I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Speaking to this motion, I wish to make it quite clear that I approach the subject entirely from a national aspect. In bringing this motion before the House I have no ulterior motives whatsoever. The motion suggests collaboration with Great Britain and other African states under British administration. But I personally, and I am sure everyone in South Africa also would welcome immigrants from Holland and the Scandinavian countries, and I hope if and when the Government puts this scheme into operation that the governments of those countries will also be invited to send immigrants to South Africa. In the past, successive South African governments have been urged to introduce immigrants into the country, but for political reasons no government has embarked on any such scheme. In support of this motion I wish to quote the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, the Hertzog Government being in power. In 1926 the right hon. gentleman suggested to the then Government that it should set aside £1,000,000 per annum in order to assist immigrants to come to South Africa, and I hope the right hon. gentleman is of the same opinion still, and that he will give support to this motion that I have introduced. If we have an immigration scheme we want men and women of virile stock; we want people who will be useful citizens, useful in every sense of the word. We do not want people to come here simply to make money, but we want people to settle as South Africans and accept the responsibility of full citizenship. I ask myself why successive governments in the past have declined to undertake any immigration scheme. To my mind there are two reasons. One is that the past governments have not realised, and the people of South Africa have not realised the extreme urgency of having a greater European population in our country. It has taken a second world war to make people realise that it is absolutely necessary, if we are going to survive, to have a greater white population in this sub-continent. The second reason why governments have refrained from doing anything is for political reasons. One section of the country, the section of the population that has had a preponderance of voting power, does not want to encourage immigrants for fear of losing their preponderance. I think the country is now convinced of the necessity for immigration, and I hope that the second reason will thus fall away. I hope my hon. friends the members of the Opposition will realise that from a national point of view we must have increased population. Not only have the governments in the past not encouraged immigration, but they have actually discouraged it. I know for a positive fact that would-be settlers who have been to South Africa House—and I am speaking not of the period the present Government has been in office—and they have been discouraged from coming out here. I know that for a positive fact. I was very sorry to see a report in the press to the effect that Col. Reitz, the High Commissioner in London, had made a statement to the press to the effect that the South African Government did not intend to assist immigrants to come out to this country. He went on to say that he hoped some would “drift” out here on their own. I do not know whether he was speaking with the authority of the Government—I do not think he was—but it is most unfortunate that our High Commissioner in London should make such a statement. During the period of fourteen years, 1925 to 1939, the official figures show that only 38,000 people, men, women and children, came out to South Africa, or an average of 2,700 per annum during those fourteen years. One can appreciate that that is absolutely a negligible number. What we should aim at is immigration on the scale of 100,000 per annum; then we would come down to something that is worth while. I come to the main point of my argument, which is this: My main desire in bringing forward this motion is for the stability and security of South Africa. Without an increased white population I am convinced that our position will be very unstable and very insecure. I would like to give some population statistics. The census of 1936, which was the last general census taken in South Africa, shows that the number of Europeans in the Union of South Africa was 2,003,000; South West Africa 30,000 and other African states, including the Protectorates, Rhodesia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika and Nyasaland, 105,000, or a total European population of 2,138,000. This is about the equivalent of the combined populations of Glasgow and Birmingham. Let us turn to the figures for the native population. In the Union of South Africa, according to the last census, it was 6,500,000, South West Africa 287,000, and the other African states which I have mentioned 17,300,000, a total of 24,000,000. That is to say, the total population is just over 2,000,000 Europeans and 24,000,000 natives. I think that is a very serious situation in this sub-continent, that the Europeans should be outnumbered by 12 to 1. I do not think that anyone will view this position with equanimity. I should like to refer to the number of men we put into the field during this war. It is a sad admission to have to make that South Africa should only be able to put three divisions into the field, during the present war, two up North and one in reserve. For a country of this size and importance to be able to put only three divisions into the field, is to my mind, a very serious reflection indeed, although I realise that a certain section of the community does not support the war effort. Let me refer to the danger that faces a country so seriously under-populated as South Africa. Take the examples of Malaya and Burma. In Malaya though they had a native population of 5½ millions, the Europeans numbered only 17,000. When war was threatening all the eligible men out of that 17,000 were enrolled as volunteers, and they did their best to defend the country, but what could they do against the millions which Japan was able to put into the field? They could not put up any resistance at all, and we all know of the tragic fate that befell Singapore. The same thing happened in Burma. I have not got the exact figures of population, but I believe that in Burma there were even less than 17,000 Europeans. The native population was useless for defence purposes, and the result was that Burma fell without any resistance being offered. My point is that if these countries had been well populated with a virile European race they would have been able to arm themselves and defend themselves in the same way as South Africa did, and they would have been able to put up considerable resistance to the Japanese. I make bold to say that unless the Europeans of the world stand together and are prepared to defend their countries and their rights, sooner or later they will be submerged by other races of greater numerical strength. The Europeans have to rely on themselves alone for defence. It is useless relying on extraneous races to help us when we are in trouble. We have to defend ourselves. I come now to those countries that are well populated, and I start with the United States of America. Could America have achieved the wonderful things she has done, starting from zero, if it were not for her manpower of 120,000,000 or more? She has been able to build ships; she has been able to build aeroplanes; she has been able to supply the Russians and the Chinese, and to a great extent the British forces as well, and even the South African forces. She has been able to do this on account of the strength she derived from her overwhelming population of 120,000,000 people, And take Russia. How has it been possible for Russia to stand up against the trained armies of Hitler? A population of 180,000,000 has enabled her to do that. And China, too. What has enabled China to stand up against the well-trained, well-equipped armies of Japan? The answer is provided by her overwhelming population. I contend that it is necessary if we are going to make ourselves secure, that we should have a greater white population. By the grace of God the war has not spread to South Africa; except for the submarines which have sunk ships round our coast we have been spared from the horrors of war. Who can foretell what the next alignment of nations is going to be? In the last war Japan was our valued ally; in this war she is our deally foe. No one can foretell what the realignment of nations will be in years to come, and it is not unlikely that the next world clash will be one between East and West. That has been foretold. If such a war did take place, South Africa would be the focal point of the whole war, and it behoves us to prepare ourselves for any such eventuality. Let us take time by the forelock. Let us not be found wanting, as Malaya and Burma were. Let me make a comparison between Japan and South Africa. The size of South Africa is 472,000 square miles, while the size of Japan is 263,000 square miles, that is to say Japan is two-thirds the size of South Africa. Now turn to the population. Our South African European population is just over 2,000,000, while Japan has a population of 105,000,000. One can realise how insecure we are while we have such a small European population. I have left out natives and coloureds in my figures of population, but at this stage I should like to pay a tribute to the natives and the coloured people for the splendid efforts they have put forward in the last war and in this war. I hope that I have made out a clear case on the grounds of security, that we need a far greater European population here than we have; it is necessary before we can have any feeling of real security. I should also like to pay a tribute to the 1820 Settlers Association for the valuable work they have done in furnishing information, and generally in assisting people who have intended to immigrate to this country, and also to immigrants for Rhodesia, to which I will refer in a moment. I should now like to borrow a few thoughts from an article which appeared in the “Forum” on the 16th January, 1943, and which I think are very germane to the motion we are discussing. I should like, first, to read the introductory paragraph to that article—

A certain school of thought is of the opinion that one should first persuade capital to flow into the country, and that immigrants will then follow. But again I should like to quote from this article—

Now I come to the economic question. I make bold to say there will be no greater strength to South Africa from the economic point of view than greatly to increase the white population and the spending power of the country. This article states—

It further states—

I think we have a lot to learn from those words. They are not my words but they are my thoughts. Now I turn to another point. If Rhodesia can embark successfully on an immigration scheme, as she did a few years ago, I cannot see why South Africa cannot do the same. In 1938-’39 under Southern Rhodesia’s scheme, 612 persons were brought out from Great Britain with assisted passages. I should like to quote from a report of the meeting that was held after the scheme had been in force for a year—

I think that it is very encouraging that the Southern Rhodesia Government could launch a scheme of that nature, and achieve that success. If Rhodesia can make a success of a scheme of that kind, I do not see why South Africa cannot do likewise. I turn now to the aspect of the purchasing power of our internal market. If we double the purchasing power of our internal market the difficulties of the farmer in the marketing of his products will be swept away at one stroke. Some people may argue that our first duty is towards our returned soldiers, with which I quite agree. The first thing to do is to settle our returned soldiers in occupations and on the land. But I contend that by adopting a bold immigration policy we are going to create more work for our returned soldiers. There will be more work for our factories, our offices and our farms, and that alone will create a much greater internal market, which will also be beneficial to our returned soldiers. I also would like to anticipate a question that may be asked, why should we South Africans collaborate with other countries in bringing immigrants out here? As it was inevitable that the four Provinces of the Union would unite as they did in 1910 under one Government—so it is inevitable that South Africa and the various states I have enumerated in Southern, Central and East Africa will unite in one federation; and if that is correct I cannot see why South Africa, with its wealth, with its power and with its influence should not assist our young brothers and sisters of this continent in embarking on a bold immigration scheme. I would here like to quote a few lines from Kingsley Fairbridge, which he wrote when he was in Rhodesia. These lines run—

• I looked and beheld—a country peopled with nothing,
• A country abandoned to emptiness, yearning for people,
• A mother well fit for the birth of a nation.

I think that those words are very applicable not only to Rhodesia but to all the other territories in Africa which I have mentioned. In conclusion I wish to address a few words to the hon. members of the Opposition side of the House. I want to say this, that for many years past they have been loud in their desire to maintain the supremacy of the white races in South Africa—this subject has been a main plank in their speeches for years past. I agree with them in that desire, but I am telling them that the position of the European in this country is slipping, slipping, slipping in a most alarming manner—a bold immigration policy is one way of stopping the downward curve.

In seconding the motion I do say that it is hoped that hon. members will realise that this motion is not moved with any political object. As the hon. member who has introduced the motion has said, it is a national step. Now, what I want to bring home is this: that if things go on as they are doing, and if the rate of increase of the various racial populations is maintained the fate of South Africa is one which is very horrible to contemplate and later on I shall submit figures to the House which will prove this, and not only prove it but make every one alive to the fact that in a few years we shall be in a very parlous position. When we consider the question of immigration from different countries we naturally want to ensure that such people as come to South Africa shall be people of whom we can be proud, people from whom we can learn, people who will be good citizens, and people who will advance the position of this country not only in its own eyes but in the eyes of the world. I should like to say that we require skilled artisans, we require men skilled in the professions, and we want people, men and women, who not only give their own services to the country but are able to teach those in our country who are not proficient in the same skilled lines. I myself am an example of such a line of thought. I was a skilled man in England, I came to this country to assist Natal. For forty years I have done so, and not only have I rendered service to this country but I have taught others to follow in my footsteps, and with my skill. That, I think, is a great advantage to the country if we can get the right type of immigrant, and this motion simply asks the Government to consider the advisability of bringing such people to South Africa. I now want to put a few figures before the House which I think will cause some surprise, and I hope will awaken members to the difficulties and the parlous position in which we shall be placed if we go on as we are doing. These figures are from the 1921 to 1936 official statistics. In the Cape, in 1921, the Europeans numbered 650,609. In 1936 the number was 791,394, an increase of 21.52 per cent. The natives in the Cape in 1921 numbered 1,640,762; in 1936—2,450,110; an increase of 24.69 per cent. The Asiatics in 1921 numbered 7,692; in 1936 10,692, an increase of 38.96 per cent. The coloured population in 1921 numbered 484,252, in 1936—681,831, an increase of 40.80 per cent. In Natal in 1921 the European population numbered 136,838, in 1936—190,551, an increase of 39.10 per cent. The native population in 1921 numbered 1,139,804; in 1936—1,553,930, an increase of 36.33 per cent.; the Asiatic population in 1921 numbered 141,649; in 1936—183,646, an increase of 29.65 per cent. The Coloured population in 1921 numbered 11,107; in 1936—18,513, an increase of 66.68 per cent. In the Transvaal the corresponding figures were Europeans in 1921—543,485; in 1936—828,620, an increase of 50.99 per cent. Natives in 1921—1,495,869; in 1936—2,445,045, an increase of 63.45 per cent.; Asiatics in 1921—15,991; in 1936—25,561, an increase of 59.85 per cent. Coloureds in 1921—32,291; in 1936—49,918, an increase of 54.59 per cent. The figures for the Free State were Europeans in 1921—188,566; in 1936—200,947, an increase of 6.57 per cent. Natives in 1921—421,978; in 1936—553,156, an increase of 31.58 per cent. Asiatics in 1921—395; in 1936—29, a decrease of 92.16 per cent. Coloureds in 1921—17,898; in 1936—17,772, a decrease of 0.98 per cent. Now the totals for the Union were as follows: Europeans in 1921 1,519,488; in 1936—2,003,512, an increase of 31.85 per cent. Natives in 1921—4,697,813; in 1936—6,597,241, an increase of 40.43 per cent.; Asiatics in 1921—165,731; in 1936—219,928, an increase of 32.7 per cent. Coloureds in 1921—545,548; in 1936—766,984, an increase of 40.77 per cent. Now, those figures are illuminating, but if a complete census is taken in 15 years’ time and another one fifteen years after, and the same rates of increase are maintained by the different races, the results will be as follows: The Europeans in 1936 numbered 2,003,512; in 1951 they will probalby number 2,650,000, and in 1966 probably 3,500,000. The natives in 1936 numbered 6,597,241; in 1951 they will probably number 9,300,000 and in 1966—13,000,000. The Asiatics in 1936 numbered 219,928 in 1951 they will number 290,000 and in 1966—385,000. The coloureds in 1936 numbered 757,984; in 1951 they will probably number 1,100,000, and in 1966—1,550,000. So the totals are 1936—9,588,665; probable total in 1951—13,340,000, and in 1966, 18,435,000. Now I ask hon. members from the Cape to listen to this. The position in the Cape Province as between Europeans and coloureds may be as follows: 1936—the European population was 791,394. In 1935 it will probably be 965,500, and in 1966—1,177,900. The coloured population which in 1936 was 681,931 will in 1951 probably be 960,500, and in 1966—1,353,790. These are very illuminating figures. Now, I have submitted these figures on the assumption that the same rate of increase will be maintained as has been maintained between 1921 and 1936. But we as a Government and the House as a whole are pledged to social security, we are pledged to the raising of the standard of life of the natives, of the coloured and of the Asiatic races; we are pledged to the education of the natives and of the other races. We are pledged to maintain their health, we are pledged also to lower the alarming death rate among the non-European population, and these figures which I have quoted will undoubtedly increase by a much larger rate than the rate I have mentioned. Moreover, it will have a snowball effect—the larger the population the greater the increase, and I would say that the possibility is that in 1966 the coloured population, with the enhanced increase and the lower death rate, will exceed the European population of the Cape Province. That is something which the people of the Cape have not taken into account. The remedy for this is that we must have a virile European race which will increase, and that can only be achieved by immigration of skilled men, trained men, professional men, and scientific men—not only men but men and women who will give their services to the country and teach those of us who have not been outside the country some of their skill so that we may carry on and improve the potentialities of this country. I think I have said sufficient to bring home to the House the serious position in which we as Europeans will be in days to come if we do not take pains to increase our population, and I would suggest that the Government should give of its abundance to the 1820 Settlers’ Association, and let them do something to bring out settlers of the right class. We do not want people introduced here with views and ideas foreign to our conditions. What I want to see is an increase of the European population which will counterbalance and possibly exceed the increase of the native and coloured populations. We do not want more traders in this country—we have all the traders we want—we want men of skill and men of science who will give us a preponderating number, and preponderating influence, over other races. I think I have said sufficient to open the eyes of the House to the necessity which exists for us to take definite steps in the direction of mass immigration of suitable people into this country. We have plenty of room. As a matter of fact if we look at the density of the population of South Africa, of all races, we find that the Cape have 8.91 persons per square mile, Natal has 44.35, Transvaal 18.55 and the Free State 11.61. There is plenty of room in South Africa for all these people, and I hope the Government will accept the motion and that every section of the House will endorse it.

