker on this side said that while they were supporting the Bill, they did not agree with the machinery, and that it was open to improvement. We have tried to make the Bill a little more presentable, humane and considerate to the interests of the people who may be affected by it. We do not want to put people in all parts of the world to inconvenience and loss because they may plan to come here and then find the door bolted. Supposing a few hundred more come in between May and July, what is that to South Africa? I supported the second reading, and am prepared to do so again, if need be, but I am not bound to every word and line. No matter how much party capital they can make out of it, they are welcome to it. If I can make the Bill better and humaner, and cast less stigma on the rest of the world, I will do my best. Why cannot the Minister accept the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge)? Why is the Minister afraid to admit a person who may have been born in Lithuania and who has been naturalized in some part of the dominions of the British commonwealth, perhaps for years? A man is not going to leave Lithuania, live 10 years, say, in Australia, and become naturalized, in order to come in here without restrictions. What is going to happen, as far as I can see, is a man may have gone from Russia or Lithuania to Australia, become naturalized and got a family there, and lived there for years. When he comes here he is told he was born in Lithuania and must go back. If I cannot get any better reasons against the amendment than I have heard so far, I intend to vote for it. With regard to the amendment proposed to increase the quota from 50 to 250, I agree with the Minister that that opens too wide a door, and I cannot vote for it. I would like, however, to ask the Minister to consider whether he could not bring in some proviso by which, when immigration increases from the scheduled countries, there should be a proportionate increase in the quota of the others.

I have listened to the hon. member for waterberg (Mr. Strydom)—who has accused me of talking drivel, but I wonder if it will help him if I have recourse to some observations made by the Minister of Justice quite recently. He issued a challenge to-night to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) on this very question. The member for Benoni was reminding him of some of the promises held out to the electors of Bethal during the election, and I think the Minister of Justice denied having made the remarks attributed to him. I am, however, indebted to a prominent newspaper for a report of what the Minister of Justice said, and I wonder if the Minister of Justice will say if what I am about to read is all drivel. Dealing with immigration, Mr. Pirow, according to this newspaper, said that “the policy of the Nationalists was to accept in South Africa anyone who came her at his own expense, and was not likely to become a burden to the State, who would work for the good of South Africa and make South Africa his home. Experience had shown us, he said, that the only immigrants for whom the State had not any burden to bear were the Jewish immigrants.” If it were not that the hon. gentleman possessed a Bethal conscience, he would come over to this side of the House and join us, but I am not at all hopeful that this exposure of his electioneering tactics will induce him to do so, or even to break the silence imposed upon Him by his party.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I move—

I move this because when I asked the Minister of Mines in a former debate what treaties there were, he pointed out that there was a treaty binding on the Union with the exception of the Cape. There is also the fact that there is a treaty existing between Greece and this country which was made by Great Britain, and which is binding upon us. It contains a clause stating that the subjects of each of the contracting parties shall have full liberty to enter any part of the dominions of the other. If this law is passed it is obvious we violate a clause of that particular treaty. It might be held by the Minister that our international status is such that it does not matter if we violate the treaty. Does the Minister admit that I have given his statement correctly? If that treaty exists it is clear that Section 1 violates it; that must follow unless the Minister has the intention of denouncing the treaty.

I was glad to see the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) on his feet breaking the silence of the Government benches at last. As the poet put it, they have sat there “all silent and all damned.” There has been no word of criticism from that side of the House. We have been accused of a sheep-like attitude, but the sheep-like attitude has been that of members of the Government.

The same old story.

Yes, but it is a true old story. What disturbs me about Clause I is not the number of people coming from the unscheduled areas so much as the utter absence of people coming from the scheduled areas. Since the Government has been in power there has been a complete lack of emigrants from the scheduled areas due to direct discouragement on the part of the Government. During the bye-elections in addition to the dastardly black policy; one of the Government bogies was immigration. If immigration is desirable we want to encourage it.

Why did you not when you were in power?

What the Nationalist party did was to discourage immigration. A complete cessation of desirable immigration has occurred as a direct result of their policy of discouragement. In addition to the black peril, you preached “discourage immigration,” and this has been the policy of the present Government since 1924, not only directly but indirectly by “flag” follies and “treaty” follies, and a great number of other follies. The whole policy of the Government has been one of antagonizing everyone—like the hedgehog showing nothing but bristles. Having antagonized all our immediate neighbours we are now antagonizing the rest of the world.

Why did you vote for the Bill ?