I wish to move an amendment to the motion as follows:

First of all, in regard to the general policy of immigration I should like to say that I wholeheartedly support it, and I would further like to say, following on the remarks of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) that, as an English-speaking member of this House, when I speak of encouraging immigration into this country, I wish to make it clear that I do not take the view that such immigration should be encouraged with any idea of redressing the balance of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. For my part. I say with sincerity—and I hope my sincerity and the sincerity of the English-speaking members on this side of the House will be accepted by members opposite, when we say that we put South Africa first and foremost in all matters, even before England or any other Dominion. That is the sole test, and with regard to this question of immigration I approach it simply from the angle of what is or what is not in the interests of South Africa, and I take my stand on the general proposition that the welfare of the country, both material and spiritual, depends primarily upon its natural resources, and secondly upon the energy and the vigour of: its people; and when I consider a policy of immigration I ask myself the question: “Is it good for this country, will it increase the material and spiritual welfare of the country: if we get more people into this country from outside? Well, I believe it will. I believe it will promote our welfare to increase our population, because I believe that we have natural resources which, when worked by the energies of more people, will increase our natural wealth. Now I come to the purpose of this amendment. Incidentally I should hope that an amendment of this kind would claim the support not only of hon. members opposite but also of the mover, in fact I would even go the length of saying that had the amendment been suggested to the mover beforehand he would not have hesitated to insert it in his motion. None the less there are one or two reasons in favour of the amendment which I think are worth stressing. First of all, the amendment rests upon our duty to our own people: our duty not only to our soldiers who have fought for us, but also to the men in the factories who have worked with less glory, with less praise, more unobtrusively in the background, but who have none the less done yeoman service; it is for that reason that they are included in the amendment. Our first duty then is to our returned soldiers and our workers, a policy which I am sure has the support of this Government. The implications of accepting a policy of that kind when approaching the question of immigration are however substantial, and I should like in this connection to draw the attention of the House to the first report of the Social and Economic Planning Council, the first page under the heading of “Magnitude of post-war re-employment”, where they say—

Mr. Speaker I need not read the whole of the paragraph—I think the House is familiar with it—the total numbers to be absorbed according to the calculations, after this war, will amount to no less than 230,000 souls. Now, that is obviously a task of considerable magnitude. The re-absorption of that enormous number of people into civilian employment is not one which we can expect to tackle lightheartedly or to solve immediately. The Council itself points to some of the difficulties, and advocates broadly speaking policies along the following lines—first of all, considerable industrial expansion; secondly, considerable expansion in public works, and finally, land settlement on a fairly substantial scale. All these are long term policies with which no doubt the Government is grappling at present, but do not let us run away with the idea that the solution lies round the comer. Considerable difficulties lie ahead, and if hon. members accept the proposition that our first duty is to the returned soldiers and to the war workers, it seems to me that we must approach the whole question of immigration with considerable caution. At the same time I do not wish to suggest that we must delay, or postpone any immigration policy until all our war workers, and all our soldiers have been re-absorbed. I do not think that is necessary. On the contrary I feel that if our outlook on, if our approach to immigration is a sane one, we should be able to encourage immigration parallel with this re-employment programme. I believe that if we encourage into the country the right type of immigrant we may even assist our soldiers and our war workers to be re-absorbed into our industrial and commercial life. What I mean is something of this sort: We are adopting, so we understand, a policy of considerable industrial expansion. New industries are to be started. I question whether we shall have much success with these new industries unless we encourage into this country skilled artisans of the type needed in those particular industries, and I say that with my eyes on my friends in the Labour Party who I think will be the first to confess that however high the standard of our artisans may be, if we are to start new industries in which the artisans now living in this country have had no experience, we may well need advice and guidance from new men whom we can get from overseas. So that I suggest that there is no necessity to postpone this policy of immigration while we are re-absorbing our own men, but what I do suggest is that we should approach the matter cautiously, and that we should concentrate on the right type of immigrant, with particular reference to the kind of artisan necessary to encourage new industry. One other consideration which induces me in the direction of considerable caution in regard to wholesale immigration is the position of our native population. I call to mind in that connection a quotation from “A History of South Africa” by Prof. Kieviet of America in which he concludes a chapter with some such words as the following, “When the Union of South Africa thinks of immigration it should be borne in mind that their immigrants are already with them, and they consist of about 8,000,000 natives.” I have not got the exact words, but the purport of the writer, the idea in the writer’s mind is clear, that before we talk of immigration on a large scale, it is well to remember that we have within our own shores a considerable population, not fully employed, living well below the breadline, and to whom we also owe a substantial duty. I naturally feel that the idea of European immigration is in some measure directed towards balancing the European against the native population. I think it is quite right that we should have that approach when we are looking towards the distant future, but that does not detract from the fact that we have a duty towards these natives within our own borders, and it is pleasing to note that within the last few years that sense of duty has been quickening in this country, and that there is a more general recognition that substantial measures must be taken to absorb those natives into our industrial, commercial and agrarian life. That is not going to be an easy matter. If we adopt a policy of industrial expansion, it seems that we shall have to draw, indeed, that we should draw upon our natives very largely for our semi-skilled and unskilled jobs, and that to start with suggests that a brake should be put upon any immigration of a labour force of that character. In saying that I do not in any way imply that I do not feel we should in the course of time raise the standard of living of our native population, and educate them; but I think the native representatives themselves would be the first to agree that for many years to come it is in the lower paid groups, in the unskilled and semi-skilled tasks, that our native population will find their sphere. Let us consider them before we consider haphazard immigration of people of that type and with those qualifications. Those, very briefly, are my reasons for moving this amendment. I think nothing could be more fatal than that we should accept without any question, without the consideration, a sort of whole-hearted policy of immigration on the scale mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). I am rather shy of figures like those which have been mentioned in this House—of 100,000 a year. I feel it will be some years to come before we can absorb immigrants in such large numbers, but subject to the qualifications I have indicated, let me conclude that I entirely agree that a general policy of immigration is, I believe, the right policy in the interests of this country; I believe it will assist development, and I look to the time when this country, with all its latent potentialities, will support a population not of 2,500,000 Europeans, but of 10,000,000.

I second the amendment.

There is really very little difference between the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) and the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) who has just spoken. Both hon. members, according to their motions, aim at immigration on a large scale. I particularly want to draw attention to the words “large scale.” Both hon. members want the Government in the near future to tackle the immigration policy. The only difference between the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) and the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown is that the hon. member for Parktown wants to afford protection to returned soldiers and to people employed in war factories. The hon. member for Parktown is not concerned with the thousands of unemployed who are already in this country today. He knows nothing about them. He is not concerned with the poor whites already in South Africa. Oh, no; he is only concerned, like the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) and his seconder, with the immigration from other countries. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) isn’t even concerned with the soldiers. Both the mover and the seconder of the motion went out of their way to tell the House that they only approached this matter from the national point of view, and they stressed the fact that they had no political objects in putting these proposals before the House. I think I should remind them of the old English saying: “Methinks thou protesteth too much.” The seconder let the cat out of the bag. The mover of the proposal before the House was a little more careful, but the seconder let the cat out of the bag at the end of his speech when he intimated the type of immigrant he wanted, namely those who were encouraged and recommended by the British Empire Settlers Association. The word “European” is mentioned in the motion, but it is perfectly clear that the hon. member for Musgrave wants large scale immigration from England, from Great Britain. That is the object he and his seconder have in view. They have come here with their motion for immigration on a large scale at a moment when we have before us a Bill for the re-employment of soldiers; they come before this House with their motion at a time when we have a Select Committee sitting which is engaged on devising schemes in regard to social security; they come here with this motion of theirs at a time when right throughout the country the possibility of post-war depression is being discussed; even the Minister of Finance in his budget speech a few days ago referred to this when he issued a warning in regard to the future and when he went out of his way to issue a warning of possible unemployment. Under such conditions, under such circumstances, those hon. members come here and ask for immigration on a large scale. I tried to find out from their speeches what their justification was for the motion. I cannot find any justification for it. I don’t think I am unjust towards those hon. members when I say that rarely in the history of this House has a motion been introduced here for which there has been less justification, and that certainly never have any speeches been made here containing fewer reasons for the adoption of a motion. I really feel that the motion as introduced does not merit any serious consideration both as regards its contents and the reasons adduced for it. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) spoke very lightly here about a 100,000 immigrants per year. He even compared South Africa with Burma and Malaya. Those were his comparisons. How can we possibly take such arguments seriously? From this side of the House we attach very little value to the motion, nor do I believe the House as a whole will attach a great deal of importance to it. That being so I shall, on behalf of this side of the House, now move the following further amendment—

1. (1) as soon as practicable to repatriate to their respective countries of origin, all war-refugees, evacuees, persons in military service, and prisoners of war;
2. (2) to introduce legislation for amending the Aliens Act (No. 1 of 1937) in such a manner that its provisions will be applicable also to British subjects by birth;
3. (3) to restrict the issue of permits for permanent residence, and also entry into the Union under the provisions of the ordinary Immigration laws, to persons of European descent—
   1. (a) who are considered to be a suitable and desirable addition to the two main elements of the country’s population;
   2. (b) who are in possession of sufficient capital, and/or who are not likely to compete with Union Nationals in professions, trades or other fields of employment for which a sufficient number of Union Nationals are available;
   3. (c) who are not members of the Jewish race;
4. (4) to exercise a stricter control in regard to the issue of permits for temporary residence, and to allow the renewal of such permits only for good and sufficient reasons;
5. (5) to take the necessary steps to locate and to repartriate all persons who have entered the Union unlawfully, and also all aliens whose permits have expired and not been renewed; and
6. (6) to introduce legislation which will provide that no aliens may occupy any office of profit, or engage in any occupation or profession without being in possession of a permit issued by the Government department concerned.

The amendment, as hon. members see, is somewhat lengthy, but the reason is that the Opposition must clearly lay down its policy in regard to immigration, and it is for that reason that I propose at once discussing the amendment. I do not intend dealing with the separate points in detail. My seconder will do so. I want to point out, however, that this amendment in the first instance places on record the fact that there is a condition of unemployment which possibly may become aggravated. The object of the amendment further is, in the first place to draw attention to certain gaps in our existing legislation which must be filled up either by regulations or by amending legislation. The amendment furthermore points out that it is essential to carry out the existing laws more strictly in certain respects, and then we come to what is actually the immigration policy of this side of the House, namely the type of immigrant we want for South Africa. We have declared on several occasions both in this House and outside that we are not opposed to immigration as such, but always with this qualification, that no immigration should be allowed into South Africa at the expense of the Union population, either of the English- or Afrikaans-speaking section. In the second place our policy so far has always been—and we make that clear in the amendment—that immigration to South Africa must be selective. That is the object of this amendment. In other words, immigrants coming to South Africa must be people who will be an asset to this country. They must be people who will assimilate with the present white population of South Africa. The various points of the amendment will be discussed by my seconder. I want to say a few words, however, about the final part of the amendment in which the House is asked to express itself against participation by the Union Government in any international or British-Imperial schemes for the encouragement of post-war immigration. Anyone who reads the newspapers and the various periodicals will have noticed that there is a strong movement in England, and also in America, in favour of such international schemes. It is realised that a serious post-war condition of affairs is going to arise, and that, homes will have to be found for those people from Europe who have run away from their countries. And then, further, we have this position; in Great Britain work will have to be found for the returned soldiers and there will not be enough work for them. That is why those schemes are being put forward. A conference has already been held in the Bermudas. I do not know whether hon. members followed what happened at that conference, but the same type of plans were put forward as those in regard to Unnra, to which we are already committed. The Bermuda Conference suggested that post-war organisation should be started to attend to the distribution of the surplus population. In view of the conditions prevailing in this country and the protection of our interests now and in future, we should take up the attitude that this is not the time to talk about immigration, even less to talk of large scale immigration. Now, I should like to confine my remarks to Section 3 (c) of the amendement which says in regard to the issue of permits for permanent residence, that certain people are not to be given such permits, and it is provided, inter alia, that members of the Jewish race are not to be given permits.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

When business was suspended I was pointing out that the immigration policy of this side of the House was based primarily on the protection of the interests of our own South African citizens, and secondly, on the principle of selection. In other words that we want immigrants in this country who would fit in with and assimilate with the two white sections of the population already in the country.

What kind of immigrants?

I am coming to that. When business was suspended I was pointing out that our amendment provides that permits for permanent residence should not be issued to members of the Jewish race. The attitude of the Nationalist Party in regard to that question is that first of all the Jewish population in the country already is too large, and as a result of the surplus Jewish population a Jewish question has been created in South Africa; secondly, the reason for the amendment is that today already, as a result of conditions in Europe, and the anticipated post-war conditions, organisations are being established and plans are being devised to find a home for the Jews not only in other parts of the world, but also in the Dominions and in South Africa. It cannot be denied that feelings in this country are running high on this matter, and I want to add that those feelings are not confined to this side of the House.

Speak for yourself.

I can assure the hon. member that there are members on the other side of the House who feel exactly as we do on this point. I can give the Minister that assurance. The hon. member who interrupted me is perhaps an exception, but there are many hon. members on the Government side who feel exactly as we do, but the reason why they do not come into the open with their feelings is because they depend on the Jewish vote and because they need the Jewish money at their elections. We on this side of the House come clearly into the open and state what our attitude is.

You have never made your attitude clear yet.

There is a lot of feeling about the Jewish question, and that feeling is running higher all the time. There is a Jewish question, and that question has been created not by this side of the House, not by the Leader of the Opposition, but by the Jews themselves. Why is there a Jewish question? I do not intend devoting too much time to that point because there is certain other information which I am anxious to place before the House, but history teaches us that as soon as a Jewish population in any country exceeds a certain percentage, a Jewish question arises, and further, whether it is because of its virtues, or otherwise, we get the position that the Jewish population secures an excessive share of the trade and vocations of a country, which results in a Jewish question arising. And that is the position in South Africa too. It is unnecessary to point to the position in trade and commerce—in wholesale trade as well as in retail trade. Hon. members are aware of the position. We have the same position today in regard to our industries, and what has happened in regard to our residential areas? Let hon. members go to Sea Point and compare the Jewish population at Sea Point today with what it was 25 years ago. In regard to professions I want to draw attention to the fact that the Jews first of all secured an excessive share of the trade of the country, and now they are getting an undue share of our professions. I have before me the latest issue of the South African Medical Journal—the January issue—and there is an article here in English in which the number of people practising medicine is analysed, and the writer finds that the doctors of English descent constitute 38 per cent. of the total number of doctors; the doctors of Afrikaans and Hollands descent constitute 25.6 per cent., and the Jews constitute 31.3 per cent. One should bear in mind that those figures also include old established doctors, some of whom have already reached a high age, but the writer of the article goes further, and points out that so far as doctors and surgeons who have qualified in the Union are concerned, the position is that 22.5 per cent. are of English descent. 27.8 are of Afrikaans and Hollands origin, while the Jews constitute 46.5 per cent. That is the position in the Union today. The writer points out that nearly half of the doctors in South Africa belong to the Jewish group. He goes further and analyses the position at the universities. He finds that at the Cape Town University the position is that 23.8 per cent. of the students are of English descent. 35 of Hollands or Afrikaans descent, and 38 per cent Jewish. On the Witwatersrand the position is that 20.9 per cent. are of English descent. 18.3 per cent. are of Hollands or Afrikaans descent. and 57 per cent. of Jewish descent. He points out that the Jewish group predominates at the universities, especially on the Witwatersrand. It is unnecessary to quote any further figures. The Jews constitute about 6 per cent. of the whole of our white population but already they have nearly half of the medical profession in their hands. The third reason for the attitude of the Nationalist Party is that it is well known in history, and we have the same position in South Africa, that while the Jew is proud of, and loyal to his own race, he does not assimilate with other races. He is loyal to the country only as long as it is in his interest to be loyal to the country. But what happened in France? When the Germans crossed the borders of Holland, Belgium and France, the Jews left and sent their money ahead of them. What happened in this country? The Minister of Finance found it necessary to issue a special regulation imposing a tremendously high fine on the export of capital from South Africa. If an enquiry is made—and my information comes from a very reliable source—it will be found that it was the Jewish population in particular which after the fall of France was sending money out of South Africa. They are loyal to the country in which they reside as long as things go well, but they shake the country’s dust off their feet as soon as things do not go well; then they make a fresh start in some other country and there they are again just as loyal until things go wrong there. We are told there are exceptions. There are exceptions, but one swallow does not make a summer, nor do half a dozen swallows make summer. Hon. members opposite admit that there is a Jewish problem in South Africa and that the immigration of Jews to South Africa must now be definitely stopped. We find it necessary to issue a warning against Jewish immigration because we expect in the coming years a repetition of what happened in 1933 when Hitler started taking action against the Jews, and in 1930 when there was also an influx of Jews into South Africa. In 1937 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a speech in this House arising out of a motion he had introduced in which he referred to an organisation existing overseas which cooperated with Jewish organisations in South Africa to bring immigrants to South Africa. On that occasion the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) got up and denied this, and he said, inter alia—

And then the hon. member gave the history in regard to Stuttgart and he went on to say this—

Now, let us test the truth of that statement? In 1939 I introduced a Bill in this House on behalf of this side in regard to immigration, and in connection with this matter I referred to what had happened in 1930 when an amount of £5,000 was sent, after cable communication with the hon. member for Cape Town, by an organisation in Paris to be used as a guarantee for Jews who had come to this country and who would still come. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) then got up and denied that that was so. He admitted that £5,000 had been sent but he added that that had nothing to do with this matter. He said that that money was lying in the Bank merely to serve as a guarantee, and that he had consulted the Department of Immigration; but he concealed certain facts, and I think we should at this stage bring those facts to the notice of the House because those facts go to prove first of all that there has been a constant encouragement of Jewish immigration by the Jewish Board of Deputies and Affiliated Organisations; secondly, that there was co-operation between the Jewish Board of Deputies and Foreign Organisations, and thirdly, that there was organised propaganda here in South Africa. Now, the facts are as follows: At a meeting of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies held on the 30th March, 1930, the Chairman handed in the following report—

Now I want to emphasise this last sentence, because the point which the hon. member for Castle raised was that the Jews were already at sea when the new regulations came in. I admit that there was something to be said for those who were already at sea, but representations are made here on behalf of Jews still to come, and who wanted to arrive here before the 31st May. The report goes on to say this—

Representations were therefore made to the Government in respect of 100 who had not yet sailed, and who were therefore familiar with the new regulation. The report goes on to say this—

Now I want to draw attention to the next sentence—

Of course it was an unwise step to take because it was not known here in South Africa that money had come from overseas. It was not known in South Africa that that money was to be used to bring to South Africa Jews who had not yet sailed, and who knew what the new regulations were. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) apparently sent a cable to London to advise them what he had done, and the following reply was received from London—

Now I want hon. members to take note of this sentence, “Rely on your discretion.” If this whole business was as innocent as the hon. member wanted the House to believe in 1939 why then was it necessary to cable him these words, “Rely on your discretion.” I want to go a little further. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) then informed the Board of Deputies in Johannesburg of what had happened, and on the 4th April, 1930, he received the following letter from the secretary—

And listen to this—

The hon. member told the House that everything was above board; why then did he suggest that the matter must be treated as strictly confidential? Now, that is the position in regard to that £5,000. What makes this such a serious matter is that under the regulations a guarantee has to be given by somebody in South Africa. That is the point. The guarantee is in the name of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) but in actual fact the money was provided by an overseas organisation. It is quite bad enough if the local Jewish organisation put up guarantees to encourage immigrants but it is a hundred per cent. worse if the guarantee is put up by an overseas organisation. Secondly, this money was intended for guarantees for Jewish emigrants who had not yet left. But enough about that. Two years later the persecution of the Jews took place in Germany A serious position arose there and refuge had to be found for the Jews somewhere. We find that the Jewish Immigration Organisation in Paris wrote a letter to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) which was a reply to a letter which he had sent to that organisation, and that letter read as follows—

I again want to refer the House to the reply which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) gave the Leader of the Opposition in which he stated that he could assure the House that no money had been put up in South Africa to encourage Jewish immigration, and that there was no organisation in South Africa to encourage the immigration of Jews. The letter ends—

On the 30th April, 1933, a meeting of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies was held, and according to the Minutes this is what happened at that particular meeting—

That is the present Minister of Finance.

And then he gave an explanation of the position in regard to the Quota Act. We need not go into that. In the meantime they had again written to the Organisation in Paris on the question of immigration possibilities, and on the 19th June, 1933, there was a letter from that Organisation addressed to the Jewish Board of Deputies, reading as follows—

And the writer of that letter went on to ask what would be done to find work for those people when they arrived here, and the letter went on to say this—

But the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) who was dealing with these matters told the Leader of the Opposition that no money was being spent by Jewish Organisations and that there was no Organisation in South Africa which was engaged in encouraging Jewish immigration to South Africa. And then the letter went on to say this—

Now, what was this questionnaire? That questionnaire, among other things, asked what the possibilities were in the Union of finding employment for Jewish emigrants in the following occupations—

1. (a) For small factories with small capital.
2. (b) For commercial and technical clerks.
3. (c) For labourers (apprentices and those knowing already the trade).
4. (d) For artisans.
5. (e) For professional men (indicate the conditions required for the obtaining of necessary diplomas and to exercise the professions particularly as regards physicians, dentists, assistants, architects, engineers, etc.).

1. (3) Is it possible to send young women to occupy positions as governess, children nurses, general maids?

Now let me go on. On the 24th September, 1933, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies was held, and among other matters the following questions were mentioned—

Hon. members should note the use of the word “organisation” and the reference to the “mass of correspondence” with organisations in Germany. On the 19th March, 1934, the Cape Town Committee met and the Minutes contained the following—

At another meeting of the 23rd March we have the following again—

I want to draw the attention of the House to the words “as unobtrusively as possible.” On the 31st December, 1933, a conference was held at Port Elizabeth and according to the Minutes the following transpired—

Then he gave an explanation of the Quota Act and the hon. member made the following remarks—

Is it necessary for me to produce any further evidence to prove that there was no truth in the assurance which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) gave the Leader of the Opposition in 1937? I think I should repeat that assurance, especially now that hon. members have heard the contents of those documents. This is what the hon. member told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at that time—

Bearing in mind the statements which I have quoted hon. members can see how much value can be attached to the declarations of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle). Now I want to refer to something else. In 1933 a Jewish World Conference was held in London, and the Jewish Board of Deputies was represented by Adv. B. Mark Goodman. Now, what does he write in his report to the South African Jewish Board of Deputies—

And yet the hon. member says that they have nothing to do with overseas immigration organisations.

Order, order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

May I move that the hon. member be granted an extension of time?

I object.

That’s because your name was mentioned.