I voted for the principle, if you only had the sense to use the principle in the right way. In objecting to the machinery we agreed with the principle. We had to affirm the principle; none of you had had the courage. Looking at Clause 1 of the Bill, what is the use of the rest. In Clause 1 the Minister takes powers to create regulations under which immigrants can come in. Well, what need for anything else? All the Minister needs is the right to create these regulations and to administer them himself, and the rest of the Bill falls away. The Minister asks for carte blanche—a blank cheque. They why have the Bill? In this country we are proud of liberty, but the Government are pressing for restrictive and repressive législation. What would our forefathers say about this measure? I want the hon. Minister to tell us what is the necessity for the rest of the Bill. What is the use of this business about the quota, of this farce about non-scheduled countries if the hon. Minister has the right, by a stroke of the pen, to say who shall, or shall not come in? I should like to mention one other little anomaly in this Bill. The hon. Minister has cut out the whole of the southern hemisphere of South America. There are a large number of South Africans in the Argentine, but under this Bill he is putting them under a stigma. They cannot come into South Africa under this Bill. If any are admitted, I suppose only good Nationalists need apply. I suppose these Argentine farmers will have to sign a document stating to which party they belong. While we affirm the principle of the Bill, we have not agreed to the machinery which it sets up. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the Bill is slipshod in its draughtsmanship, that it will create injustices, and above all, it will hold us up to the ignomony of the rest of the world.

It is funny that the hon. member who has just sat down is so keen on democracy. We know that it has always been the principle of his party, but as for himself personally I have never yet heard of it. Well it is possible that the hon. member has altered his attitude because he changes so often. He goes to the Free State, from the Free State to the Cape Province, and from the Cape to the Transvaal once more. I want to say this, that I do not expect that he has now established himself permanently at Barberton.

No, I am now coming to Graspoort.

In any event I do not in the least doubt that I shall even yet, before my death, find him as a full-blooded immigrant into Palestine. He is, however, not the only member who is concerned because this side makes no criticism, but why should this side criticise? What surprises me is that hon. members opposite, with the exception of seven members, agreed on all points with the Bill, and that they were in agreement with us about the restriction of immigration.

We did not agree on all points.

One of them said this, and the other something else, but the fact remains that everyone voted for the second reading of this Bill. The principle of the Bill was approved and no one knows better than the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) that the passing of the second reading means the acceptance of the principle of the Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) also knows that very well, but what hon. members opposite mean is to try and throw dust in the eyes of the poor unhappy person out-side the House, who does not know what the second reading means. They also want to keep out the persons that we want to keep out, but they are afraid for the vote in the country, and that is causing all their trouble. I want, however, to congratulate hon. members opposite on one thing, viz., the subordinate way in which they stand by their leader. I admire them for it, and there is still hope for a party that has that characteristic. We know that the assistant leader of the Opposition, and his assistant, approved of everything in this Bill. There was no fault in it, and they spoke on it to try to satisfy their friends outside in order to retain the support of those who were being excluded. They were, however, unanimous about the Bill, but then comes the great leader. It makes me think of soldiers, or rather of a squadron of recruits being drilled by a corporal. He shouts “right about turn,” and some of them go wrong; then comes the “sergeant-major.” He shouts “right about turn”; they struggle. Some of them have their necks turned, but in the long run they are all looking to the right.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am coming to that. The hon. members opposite are all once more in order except one. The hon. member for Yeoville said the other day that his Jewish friends should well understand that this Bill was not a blot on their escutcheon. To-night he says that it is a blot. Just as in the case of some other hon. members, it was a bit difficult, but he also turned right about. The hon. member said it very clearly, and now he denies it. Hon. members opposite are very illogical. In the past they have always suggested a national convention when they have been in a difficulty; they ought to have suggested a kind if royal commission or national convention at a second reading, and if the leader of the Opposition had been here, that is the motion which he would have made to help the party out of trouble. I will still recommend it. I am not so well up in the rules of the House, but if there is any chance of it they ought to suggest a national convention to save themselves. They are in a very difficult position opposite. The leader said this afternoon that the American people were justified in taking this step because America was full of people, and needed no more population. South Africa only has a small population and so we dare not do such a thing, but the great mistake he sees in the Bill is that South Africa is not following me American system. He, however, himself, made it clear that the circumstances were entirely different.

What is the difference?

Your own leader told you. America is full up and South Africa has no population, therefore we cannot do what America did, and yet he finds fault with the Bill because we do not follow America’s example. There is only one person who can do such a thing—in the way of story-telling— and that is the leader of the opposition. When he comes to facts then he suggests a national convention. Our attitude is that we are quite satisfied with the Bill, just as satisfied as hon. members opposite, but we say so frankly, and that is why we remain quiet here. It is not necessary for us to keep on saying so to the Minster. Hon. members opposite, however, have every opportunity if they want to vote against the provisions of the Bill or the advice of their leader. They can vote against every clause. [Time limit.]