I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I feel his speech must have made a great impression on the House. We can notice that from the fact that while we were discussing the question of Jewish immigration the hon. member opposite, who happens to belong to the Jewish race, got up and objected to thehon. member for Beaufort West being granted an extension of time. He did not want to give the hon. member an opportunity of going into the matter any further. If the hon. member had nothing to hide why then did he object to the extension of time? I want to discuss the amendment, however, from a different angle. When we debate immigration here, hon. members should take up the attitude that the subject is so important that it must be dealt with on its merits. Unfortunately, however, we find so often that when subjects of this nature are discussed here a smokescreen is at once put up, with the result that the subject at issue cannot be dealt with on its merits. Whenever we talk about a republic, hon. members at once look at it from a political point of view, and the result is that many cannot see the other man’s point of view. When we talk about the white problem one gets almost the same sort of thing. When we talk about the Jewish danger, or the Jewish question, we find that although even hon. members opposite admit that there is such a question a smokescreen is at once put up, and people talk about racialism and things of that kind, with the result that the subject is not discussed on its merits either. For these reasons I want to appeal to all sides of the House and I want to ask hon. members when discussing the question of immigration not to put up a smokescreen, and not to look on the subject as a political one—I ask hon. members to go into the merits of the case, and only to look at it from that point of view. Let us differ from each other—we can understand that, but I want to appeal to hon. members to discuss the subject on its merits and from no other point of view. I think before coming to the question of immigration it is highly necessary that we should cast our minds back over the history of this country. Let us go back a little into the history of the Afrikaner nation. I think it is essential for us to consider the history of the Boer population of South Africa. Some years ago the Boer population—the farming population of South Africa—consisted almost exclusively of Afrikaans-speaking people. Those people lived happily on their farms. They made a living on their farms, and they had a good deal less difficulty than they have today. The commercial population in the towns and in the cities was more English-speaking. They developed in that direction and were happy in the work they were doing, but we know that a change has come about. Why? The farming population has to a large extent left the farms; the English-speaking people are out of business to a very large extent. I say that the matter is so important to all of us that it must be dealt with on its merits, and we have to face the facts as they are. I think every hon. member will believe that what I have said did happen, and that that is the position today. The English-speaking people are no longer in business to the same extent as they were in the past. The farming population is no longer on the farms where they were before. We find English-speaking people on the farms, but we find large numbers of Afrikaans-speaking people in the towns where they have deteriorated, and where they are going down and becoming poorer and poorer. There must be a reason for it. Now, if we see who are the people running most of our business concerns in South Africa we find that a large proportion of those people are those who of late years have entered South Africa as immigrants. It is not necessary to argue about that, we all know it is so. These are facts which can not be denied. Now, the motion of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) asks the Government to take special steps to bring more people from other countries into South Africa. Let us assume that we all want to see South Africa flourish, that we all want the South African people who are already here to be employed and make a living in their own mother country. Now, I think the hon. member will agree with me that the people who have come into the country are the cause to a large extent, together with other circumstances, of our own people suffering hardships here, that they are the cause of the population of this country being poor, although South Africa is a rich country. In spite of that the hon. member asks the Government to assist in encouraging immigration. Is it really necessary for a motion like that to be introduced in this House? Let us have another look at South Africa’s history. After every Great War, after every discovery in South Africa, there has been an influx of immigrants into South Africa. After the Second War of Independence there was a great influx of immigrants, although there has never been a motion introduced asking the Government to encourage immigration—that influx took place without any encouragement from any side. After the last war there was another influx of people from overseas. So many people flocked into this country that the Government in power at the time tried to stop immigrants from coming in. That policy introduced by the Government to stop immigrants from coming in was approved of by this House. In other words, it was not necessary to introduce a motion to encourage people to come here—rather did the Government have to take steps—or let me say it was compelled to stop people from coming in. At a later stage an Aliens Act was passed by this House; that, again, was not a step in the direction of encouraging immigration, but of stopping immigrants from coming in, or rather of stopping that class of people whom we were not anxious to have in this country. Now, let us deal shortly with the number of people who have come to this country in the last few years without any motion of encouragement or even without any co-operation on the part of other people. I shall quote the figures for two years. I did not select those two years with any specific object, or simply because they were the best years for the purpose of my argument. I simply took those years because they are the first and the last years dealt with in the Union Year Book for 1940. In 1934—17,043 white male persons came to the Union and 17,979 white female persons; then 2,568 non-European male persons and 930 non-European female persons, making a total for all races of 19,613 male persons and 18,917 female persons. They entered the country notwithstanding the fact that they were given no encouragement, either by a motion of this kind or by any Government action. In 1937 the Aliens Act was passed, and what was the result of the passage of that Act? One would have imagined that the effect would have been that fewer immigrants would have come into the country. But take the position in 1938. In that year 50,960 European male persons, and 50,316 European female persons entered the country, and the figures for non-Europeans were 3,199, and 1,408 respectively. The total number for all races was 54,159 male persons, and 51,724 female persons. Hon. members may tell me now that that was a considerable time ago. None the less those people came here without any motion of this kind, and without any encouragement whatsoever being given by the Government, and yet the hon. member introduces this motion and asks us to pass it which means that we are to request the Government to co-operate on a large scale with other countries to get immigrants here. This side of the House—whether hon. members opposite want to know it or not, is anxious to look after every section of the population of South Africa, and as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has rightly said, this House is considering legislation to ensure employment for returned soldiers. And why is legislation of that kind required? It is required because the Government itself recognises and realises that after the war there is going to be unemployment in South Africa. That is why special legislation had to be introduced to provide employment for those people. If people are to enter this country on the same scale as in the past, it is simply going to aggravate the position so far as the returned soldiers are concerned. As I have already explained a large proportion of the Afrikaans farmers have already left the platteland, and a large proportion of the English-speaking shopkeepers are out of business. Is not immigration going to aggravate the position so far as they are concerned? No, if the Government were to encourage immigration, seeing that we are already being threatened with immigration on a large scale, the position would be made impossible for our own people in South Africa. Hon. members may tell me that the figures I have quoted deal with the position years ago and that immigration has perhaps come to a stop now. The hon. member for Beaufort West in this connection asked the Minister of the Interior a question, and I should like to read that, question to the House. He first of all asked—

The reply was—

The Minister tried to make the number as small as possible. The second question which the hon. member asked was this—

And the reply was: 8,376. I want to ask the Minister outright whether he does not admit that to allow these people to enter the country, even to allow half of them to enter the country, is a danger to South Africa? I don’t want to elaborate the figures any further—it is a dry business to quote figures, and one can prove almost anything by figures, but these figures have not been imagined by the Nationalists, they are figures taken from the Official Year Book. Now I want to go a little further and deal with the constitution of our population. Unfortunately we have not yet in South Africa got that co-operation between the various elements which we are anxious to have here. One still hears a lot about racialism and division, about anti British sentiments, and all sorts of other bogies which are held up against this side of the House. I want to appeal to members to consider this question on its merits. It is perfectly true that we have not got that co-operation between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people which we are anxious to have. Our outlook on certain matters in South Africa is still entirely different from what it is in other countries. For instance we have the colour line—fortunately we’ve still got that—and English-speaking Afrikaners as well as Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners—at least the great majority of them—recognise that the colour line—the dividing line between the various sections has to remain. But if one encourages immigration, and immigrants come into this country, no matter how rich they are, one will get people who with very few exceptions have a totally different outlook. On the Continent of Europe and even in Great Britain the outlook in regard to colour is not what it is in South Africa. Many of our difficulties here are caused by our colour problem. I want to ask the hon. member opposite, whose motion aims at encouraging white immigration, whether the country which he comes from draws the same distinction between whites and non-whites as we draw here. Has not his point of view changed since he came to this country? I have heard him talk about the Coolie problem, and I have heard him put up a fight to protect Natal against the Coolies. But very many people come to this country who do not distinguish between European and non-European. Consequently, if one encourages immigration one creates a serious danger to South Africa. Now, let me quote very briefly from a booklet I have here published by the Rev. J. G. Strydom, General Missionary Secretary of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Free State. This is what he has to say about the immigration menace [Translation]—

No, as the Rev. Mr. Strydom shows, since the discovery of gold and diamonds we have been getting the poorest type of people from Europe. I think all hon. members will agree that we are no longer getting the same type of people as those who came in when our ancestors came to South Africa? And he goes on—

In South Africa the result, unfortunately, has been even worse than in America, as I shall show later. The Rev. Mr. Strydom then points out that a large proportion of the Uitlanders live in luxury and have relinquished all moral and religious bonds, and he goes on to say that the same sort of thing has for a long time been going on in the Union, and that hundreds of thousands of our old population have become poor. Do not let us cast reproaches at each other, but the fact remains that every Afrikaans-speaking member opposite will also have to admit that that section which has become impoverished is the Afrikaans-speaking section, the old section of the population, and they are no worse than other people. There must be a reason. Now, here we find that in another country the same development process has taken place. There, too, the old and most settled section of the population has become impoverished. But here in this country the danger is very much more serious than in America, because in America they have eight whites to one non-European, but here the position is the other way round and here we have one European as against eight non-Europeans. The Rev. Mr. Strydom says—

And then he goes on—

What is the date of that book?

I have not got the date, no date is shown here.

It must have been written before your people came to this country.

I don’t know what the hon. member for the Mental Hospital means. But I should like to ask hon. members, with the exception of that hon. member over there, to try and consider the matter on its merits. The Rev. Mr. Strydom goes on to say this—

It is a pity that in Europe the same colour line, the same dividing line, is not drawn as in South Africa. If one studies the figures of the mixed marriages in South Africa one finds that the figures are alarming. I have tried to find out whether it is the old Afrikaans population, part of that population, which is indulging in mixed marriages, or whether it is the people who entered this country not so long ago, and a study of the position shows that most of these mixed marriages are not between members of the old settled section of the population, or between members of the Afrikaans-speaking population as such, but the people who are guilty of that sort of thing are those who have not been long in this country. Let me give the figures of the mixed marriages. I shall start from the year 1935.

You should go a little further back.

Unfortunately I have not got any figures to show the position before that, but I hope the figures I have will convince the hon. member of the seriousness of the problem, will convince him that the danger which threatens him is just as big as the danger which threatens me. I shall quote the number of mixed marriages in the Cape Province and Natal. In 1935 there were 91, in 1936 there were 73, in 1937 there were 100, in 1938 the number, was 99, and in 1939 there were 69 mixed marriages. Is it possible that any hon. member is so blind that he fails to see the danger? If we go further back the numbers may be bigger or smaller, but that does not affect the argument. We believe very definitely that the white race in South Africa has to maintain the guardianship, that the people of South Africa are destined to rebuild a white South Africa, a white nation, as our ancestors desired. Now I want to ask hon. members whether they fail to see the danger of immigration if they consider this question calmly and dispassionately, if they go into the merits of the case. I ask them to realise that immigration on a large scale may constitute a great danger to this country. I even want to make an appeal to hon. members who are not yet entirely Afrikaans minded (Afrikaansgesind).

What is Afrikaans descent?

The hon. member should know. If anyone says that he is Engelsgesind he knows what it means, but when somebody says that he is Afrikaansgesind then he does not know its meaning. I don’t blame hon. members who are not yet completely Afrikaansgesind even though it is a pity they are not. If there happened to be a bond tying us to some other country we might perhaps be in the same position, but fortunately some of us have entirely cut adrift from the country which our ancestors came from, and we regard South Africa as our only country—it is our Mother country. If hon. members ask me why this motion has been introduced then I am afraid I have to associate myself with what the hon. member for Beaufort West said, namely that this motion was not introduced so much for the sake of South Africa but for the sake of people in Great Britain who after the war will be unemployed, and who will then have to find a home in South Africa. I happened to be in Great Britain after the last world war, and it was pitiful to see the way people had to look for work and had to live on the dole. That same position may recur. However sorry we may be for such people our first duty is towards South Africa, our first duty is to see that our own people are looked after first before we bring in others who will not only aggravate the unemployment position here, but who may also become a danger to us in other respects. Before concluding I wish very briefly to deal with the various points of the amendment. The first paragraph says this—

Why do we say that? We have many people in South Africa today who are here on holiday, we have people here in the army, in the R.A.F. and so on. They say they do not want to return to their own country; they want to stay in South Africa. They have employment here now because they are in the army, but if they stay here there is a danger that they will not find work, or that they will push Afrikaans-speaking people out of their employment—there is a danger of Afrikaans-speaking people being kicked out of their work.

Who is going to kick them out?

Circumstances will kick them out. If I express myself badly I ask hon. members not to take my words literally but to take my meaning. I am not making propaganda, but it is quite possible that large numbers of our people will become unemployed. The second point is this—

As the law now stands it only applies to naturalised British subjects, and I feel that one gets just as bad British born people as naturalised Britishers. Why should we make a distinction between them? Then the amendment goes on to say—

1. (a) who are considered to be a suitable and desirable addition to the two main elements of the country’s population;
2. (b) who are in possession of sufficient capital, and/or who are not likely to compete with Union Nationals in professions, trades or other fields of employment for which a sufficient number of Union Nationals are available;
3. (c) who are not members of the Jewish race.

That shows who are the people we like to admit into the country. Hon. members will be able to see from that that we are not opposed to immigration as such, but we want to admit people who can assimilate, people who will be an asset to the country, not people who will make conditions even more difficult for our own people—whose position is quite difficult enough as it is. I want to add this to what the hon. member for Beaufort West, has already said—that as soon as one talks about the Jewish question one is accused of being anti-Jewish, one is accused of being animated by a persecution spirit. I say most emphatically that there are organisers of the Government Party who go about the country talking in exactly the same way as I am doing about the Jewish question. I have in my possession pamphlets which were given to me by the organiser of the Government Party which are worse propaganda against the Jews than the speeches which we make here. Fortunately I have witnesses who were present when those pamphlets were given to me. The hon. member for Beaufort West spoke on the merits of the case, but here I have these pamphlets, handed to me by an organiser employed by the other side of the House; this organiser appears on the same platforms as they do, and that is the sort of stuff which their organisers tell the country. Now I come to point No. 4—

One of the Minister’s predecessors (Mr. Stuttaford) admitted on the floor of this House that undesirable people were entering the country and were getting permits. The next point goes further into that aspect of the matter. Large numbers of people come in from Rhodesia on temporary permits and it is very difficult afterwards to locate them. We want the Minister to see to it that the existing legislation and the regulations are strictly applied so as to ensure that some of these people do not stay behind in this country. When war broke out and enemy subjects had to be tracked down large numbers of them were found who were not even known to be in this country. The same thing is happening today. Many people are coming into this country, especially from Rhodesia, with temporary permits and they get lost here. And then our sixth point says this—

I should like the Labour Party to take notice of this. I think we all agree on that point, unless the Labour Party has changed its policy since. We do not want people who are making their living here to be pushed aside by people from outside. In conclusion I want to say this, if we consider this question on its merits, without prejudice, and if we do not judge the motion and the amendment by the persons who have moved them, then I am convinced that the House will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West because it is an amendment which is well founded, and it is in the true interest of South Africa.

I wish on behalf of my party, to propose a further amendment. The amendment does follow somewhat the same lines as that moved by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), but the amendment moved by that hon. member does not, I think, clarify the position with regard to immigration at all. I think it must pass as an amendment drafted for the purpose of acting as an antidote to the ambitious scheme outlined by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt). Before I go further, may I draw the attention of the House, and from that I trust the attention of the Minister will be drawn to the specific statement made by the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Neate) that if he, with others, would have had his way in 1896, he would have thrown the Indians into Durban Bay. I trust that his Leader heard the remark and that he will either agree with it or dissociate himself from that statement. It seems we have got to this stage when we are fighting a war in which India has been asked to make considerable contribution, that we still find there are members of the Dominion Party who can come into an assembly such as this, and say that if they had their way they would throw the Indians into Durban Bay. However that is only a side line. I move the following further amendment—

The hon. member for Parktown suggested that it may be possible to run a policy of demobilising the South African forces simultaneously with a policy of immigration. I am sure from my own knowledge that no such thing is possible. It is going to take us the best part of five years to reabsorb our returning army into civil life, and we have one very big job in front of us. We have, for instance, trained 1,500 boys in this country under what is known as the C.O.T.T. scheme. They have been absorbed into the army, mainly into the Air Force, where they are employed more or less as mechanics. These are boys leaving school mostly, who have never had any previous training, and who have been absorbed directly into the Air Force and other sections of the service. These boys are coming back after the war, and it is not going to be easy to re-train them and find them employment. That is only one aspect of the whole main problem as it affects the army, and the hon. members on this side of the House, and I presume the Dominion Party, would be the first to demand that we must first implement the promise we made to these youngsters when they joined up, namely, that they would be trained in the army to occupy some position in civil life where they could maintain a fairly reasonable standard of living. That is the problem that is going to confront South Africa. We are also confronted with the other problem, with the number of Europeans and natives and coloureds, and women also, who have to be reabsorbed into civil life. I am satisfied that there is no necessity for South Africa to have an unemployment problem. That depends, of course, on many other things which fortunately I feel that the Government, at this moment, are prepared to attend to. But there is no reason why we should have an unemployment problem, but these are the figures of men and women for whom we will have to find employment, and it is a job that will tax all our strength and all our ingenuity, and let me say now, tax our pockets as well; and side by side with this particular problem we are not in a position definitely in South Africa to go in for a large scale immigration policy. We cannot have it parallel with demobilisation. In other words we simply cannot have it at all for at least a period of six years. One knows, of course, that the orthodox economic argument is that if you bring an extra million people into the country, these extra million people will speed up the wheels of industry, will create a demand which will create work not only for themselves but for the other residents of the country. I have heard that story for so many years; it is like the story of economy that is preached so often; and that story may be correct in the long run, but the long run in this case will be something like 25 years, and the net result of flooding the South African labour market with large scale immigration, will mess up our demobilisation plans completely. In other words, it will be impossible to find employment for our ex-volunteers, our return soldiers, if at the same time we are endeavouring to find employment for large numbers of people brought from overseas. Let me say to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) that there is no necessity in South Africa for the importation of overseas artisans. The South African artisans have proved during the war that they are as adaptable as any people in the world, and I think the hon. member for Parktown would be astonished to know just what achievements have been accomplished by the South African artisans, particularly during the war, and there are very few industries which can be started in the Union of South Africa for which we cannot find an adequate and sufficiently well-trained number of artisans in the country. There may be one or two specialised industries, for instance the textile industry, where it may be necessary to bring a few artisans from overseas. But my experience has been that a few artisans who are brought in to train South Africans artisans, results very shortly in the South African artisan being able to do the job just as well within a very short period. In fact, I know of cases where artisans have been imported from overseas, and when they came here the South African artisans had to teach them their jobs. That happened in the case of artisans who were supposed to make bricks in a particular way. So much for that—and it is a very important point. I agree with much, that was inherent in the figures that were quoted by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). But he cannot frighten me merely by quoting figures. But it does seem to me that we in the Union of South Africa—as a matter of fact, in the whole of Southern Africa—not only need an influx of European population but we have got to get it; but it is no use our setting out to get it in a manner that will eliminate the European population which we have already got; in other words it is no use our merely looking at principles and finding ourselves in the middle of a depression one of the most poverty-stricken countries in the world. It is a fact that most large scale immigrations that have ever been undertaken have been on the lines of placing people on the land. When America was colonised, when Australia was colonised, when New Zealand was colonised, they were colonised by immigrants who went there and who were placed on the land and who made their living on the land. That, of course, is a policy that cannot be undertaken in the Union of South Africa. I do not believe that we have a sufficiency of good land available for the number of returned soldiers who will want to go farming, and I believe the Government has decided that never again will men be placed on the land in South Africa who have no knowledge of farming. And it is quite obvious that the man who is brought from overseas, as far as South Africa is concerned, will have no knowledge of farming. He will therefore have no knowledge of South African farming, even if he was farming overseas. He, like the returning volunteer, whom it is proposed to put on the land, will first of all have to go to a farming settlement where he is taught South African farming. We have not got sufficient of those settlements at the moment to provide for the applications which are now being made by volunteers who have already been discharged. As you know, Sir, the Lands Department has refused to release any land at the moment. But the applications are mounting up, and if all the applications were acceded to, the whole of our land settlements would be very much over-populated, so the position is that there is no hope in the immediate future for any large scale immigration into this country for the purpose of putting people on to the land. These land settlements today are run on a very scientific scale. When the man goes to these settlements he is ready to farm, and these farm settlements take a considerable time to be put into that condition, so we can rule that out. Now we come to our solution. We say: Yes, let us have this immigration policy; we could, of course, make the arrangements beforehand, but let us embark upon it when we are finally satisfied that demobilisation has been completed. You will realise that probably at the close of hostilities it will take up to 12 months to bring back particular units of our army. Some of the troops may take at least twelve months to be brought back, so I think we are merely being conservative in saying that no immigration policy should be embarked upon until six years after the cessation of hostilities. Of course, we do not suggest six years as a hard and fast rule. The period can be revised in the light of future developments. But we have another solution, which, if embarked upon, a fairly wide scale, would go a long way in outweighing the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Coast who quoted figures to show the large increase in the non-European population as compared with the small percentage of increase in the European population. We know that today in all the countries of Europe there are literally thousands and thousands of orphans. In Great Britain there are probably orphans of whom nothing is known concerning their parentage; children who have been dug out of the rubble in an air raid, children who are being looked after without, knowing precisely what their names are. Possibly I should imagine the figure would run into millions and there is nothing to prevent the Union of South Africa from embarking upon a large scale immigration policy directed towards the fetching to this country of orphan children. I do not think it is beyond the bounds of possibility for this country to start by bringing out, say, 15,000 orphans the first year, rising to 20,000 and 25,000 in the second and third years, and there we would solve two problems. The orphans naturally would not be accepted in this country if they were over a certain age. We ourselves say a suitable age, but it has been suggested to us that up to the age of 10 would be a very desirable age, which would mean that the orphan would not become a competitor in the labour market in South Africa for six or seven years. So you are not in any way disturbing the smooth flow of demobilisation; you are not interfering with the labour market at all, but you are in effect increasing your birth rate very considerably by the addition of 15,000 children in South Africa. You would then bring up the figures quoted by the hon. member for South Coast very considerably indeed, and not only that but you would be doing a very humane act to the children who are today orphans in the scarred countries of Europe. I understand, although I have no figures on which to base my understanding at the moment, but I believe that there are very considerable numbers of applications pending for adoptions in this country, and we want to make it clear that as far as we of the Labour Party are concerned, we are not prepared to consider any scheme of bringing orphan children into this country who are going to be placed in Government institutions or in anything savouring of an institution. If we are going to do something for the orphan children of Europe, we are going to do something in the most humane way, and we believe that if the Government adopted a large-scale plan for the bringing of children to South Africa under a strict system of control where each child was adopted by a foster parent, we could solve two problems at one time. In fact, we could solve more than two problems. We would increase our birth rate; we would be playing the game as far as we are concerned with an immigration policy; we would be safeguarding the inalienable rights of our exvolunteers who expect to return to this country and to be put into full-time employment, and we would be contributing in actual fact rather than in a great deal of talk, to the reconstruction of Europe.