It must be a source of grief to those who wish the Bill to become law that the time of the House is being taken up by so many frivolous speeches from the Government side, and that their silence has been broken by speeches which have little value. I listened to the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) but so far as I could judge it consisted of a few cheap jibes at the right hon. gentleman who leads this party. To get back to Clause one, if I can see any chance of voting against sub-section (1), and at the same time voting in favour of Section (2) I am inclined to do so, because as the Minister has rejected my amendment, I believe we must accept the quota of 50. It seems to me to be utterly impossible for anyone who has the best interests of South Africa at heart to accept sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) says that no-one from the non-scheduled countries is to be allowed into South Africa at all unless his entry has been approved in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed, and unless he is in possession of written authority in such form as may he prescribed by regulation. That means, that for many months before he comes to the Union, the intending immigrant must set official machinery in motion. Take a Lithuanian who wants to come to South Africa. If he comes here without official approval, he will be turned back, so naturally the steamship companies will not accept him in London or Hamburg, unless he has obtained official approval. It means that none of these people can come here unless they have been able to approach the Union Government through one of its consular officers or through a British consul and got this written authority. The Government is laying down a condition almost impossible of fulfilment in the case of inhabitants of non-scheduled countries. Why not be honest and say they cannot come in at all, for that is practically what the conditions amount to? The next point is that the immigrant must be approved in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed. We have grown accustomed to statutes giving power to the Governor-General to make regulations. In the majority of cases the form, manner and scope of these regulations are prescribed in the Bill. Then at least you know within what ambit the powers are to be given, but here there is no indication whatever as to the nature of the powers. I appeal to the political conscience of the Minister of Defence, but perhaps, after all, he could not sit on the Government benches for six years and still hope to retain a political conscience. Let me then appeal to the Creswell that was.

He is dead.

Perhaps so. Angels and ministers of grace defend us! What are we coming to in this country? The Minister says let me prescribe what regulations I please. You talk about sheep. Hon. gentlemen on the benches opposite will vote for the Bill like a flock of sheep without even bothering to read the clause. Let there be no mistake about it, I am a friend of the Bill. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was absolutely sound when he moved for the substitution of “aliens” for “persons.” I hope the Minister will depart from the absolutely impossible attitude he has taken up. In one breath he says that we on this side of the House favour the Bill, and in the next he declines to listen to the criticism of the friends of the Bill, for the majority of us here are friendly to the Bill, and we want it passed in the best form possible. They say they want the Bill and the whole Bill and will not alter a line of it. I am sorry that is their attitude. Without drastic amendment, this Bil will do a tremendous lot to blacken the name of this country overseas.

I had hoped that the Minister would have given us some explanation on the points which have been submitted. My amendment is based on the principle that it is wrong to give arbitrary powers to the Minister. The other day we had a discussion where arbitrary powers were sought to be taken by the Minister of Justice, who was reasonable about it and said if it was possible to devise some method so that instead of his having that power some other body would have it he would accept it, and the Government agreed to send that Bill to a Select Committee before second reading to give the committee power to frame an amendment if possible. That is all I ask the Minister. With regard to the admission of immigrants, there should be a basis of desirability, and not of arbitrariness. Has the Minister really investigated the question whether the admission of fifty immigrants will be safe for South Africa, but fifty-one will jeopardise its safety and well-being?. Either the Minister has considered the matter, or he has evidence that while fifty is safe fifty-one is unsafe. If he has not considered the question, surely we are entitled to say that this clause should be held over until you have the necessary evidence and come to the House with reasoned information and evidence Unless the Minister furnishes such evidence I am entitled to say there is none to show that fifty-one is unsafe. Is this Parliament a legislative body, which is entitled to consider everything deliberately and have evidence before it comes to a decision, or is it a Parliament on the lines of Mussolini’s? In the Minister’s glowing desire to show his loyalty and friendship to the British commonwealth of nations, he should definitely accept an amendment by which that commonwealth would not be insulted. Was he saying what he did as a means to blind and bluff the public? He has succeeded, as the English speaking press supports him. They say his heart is bleeding because we have not enough English-speaking people in South Africa, therefore South Africa is in danger and we must not have these Lithuanians. What is going to be the position generally as the result of this clause? We are anxious to sell our produce overseas. It is quite possible that Dr. Visser might have been our minister plenipotentiary in the Argentine, and if he had, we would not have had this provision. At any rate we find ourselves in the peculiar position that the Argentine is excluded. Is that going to encourage trade with the Argentine? Is the Minister prepared to close his gates to Argentine capital as well as to people from that country. [Time limit.]

I am sorry to see the Minister sitting there in dead silence, because apart from the question of taking sides politically in this matter some very excellent arguments have been advanced. [The Minister of the Interior rose and left the House.] That is studied discourtesy. I will ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to submit this Clause 1 to a panel of three South African judges. I will be prepared to allow him to be one of the judges. [The Prime Minister rose and left the Chamber.]

Ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not capable of thinking. I move—

as a protest against the absence of the Minister responsible from this House, and in view of his deliberate silence and refusal to take any notice of the arguments advanced.

I move—