I second. We of the Labour Party, Sir, are quite definitely in favour of immigration into this country, provided it is of the right kind, and provided further it is at the right time. It is obviously absurd that so few people shall live in so great a land as ours, a country 472,550 square miles in extent. There are seven million people in the City of New York; there are eight million people in London. In South Africa there are roughly but ten million souls, of whom about two million are Europeans; and this is the population tale of a country which is 9½ times as large as the whole of England. We say, Sir, that our population is quite absurdly small, and we add that it is dangerously small. Here, Sir, we corroborate the statement of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). We cherish no illusions as to our present position, because the war has shown us quite definitely that our numbers are not sufficient in the Union of South Africa to defend ourselves adequately against any first-class fully-armed power. It is a position of great danger, inasmuch as we are compelled to rely upon assistance from beyond our coasts, and for that reason we deprecate it. Thirdly, it is a position which involves great waste. South Africa is a country whose best soil is running into the sea, carried there by flood-rivers after every storm; and the land is the source of life. This is a country where just beneath our soil there are almost limitless treasures of metal and mineral; outside our coasts, within our own seas, are thousands of tons of food; mostly unexploited, although very badly needed, for the reason that, we are short of hands. This again is a strong reason for immigration of the right sort. And then the rate of our natural increase in South Africa is decidedly decreasing. The index figure of reproductivity at the present time is 1.3, which most members will know indicates that in a generation our population would increase by 30 per cent. Well, Sir, 30 years ago the rate of increase was 80 per cent. I admit that that was the flood time of immigration from Britain, Ireland and from Western Europe generally, and that a proportion of these immigrants came to South Africa and founded families. But the point is that now the idex figure is only 1.3, and even if any of us should live to the year 2000 A.D., our population would then have risen to only three million people. We submit that there is a very great necessity for immigration, but we see very great difficulties from our own point of view and from the point of view of those western nations from whom we wish to draw our supplies. It is quite obvious that Great Britain and Holland, Norway and France, will be very pre-occupied for many years to come in rebuilding their own stricken homes and their farms, their cattle sheds, their workshops and their factories. In the main street in Southampton people used to grumble because traffic was held up to a single line of cars to get through an ancient monument called Bargate. Well, they do not have to grumble any more, because today they can drive either side, port or starboard, of the historic gateway; the houses today are completely gone from both sides of the street, and the stores and factories have vanished too. I say that the most desirable sources of immigrants will be very busily occupied for many years to come in repairing the devastation of the war, which, after all, has not yet ended. And there is another point which may interest certain hon. members of the House. Great Britain has ceased to supply immigrants. She is a receiver of immigrants. Roughly during the reign of Queen Victoria, say from 1836 to the end of the 19th century, no less than 8,250,000 people from Ireland and Great Britain went overseas seeking health, prosperity, and a wider chance to live. In the course of one sovereign’s reign, 8,250,000 immigrants left their birthplaces in Great Britain and Ireland for new homes overseas; but long before the war the story was changed completely, and between the years 1931 and 1937, a matter of 5 years, Great Britain alone received no less than 450,000 immigrants, mostly into her great towns. That represents an average of from 60,000 to 90,000 per annum, and for the information of the hon. members of this House, that is the equivalent of all immigrants into Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa combined, say in the nineteen-twenties. I say that we need immigrants of the right type. We want them, as the hon. member for Fordsburg has said, not as distributors of the wealth that we possess, but as co-workers in the manufacture of wealth which we do not yet possess but which we can produce if we get down to the good earth and the great potential supplies which we have in this country. In a word, our suggestion is this, that instead of bringing skilled mechanics or professionals of any type, to make still harder the position, as it would do, of the soldiers, our defenders, when they return to their homes and their lathes and their machines—instead of that we should do an act of grace, we should offer and provide homes for the many thousands of children, of allied nations, who have become war-orphans. This is a thing that will be indeed worthy of this country of South Africa, and the very mention of which will heighten our credit amongst the distressed nations of the earth. It is said that no figures are known. The figures that are known to me run into hundreds of thousands of children. There are many desolate children in Great Britain whom nobody can identify, whom nobody knows. It might seem at first that it was almost unnatural to propose to bring orphans thousands of miles from their native country. There are so many of them so totally destitute that it would not be unnatural; it would be an act of great charity to do so. We venture to suggest that we can get 200,000 on demand, and we suggest that we should at least consider bringing these children to this sunny country of ours, this anti-tuberculosis country of ours, this empty country that wants the laughter of children and the growth and strength of youth; we ask that 200,000 of them be invited. The cost of their upkeep at £1 per week, would be £10,000,000 per annum, and I suggest that we could never have invested that sum to better purpose in all our history. The money would remain in the country. The £10,000,000 that we set aside for that purpose would be spent mainly on food and clothing. It would only be another and a better way of setting agriculture in South Africa on its feet. We on these benches never forget the claims of the land workers. We would like to see these children under the constant care of the Social Welfare Department, but we hope that they will go to the country where they can be adopted in private homes, and supported more wholesomely and cheaply than would be possible in the cities. There would be another advantage in this scheme. These children growing into manhood in the Union would not disturb the labour market in any way. There is bound to be what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister called a time lag between the end of the war and the effective starting of the peace. The machines must be readjusted to the works of peacetime industry. There must come a time of difficulty, and we do not want to increase that difficulty in any way. The children would not affect the labour issue in any adverse respect whatever. Secondly, they would be brought up as South Africans. They would not come here and look down their little noses, as some people have done within my experience, and start talking not only about how things are done overseas but how much better everything is done overseas. They would be of us, and they would belong to us. They would understand South Africa, not only the two languages, but the heart of the country that held them close when they so greatly needed it. In 10 years’ time at the rate of 200,000 a year, our population would be doubled, a very different thing from the figures which I suggested to you at the beginning of this speech. The 1.3 index means that our population will increase by 50 per cent. in 60 years. In this way we can double it in 10 years, and do such a gracious thing as has never been done by a nation in the history of all the nations. And there is just one other point. I have not yet mentioned the people, whose interests I have very much at heart, in relation to whom we Europeans stand as guardians or trustees. I notice that our native peoples fail to get all the consideration, not only that they should have for their own sakes but that they ought to have for our own sakes. They ought to be built up. There is a native problem in this country, and I believe that if we brought in those children—as we brought our European population nearer and nearer to the numbers of the Bantu—fear would die and consideration would be born, and we would at last be able to do what at heart we would like to do, and that is to develop the natives instead of keeping him down, to develop the native not only to a decent material standard of living but to develop all the capacities that he possesses. Can we do all this. Can we provide sustenance for all these children, and also build up our millions of natives? They tell us that 85 per cent. of our land is riot suitable for growing crops, which leaves only 15 per cent. of real value to our purpose. That 15 per cent. represents over 70,000 square miles. If we take the figure of Dr. Willcox, who not merely did but does maintain now that one square mile of fertile land can be made to yield all the annual protein requirements of 32,640 people, the 70,000 square miles of arable land which we have would be enough to support the population of the world. The maintenance of 50,000,000 would be relatively child’s-play. There would be work for them all until every native was properly housed and clothed and fed. And beyond the Limpopo River are 150 million native people, waiting to have their standard of life brought into line with civilisation. I believe that if we brought in these children our native question would be very largely be solved, and that in itself is enough, I think, to recommend it to all the members of this House.

I am glad that I allowed the various parties in the House the opportunity of expressing their views on what I regarded as one of the most important matters facing the country. All parties including the Opposition are prepared to have suitable people come to this country. The Government is mindful of the position, but the first and foremost attitude they take up is to make proper provision for our returned volunteers, for the people engaged in the war, and also for the people inside South Africa—they must be fully occupied before provision is made in the direction.…

That is not the amendment from your side.

The position so far as immigration is concerned is one which we are going to encourage. There is every intention at the moment—but everyone realises that until the war is over the matter cannot be settled—to encourage people who have sojourned in South Africa, for training in the R.A.F., and men of that description, to return to South Africa. South Africa has had a wonderful opportunity to advertise its advantage—South Africa is the country to which many of these people want to come, and we shall give them all the advantages which we can give them. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) I want to say that I don’t think that the hon. member was fair to the mover of this resolution, because the hon. member made it quite clear and plain that he was anxious to have as many Scandinavian people come here as he was for the people from Great Britain—the hon. member said that he was anxious to get people here who could assimilate with the people of this country. The Labour amendment is that we should make a home in South Africa for as many war orphans as we can. Everyone sympathises with the sentiment behind that, and any effort made in that direction will have my wholehearted support. We cannot do enough in that direction. South Africa, as hon. members have said on more than one occasion this afternoon, requires to increase the number of people of European extraction if we are going to hold our own here. There can be no two questions on that point, and I can give hon. members the assurance that every effort will be made to see that the right and proper class of person is admitted into South Africa. I have not got the time to deal with the various points raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West, but I can say this, that some of the points the hon. member has raised are already the policy of the Government. Some, of course, are quite contrary to the policy of the Government.

Won’t you tell us which?

Take numbers 4 and 5—

1. (4) To exercise a stricter control in regard to the issue of permits for temporary residence, and to allow the renewal of such permits only for good and sufficient reasons.
2. (5) To take the necessary steps to locate and to repatriate all persons who have entered the Union unlawfully, and also all aliens whose permits have expired and not been renewed.

Doubts have been expressed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) about these immigrants being able to find occupations in South Africa. From the position which I occupy—in another Portfolio—I have no doubt that the advance of South Africa in the next four or five years will be such that not only will we be able to provide for our returned soldiers, and those working in war industries, but we shall in our own interests have to augment the supply of labour in South Africa. I have only to refer to the building industry. Today we are lamentably short of artisans. The position is so bad in Johannesburg that we are restricting the issue of permits because there are not enough people to do half the work which Johannesburg requires to be done, and in other directions industry will advance and opportunities will be available for the right and proper type of man. I feel that this question is one which deserves the consideration of all sections, and I would appeal to hon. members of the Opposition to help in the direction of getting the suitable people we require in South Africa and not to take up an attitude of mere hostility towards immigration.

Is that how you read the amendment?

The hon. member for Beaufort West in his remarks, if I understood him correctly, said that he and his Party were not against the proper type of immigrant.

At the right time, not at this time.

Well, I can assure hon. members of the Opposition that we are not going in for a huge wholesale scheme of immigration tomorrow. This is a thing which has to take time.

That is the scheme before the House.

This is a thing which has to take time, but the sentiments and principles involved in the motion must have the support of all people who want South Africa to progress, and even members of the Opposition cannot take exception to a remark like that. This is our country, we know no other country, and I want to endorse what the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) said in that respect, namely South Africa first, and we shall do all we can to further the interests of South Africa. Just imagine what the position would be in South Africa if instead of having 2,000,000 whites, and 8,000,000 coloureds and natives, our European population were 5,000,000—we would not only be a happy contented country, but many of our difficulties would be behind us, and certainly the farming community would have the markets which they are clamouring for. My time is limited—I cannot go into some of the questions which I would have liked to have dealt with, but I do want to repeat that I am one of these super optimists who look upon the future of South Africa as very, very bright. We have had an advertisement such as has never come before to South Africa—we have had our diamond mines and our gold mines but this war has brought to South Africa a prosperity which far outweighs either of those others—it has put South Africa on the map. We must prepare for the future and prepare to get the right and proper people who are anxious to come here, and make this country their home. The hon. member for Beaufort West dealt with another question. I am sorry he introduced it when we are dealing with a matter which should be dealt with objectively. He dealt with the question of Jewish immigration into South Africa. We shall have an opportunity of going into that and of dealing with it on another occasion.

What occasion—when?

When we deal with the Vote of the Minister of the Interior. Hon. members are bound to raise it then.

Why not here? This is the right place—this is a special motion on immigration.

One cannot go into it in a minute. I am sorry the hon. member should have introduced that particular aspect on a debate when we are dealing with the question of immigration.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday I was showing the House how impossible it was to give effect to the amendment of 1934 under which an owner of land which had been expropriated for settlement purposes had the right to take a hundred morgen of land just where he wanted, and to use it as he wanted. I should like to explain to the House that at that time, when I took over the Department of Irrigation and the Department of Lands—that was in 1939—two irrigation schemes were nearly completed. That was the Loskop Irrigation Scheme and the Lindleyspoort Irrigation Scheme. Loskop is a big settlement on the Olifants River, near Middelburg, Transvaal. Unfortunately when the dam was built no provision was made for the land which would be required for the irrigation scheme. When I took over, the dam was completed, and we had to buy land for settlement purposes. Loskop is a big settlement and I immediately came up against the same obstacle which I had experienced in connection with the 100 morgen on the Vaal-Hartz. I did not want a repetition of that at Loskop. If I could buy the land voluntarily from the people then all would be well, but if I had to expropriate the land then it would mean that as on the Vaal-Hartz I would have to give 100 morgen to the owner, wherever he wanted it, and without any restriction in regard to sub-division, in regard to sale or all the rest of it. I could not possibly carry on on that basis and I did not want a repetition of the Vaal-Hartz affair, so we proceeded to buy the land and fortunately we succeeded in purchasing what we needed, except in the case of one or two owners. But instead of giving the owner a 100 morgen without any restrictions we gave the owner about thirty morgen. That is more or less the size of an allotment, and that land was given to the owner subject to all the conditions which ordinary settlers are subject to. The sellers voluntarily agreed to those conditions and we fortunately succeeded in purchasing the land with the exception of a few cases which I have mentioned. That land is still lying there. Those people do not want to sell and I have been obliged to hold over the matter until such time as this Bill before the House is passed. If this Bill is passed, and the Governor General gives his consent to expropriation, 30 morgen can be given to the owner subject to all the regulations of the settlements. The position therefore in regard to Loskop is that we have been fortunate enough to succeed in the purchase of those lands. If we had not succeeded in buying the land we should have had to fall back on expropriation and the danger would have been that we might have got the same unsatisfactory conditions as we have had on the Vaal-Hartz. Having that in view the amendments in this Bill are proposed so that we shall not again be faced with that same difficulty. Now I come to Lindleyspoort which is a very fine dam on the Elands River. It is a beautiful dam, although it’s not very big. It can only irrigate 1,500 morgen. We had to buy the land from the owner and if we had expropriated it an impossible condition of affairs would have been created. As I have said, there are 1,500 morgen there which are irrigable, and those 1,500 morgen belonged to no fewer than 49 owners. Of those 49 owners fourteen have from less than 1 morgen up to 5 morgen; one man has 5 to 10 morgen; five have from 10 to 20 morgen; 19 have from 20 to 50 morgen; seven from 50 to 100 morgen, and three have more than 100 morgen. We therefore had 49 people there from whom we had to buy 1,500 morgen. And if we had to expropriate the land under the amendment of 1934 there would not have been enough land to divide among them. I mention this to show hon. members how absolutely impossible it is to provide for the 100 morgen. I also want to point out that whenever the Government expropriates land for irrigation purposes, or for settlement purposes, the price paid is more than twice or three times the ordinary market value of the land. That has been our experience, and that being the case, and in view of the fact that the owner is entitled to 100 morgen under expropriation, hon. members will realise that the situation would be quite impossible. At Lindleyspoort it was impossible to carry on. The dam was completed nearly two years ago and we have been waiting for this amending Bill now before the House before going any further, so as to make it unnecessary to carry out the provisions in regard to 100 morgen. In the meanwhile we have told these people that we would give them the water for their use, but that we reserve the right at any time to take the water away, and as a matter of fact we shall do so the moment they start speculating in land. These people have started speculating. One owner has sold his farm at a high price. Fortunately we got to know about it, and we immediately notified the purchaser that we were going to cut off the water; we did so because we did not want people to have the impression that they had to pay high prices for the land because there was water there. The water does not belong to the ground, it belongs to the State. In that way we have stopped speculation. But I mention this case to show hon. members how necessary it is to make provision and to insert these amended provisions in the Act as soon as possible. In Clause 4 of the Bill the discretion is left to the Governor General to return to the owner part of his land after it has been expropriated. If the land is expropriated for settlement purposes then a piece of the land can be returned to the owner—say 30 morgen, as happened at Loskop—but that land will be subject to the regulations applying to the settlement. The owner will have to submit to the settlement and the regulations connected with it. This Bill does not apply to owners who have already been permitted to keep back certain land for themselves under irrigation schemes. It is only intended to apply to settlements which will be established in future. It is with a view to the future that this provision is inserted, it is not retrospective. In a case like the Vaal-Hartz, where people got their 100 morgen, we do not touch those rights. In passing I may say that at Vaal-Hartz, where the conditions which I have described have prevailed, and where speculation has taken place, the State has already bought in a good deal of that land at economic prices. It has, however, cost a lot of money and there is still a good deal of ground outside. I was asked yesterday under which Law we were acting to prevent bywoners staying on allotments. First of all I want to say that the necessary provision is made in some leases. I might quote paragraph C (3) from such a lease in reference to that particular point. It is laid down there that the tenant cannot, without the previous written consent from the Minister, keep or retain a male person of the age of 21 years or more on the allotment, but nothing in that connection prevents the tenant keeping, with the consent of the authorities, a coloured or native labourer required for the work of the allotment, or as a domestic servant. That is the provision made in the lease. There is a similar provision in the Karos-Buchuberg contracts, and in other leases the tenant undertakes to comply with the provisions of the Crown Lands Settlement Act. Clause 19 (b) of that Act provides that an allotment may be given to a person, but that it cannot be given unless he—

Hon. members will see that Nederlands is still used as the second language for that Act—it shows how old that Act is. The law is that if a man applies for an allotment he has to fill in an application form and in that application form he declares that he will keep his wife, his daughters and his minor sons on the allotment, and he undertakes to work the allotment for himself and his family only. When the sons come of age the position becomes different. I don’t think I need give any further explanation to show the need and the importance of the provisions of this Bill, nor need I explain to the House how necessary it is for this Bill to be passed as soon as possible. I have already pointed out how the work on settlements such as Loskop and Lindley’s Poort is being delayed. The dam at Lindley’s Poort was completed as long as 18 months ago and we cannot establish a settlement there owing to the fact that the existing provisions of the law cannot be given effect to in that particular case. Before I sit down I just want to say that I have tried to explain what the present position is in regard to excessive occupation, sub-division of lands, the selling of lands, mortgaging of land and so on, and I have pointed out that we cannot allow those conditions to continue on settlements established by the State. Those settlements cost the State millions of pounds, and if we allow the present position to continue, then there is the possibility of such a settlement in one generation getting into the hands of rich private individuals, or of companies who will then be the heirs of all the money invested by the State in such a scheme, a scheme which it has perhaps written off. It is an impossible condition of affairs. I want to emphasise that as long as I have the honour of being at the head of this Department, I shall never ask Parliament to invest millions of pounds in such undertakings. Knowing that to be the position, we cannot expect the taxpayer to consent to his money being spent in that manner, and that is why I want the law to be amended.

I listened very attentively to the statement which was made by the Minister, and he convinced me that if ever there was a Bill that should not be accepted it is this Bill, because it has only one object, namely, the enslavement of Europeans who have been placed on settlements. That is the whole object of the Bill. One of the points which the Minister made yesterday and which he again made today was that he would not have the audacity to come to Parliament, and to ask that millions be spent on settlements, if this Bill does not go through and if he does not get the control he wants. When one listens to the Minister’s arguments, one comes to the conclusion that the settlements were established as an act of mercy on the part of the Government, and that his money was spent on the settlements, instead of Government money, and that the settlers never repaid a penny. What are the facts? They buy Government land under Sections 10 and 11. The people are assisted under Section 11 if they have paid a certain amount but under Section 10 land is bought for them. The land is not given and distributed to them as a present. No, these small holdings are valued and the people are expected to repay the money. I was Minister of Lands for quite a few years, and in my time certain amounts were also written off. But certain amounts were written off only because the small holdings had been sold at too high a price. The settlers are people who try to pay their debts. Now the Minister wants them, however, even after they have paid off their debts, to be tied to his apron strings for the rest of their lives, and the land will never become the property of those people. It seems to me that we are going back to the days of Egyptian slavery, when all the land was the property of the state. I am not in favour of that. The Minister mentioned a few cases on which I should like to comment before I come to the Bill itself. The Minister told us that he had certain people on the Vaal-Hartz scheme, and that they decided that no child of theirs would ever settle on the settlements but that their children must find a haven elsewhere.

I gave them that advice and they accepted it.

The Minister says that he gave them this advice. Let us assume that this advice is accepted by the whole population; in that case we would not have a single farmer left on the land one of these days, and everyone would be on the gold fields and in the mines or industries. I think that the Minister gave them the wrong advice. After all, these children grow up on the land; they are attached to the land, and it is perhaps this very piece of land on which they would like to settle in the future. But the Minister did not leave it at that. He mentioned other cases and tried to hurt the feelings of the settlers. He says, for instance, that he visited a settlement in Natal and that the people asked him not to give land to outsiders. Did he interpret them correctly? Was it not the intention of these people that he should not give the land to people who were not acquainted with the climatic conditions, who would be a failure there, and who would not feel at home? Was not that the intention of these people when they made this request to him? I gained a good deal of experience in connection with settlers, and I am sorry that the Minister is trying to convince the House in this manner that the settlers are of a poor type. The Minister went on to say that there was a tendency on the part of the settlers to think that the State must take care of them from generation to generation. As far as I know the circumstances, there are many children of settlers who saw that their fathers’ places were too small and who looked for employment elsewhere—on the mines, in the civil service, in the industries. They did not remain on the small holdings. The Minister went on to say that there was a man in Zululand who had 400 head of cattle. Before that he was at Brits and could not obtain land there; he was then sent to Natal where the late Minister Grobler let a piece of land to him. This man built up his farming business until he had 400 head of cattle. The Minister then came along and said: “You must now get away; I want to give the land to someone else.” Is that reasonable? Has this man not every ground to be dissatisfied? And that is the example which the Minister mentions in order to prove that the people are wrong and that this is a necessary measure. Naturally, this man got to love the place. He built it up until he owned 400 head of cattle. Was it not the duty of the Minister to leave this man on the land? Then the Minister talks about settlers who sell their land. He mentioned the cases of settlers who had sold their land and made a profit on it. He mentioned the case of one man who, I believe, bought his land for £150, and who disposed of it for £1,500. Every member of this House, every businessman, every farmer, every industrialist, every plot holder, is entitled to sell his property if he can make a reasonable profit. He has the right to sell his property if he thinks that it is in his interests. But in the opinion of the Minister it is wrong for a man, because he was a settler, who bought land under the valuation of the Land Board, to have the right to sell his property when the price of that land increases, and when the land has been developed by him—the Minister does not mention that at all. This man must remain a slave and he can never sell his land. There is nothing to prevent a man from selling his farm or his house. But the Minister says that settlers, people who got their land from the State, have no right to sell their property. The Minister went on to say: Today you have these difficulties at Vaal-Hartz, difficulties which arise under the Act of 1904, difficulties in regard to the grant of 100 morgen. I am aware of the difficulties which arose there; but they can be removed. If the Minister is of opinion that they took the land in the wrong place, why does he not instruct the Land Board to go into the matter and to lay down which ground shall be given out. I understand that there are difficulties, but they can easily be surmounted, without depriving these people of property, which they may have inherited from their forefathers. There is such a thing as love for a piece of land. The Minister spoke of Loskop, and he said that when the Department of Lands took over there were certain difficulties. I have correspondence to the effect that these people were practically forced to sell. I have letters to the effect that these people were told: “If you do not sell, we shall pass a law and take the land from you for much less than we are prepared to give you now.” The Minister spoke of the position at Lindley’s Poort dam. Originally that was not intended for settlement, but as far as I remember it was the intention to help the people who are resident there, and it was the late Minister Grobler who was instrumental in having the dam built, so that these people could make a proper living there. I think there the Minister was wrong. He brought out certain things and said: “Last year I promised that I would introduce legislation, and as promised, I shall introduce consolidating legislation.” “But,” says the Minister, “when I took over the Department of Lands I came across alarming conditions. There was one small holding which was granted to a family, and I found that there were three families with thirteen children on it.” That is the alarming position of which the Minister spoke. Now I want to ask him whether he does not know of the alarming conditions which one often finds on farms and in towns where three families are thrown together under really alarming conditions. I want to ask him whether he does not know of the alarming conditions in District 6 and other parts of Cape Town. No attention is paid to that. What is the housing position in Johannesburg? The position is really alarming, but nothing is done in that connection. I think we now have the fourteenth amendment to the original Act. The original Act was drawn up in 1912, and since that time we have had fourteen amendments to the Act; and this Bill with which we are now dealing contains the most drastic amendment which has ever been proposed. This amending Bill is a humiliation for the settlers. And not only that; there is such a thing as love for one’s own possessions. One loves one’s father and one’s mother, one’s children, one’s own family and one’s own farm and house. That love must now be destroyed, and it is now laid down that the original occupier may stay on the plot but no one else. Because this man borrowed money from the State, he must remain there for the rest of his life. What about the man who borrows money from the State to build a house? If he compelled to live in it for ever, for the rest of his life? If the man who obtains the land is never able to call it his own, one cannot expect him to acquire a love for that place; that he will get to love his own little house and garden and water furrow. The Minister is now destroying that. The result will be that the man will say that in view of the fact that it cannot become his own, he must try to get out of it as much as he can, and if the Minister then comes along and tells him to go, he will not be affected to the same extent The Minister is killing the love which one has for what is one’s own. The Minister is engaged in killing that love completely. Will there still be people in future who will want to settle on the land if they know that it cannot become their own? In the towns many houses are built which eventually become the property of the buyers. They are built through the medium of all sorts of money-lending companies. These companies advance money, and the house eventually becomes the property of the man who borrows the money. These money-lending companies know that the people will look after the houses, that they will develop a love for the house, because it will eventually become their own. But the Minister now proposes to kill that love, and in future he refuses to allow the man to become the owner of the property. But the Minister has condemned himself. He himself said that in terms of the contracts, the Government has the right to refuse to give transfer. Why does the Minister not make use of the legislation. No, he wants this Bill to create a position of power for the Department of Lands, so that the Department will, for all time, be able to dictate to the settlers. We know how that can give rise to abuse in the political sphere. We know what it means when there is always a sword hanging over one’s head, and when election agents go about telling the people to beware. I say that the Minister must not act in this way, that, he must not make slaves of our people. I just want to deal briefly with the Bill itself. The Minister referred to certain principles embodied in this Bill, and he particularly stressed three principles. The first is that, no European may reside on the small holdings after reaching the age of 21 years. The second is that he assumes the right of expropriation, and the third is the question of unbeneficial occupation. As far as unbeneficial occupation is concerned, the Minister tried to put the responsibility on me. I shall reply to that in a moment. But first of all I want to deal with his first argument. He says that no European over the age of 21 years may reside on the small holdings. I have already touched on this matter. Let me say very clearly that the Minister proposes to grant land to returned soldiers. It is generally said that the returned soldiers must have certain privileges. I do not want to oppose that. But how many of the returned soldiers will be wounded and sickly? As the position now stands they will not even be able to get a European over the age of 21 to assist them in working and cultivating the small holdings. Moreover, people who are in sound health may become sickly. They are not allowed to get a European to assist them if the person in question is over the age of 21. The hon. Minister is laughing, but that is the truth.

He can allow them to do so.

Yes, those who vote for him, as I shall show later. It is crystal clear. This Bill is intended to create a position of power for the Minister to keep the settlers in firm check, and to do as he pleases. I am sorry to say, therefore, that as far as this section is concerned, we cannot agree to it. We are as much opposed to overcrowding the small holdings as the Minister is, but the Minister possesses the power to prevent it. Why does he not invoke the existing measures? Let us take this case. An elderly father lives on the plot. He is old and sickly. But his son aged 21 must leave the plot and is not allowed to assist him. The Minister replies that he can give permission for the son to remain there. The knowledge which we on this side have gained, however, does not allow us to agree to the Minister having that power.

Did you pilot the Act of 1937 through Parliament?

Yes. The Minister is referring to the Act of 1937 in connection with overcrowding.

I am not referring to the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, but to the amendment of the Settlement Act of 1937.

There you have all the powers which you need. Now the Minister comes along and says that there are gaps in the Act. There are no gaps. The Minister wants certain powers; that is all there is to it. Now we come to unbeneficial occupation, and the Minister is trying to put the blame on me. Let me say at once that there were cases of unbeneficial occupation where I had to intervene. One can however, count those cases on one’s ten fingers. One hundred and thirty years ago the Voortrekkers went to the North, and since that time there has been so little overcrowding that one can count the cases on one’s fingers. And what it the reason? Love for the land, for the farm which the man occupies. The father simply used to say: “I am not going to push my child aside when he does not know where to go.” And the will of the parents was usually framed in such a way that if there were 1,000 morgen the farm would be divided equally amongst, say, ten children.

You passed the law to expropriate.

Yes, because these people could not make a living. If these old people had known what the position would be, they would have drawn up their wills differently, but they did not know. And this had to be rectified. The Minister now has the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, and during these 130 years there were only a few cases where the State had to take over. There is one case which the Minister mentioned, where it is not a question of the will. If the Minister goes back he will find that the first will was framed in such a way that the children had to keep the farm amongst themselves. Let me say at once that I agree with the Minister that one cannot put too many people on a farm, that it does not pay them, but one can go about things in a different way. If the Minister had more extension officers on the settlement in order to advise the people how to conduct their farming, we would make much better progress than we do under this Bill. This is going to lead to hatred and jealousy, and quarrelling and dissension, and the people will feel that an injustice is being done to them, because they can never become the owners of the land. I hope that the Minister will in time to come realise that. The second point which the Minister raised was in connection with the powers which he is taking unto himself in connection with the sub-division of land. At the moment land cannot be sub-divided without the permission of the Minister, but the Minister is now taking the right to say under the deed of sale that the land which is granted may not be sub-divided. Why the Minister should now come along and take powers which he already has, is beyond my comprehension, unless he has a special purpose in doing so. I want to say again that I adhere to the opinion that if a farm is cut up into too many small holdings, it is unbeneficial, but the Minister has the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, the terms of which he can apply. In the second place, he has the right when land is granted, to say that it shall not be sold or let. He has that power. The Minister now wants legislative powers which are very drastic. In the third place, the Minister referred to the 100 morgen which are granted. If I interpret the Act correctly, it is not only 100 morgen. This is merely an excuse on the part of the Minister to say that where people still have farms, which at the moment do not fall under an irrigation scheme, but where the furrows overflow, the Minister can expropiate. If a man has a farm of 2,000 or 3,000 morgen it is not clear whether the Minister can expropriate only that portion under irrigation, and allow the man to retain the rest. I hope he will explain that. Now I come to points which the Minister did not touch on. He says that there are three important principles, but, as I see it, what is very much more important, is Section 3 of this Bill, which gives the Minister the right to proclaim certain territories in which no land, which is owned in terms of a Crown grant or deed of transfer issued under a settlement Act, may be expropriated. It seems to me that the Minister has taken a leaf from the book of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance imposes a tax, and then he says that it will be law as from a certain date. Here the Minister of Lands comes along and does the unheard of and unjust thing of introducing legislation with retrospective effect. The man has got his farm, and the Minister’s signature is there to show that he bought the farm, but now it is laid down that the third or fourth or sixth owner cannot sell the land. The law is applied with retrospective effect, and it is laid down that a farm which in 1912 was a settlement farm, may not be sold, except with the permission of the Minister. The man must stay on it for the rest of his life; he may not sell it. I think it is most unfair to pass such legislation with retrospective effect. Once we start with settlements, it will not be very long before the Government will come along and say that no farmer may sell his farm. There is already a tendency in that direction. There is already a tendency to forbid a farmer who has a Land Bank loan to do this, that or the other. Apart from that, there is the position of the natives. The natives are more privileged than the Europeans. This Bill excludes the native territories. What happens in the case of a place which borders on a native territory? One might build a beautiful irrigation scheme along a native territory to supply water to the native territory, and bring 200 or 300 morgen under irrigation. There is a place below the Pongola scheme with approximately 100,000 morgen under irrigation. It will not be possible to bring this scheme under this Act. The natives are protected, and they cannot be deprived of their land, but the Europeans can be so deprived. I am not in favour of the Minister having powers to make inroads on native legislation, but in such special cases where a furrow has to be led over native territory, one creates a position of favouritism as far as the natives are concerned, which is altogether unjustified. I know that the Minister is very strongly in favour of irrigation schemes. Of course, it gets no further than surveys. In any case I hope that he is going to make a start with some of these schemes. He has been Minister of Lands and Irrigation for five years, and I do not know of a single scheme which he has built. He had a great deal to say about Loskop, Lindley’s Poort and Vaal-Hartz. But those schemes had already been completed when he took office. He must not tell us that he built them. If in five years’ time he has not built a single scheme, what can we expect of him, even if he remains Minister of Lands for 100 years? No, I am afraid that as far as this Government is concerned, these schemes will remain schemes on paper. It gets no further than speeches. There is something else in connection with this Bill which I forgot to say. The Minister refuses to allow the settlers to keep their major sons on the small holdings, so that they can assist their parents in cultivating the small holdings or farms, unless they specially obtain the permission of the Minister. But let us see what happens in the case of the natives. The State spent millions of pounds in buying land for them. The native is allowed to remain in his pondokkie with all his children; he can live a grand life, and let the small native boys and girls cultivate the land. But the Minister tells the European that even though his children want to work on the farm, they cannot be allowed to do so. They must get off the farm. The natives do not pay for the land which is given to them. That is the difference between the manner in which the settlers are treated, and the manner in which the natives are treated. I think that the Minister is preaching an altogether wrong idea, namely, that the settlers receive everything from the State, and that they live at the expense of the State. He spoke here of millions of pounds which are paid to establish settlements, while those people live at the expense of the State. That is not the case. If he had said that that was the case as far as the natives were concerned, I would have agreed with him. They are living at State expense. We bought the land for them; we must pay for their education. I recently visited one of these territories. I saw how the natives lived; and I found that some of them sold cattle for anything up to £150 at one sale. They live in their kraals and they have the necessary assistance, while the European in South Africa is deprived of that assistance. No, I say that this Bill is too drastic and too far-reaching; it is so far-reaching that the Minister cannot expect this side of the House to approve of it. The Minister will probably pilot this Bill through the House with the support behind him, but when we come to the Committee stage, we shall do our best so to amend the Bill that it assumes a different complexion. That, however, will come at a later stage. We feel so strongly in regard to this Bill, that I want to move the following amendment—

I think that we, as the responsible representatives of those people, should not place them in the position which obtained in the days of slavery in Egypt. We dare not allow legislation of this nature to go through the House. We as the people who represent the platteland—we on this side represent the platteland particularly, and we have many of these settlements in our constituencies—cannot allow this drastic measure to go through the House. We cannot allow all these people to be treated alike, simply because there are a few weaklings on the settlements. We must remember that some of our best people are today on the settlements. Their positions have become worse, through no fault of their own, but because their places were burnt down, trodden out and destroyed. They did not have the necessary assistance, and they were impoverished. The Minister must not put such drastic legislation through the House and treat all these people alike. I hope that the Minister will withdraw this Bill. He will, of course, say that he is not going to do it. He will go on with the support which he has behind him. I am not, however, going to beg him. It is not my practice to beg people. It is my practice to say what I think, and if the Minister is not prepared to deal with these cases on their merits, we are not going to beg him. We are pleading here for right and justice for our own flesh and blood. We are not asking for favours. If we had asked for favours, it would have been a different matter, but every penny which these people get is repaid to the State. I admit that in some cases certain amounts were written off. We know that there was an investigation in 1932, and that certain sums were written off. But which section of the community has not had debts written off? Even the debts of town councils have been written off. Debts were generally written off. Why, because in the case of certain settlers, debts were written off, must it be said that those people live at the expense of the State, and why pass such a drastic measure such as this to place them under complete State control? I want to say definitely that we are not going to support this Bill, and that we are going to do everything in our power to prevent a humiliating measure of this nature, which is of retrospective effect, from being passed by the Minister and applied to the settlers. It is simply left to the Minister to proclaim a territory, and then this Bill will apply retrospectively to that territory, and no sale may take place there. No, we cannot accept it. In my constituency we have not only got rich people. There are many poor people. I went through my constituency recently, and I think that for the greater part the settlers have repaid nearly all their debts to the State. Those settlers who obtained land under Section 11, are paying off their debts. I know of one case where land was given to a man ten years ago. He paid off his debt, and he is now asking for transfer. I wrote to the Minister in that connection. There are numerous cases of this nature and then the Minister comes along and talks of favours to poor whites. Since 1912, when this Act was called into being, up to the year 1944, the Minister mentioned only one case where there were too many people on the small holding. The Minister also spoke of Brits. Some of our best people live at Brits, and they pay for their small holdings. Certain debts had to be written off, because the land was bought at a high price, or because some of the people were not acquainted with the climatic conditions. Some of them did not make the success of these small holdings which we expected them to make. But that still does, not give the Minister the right to treat all these settlers alike. There are places which have to be cleared up, but this Bill is too drastic and too far-reaching. The Minister has the majority behind him, but I hope he will still withdraw this Bill. At this stage I merely wanted to confine myself to these few points, and I move the amendment.

I should like to second the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) because I am convinced that the hon. the Minister of Lands has not acted in the way he has said he would in the past. Hon. members will remember that two years ago I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that our land settlement laws were very antiquated, that new circumstances had arisen, and that new economic problems had presented themselves. I pointed out to him that there is an increased demand for land for settlement purposes, that that land must be bought to appease the land hunger of the people, and that more systematic schemes must be evolved in connection with land settlement. I pointed out that we should not buy land just to hand over to settlers, but that we must undertake the task of training these settlers, so that they may may be successful. I indicated that we should make use of schools such as the Oakdale School at Riversdale, and of the school at Clanwilliam, where a class of lads is being trained to become our settlers of the future. A start was made in that connection under the direction of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad when he was Minister of Lands, namely, at Olievenhoutdrift in my constituency. But that was just the beginning, and we should really make provision for the sons of settlers who cannot remain on the lands under present conditions, but are obliged to go elsewhere to find a haven. The Minister then said that the State provided adequate facilities for education in other directions which those children could make use of, and accordingly, in the case of the children of settlers it was not the responsibility of the State to worry about providing land for those children, because there were other occupations open to them. This is a very short-sighted policy of the Minister of Lands. If we have people who have been brought up on the land, who have grown to love the land, and if we have cases where an aged parent requires his son to help him on the farm in order to develop it, then it would be a short-sighted policy indeed to prevent that child from remaining on the land. I know that the Minister of Lands, especially of late, has been active in preparing settlements for future settlers, and that he has built houses and prepared the lands very well; we also hear of schemes which will be launched to provide the settlers with draught animals and with everything that is necessary for the development of their, plots. But this Bill does not only apply to those people who can obtain prepared plots. It also applies to people such as there are in my constituency who have only got ditches and scrub and to those cases where a man has obtained a piece of land, and with the assistance of a small subsidy from the State, has gone gradually to work to develop the holding. These people have developed an affection for their holdings, and now we find that they are placed on the same footing as the man who is going to sit at a good table in future. I am surprised, therefore, that the Minister of Lands has now come with an amending Bill like this. He is a man who sees visions, who travels round the country and talks about the tremendously large schemes which are mooted. When the Minister of Lands is in the country, and he describes these grand and wonderful schemes, the people begin to imagine that heaven has come down on earth. I should have thought that the Minister of Lands would have come along with a consolidating Bill which would have dealt with every aspect of settlement, and not with an amending Bill which will, indeed, be the fourteenth amending Bill in connection with land settlement. Last year the Minister of Lands has a similar Bill on the Table of the House, but it did not come before the House. Then I still cherished the hope that the Minister would produce a consolidating Bill taking all these points into consideration, and reveal to us what a great brain he has. The Minister ought now to look after three sorts of people. He should look after the man who has come to the end of his tether as the result of adverse conditions, such as droughts, etc., and try to get him back on the land. He must look after the young man who is a capable agriculturist, but who is not in a position to buy land; and then he should tell us what he is going to do in connection with the returned soldiers, whom he is also going to place on the land. We know that at the moment no further land is being granted. It will only be granted after the war, and then it will be for the returned soldiers. The returned soldiers must be satisfied with the provisions of this Bill, and I can only tell the Minister this, if he expects that of these men, he will actually get no returned soldiers on to the land. I hope that I shall have the time to read some extracts from the legislation that has been introduced in other countries in connection with the placement of returned soldiers on the land. Is this Land Settlement Bill not part of the Minister’s future rehabilitation scheme; and if so, why does he not come here with something definite, and not with this piece of patchwork. We must bear in mind that legislation is now being introduced to deprive people of vested rights that they have obtained and enjoyed in the past. In that respect, this Bill is in certain aspects of a retrogressive nature. It is far-reaching. The Minister of Lands would not accept this sort of thing if he bought a farm. If he bought a farm with vested rights, whether he obtained it from the State or from anyone else, and if legislation was later introduced to deprive him of those rights, would he be contented with that? No, not at all. He would go to court, or he would start a tremendous agitation. Why then should we commit this injustice on that small section of the people who have no land, and who have to be rehabilitated? Why must it happen to them that they should be deprived of their vested rights? It has always been the prerogative of this House when legislation has been introduced in connection with specified vested rights, to emphasise that the existing vested rights must protected. Now I come to the Clauses of the Bill itself. I begin with Clause 2. I have told the Minister in the past that he is acting in an unlawful manner in turning these lads away from the holdings, because his action has been based on a regulation, and if one of those persons whose sons he has cleared out went to court, then the Minister would lose his case. The Minister has acted under regulations, and now he comes here with legislation. But in the old law there is a definition of beneficial occupation, and if the Minister finds that there is someone who has not usefully occupied his holding he can always act in accordance with that definition and say that a stop has to be put to this. But now the Minister comes and he lays down in the law that it is definitely forbidden that any European juvenile person may remain on the holding, and the Minister has given us reasons for this. I can only say that it is very far-reaching. I know myself that in my own constituency there are people who have usefully occupied their holdings, but they have become old and they no longer have the energy to enable them to work their holdings as they had in the past. Now they happen to have sons on their holdings; the son helps the father, and he reckons on being the successor to his father in the future. He works there; his father devotes little attention to the farming, and should the father one day pass away the son steps into his shoes. Now the lad is no longer allowed to remain there, and the result will be that such holdings will deteriorate and depreciate, for the father will no longer be able to devote his full attention to it, because his strength is failing him; nor is he allowed to keep his own flesh and blood on the holding to help him out. This provision is a two-edged sword. There will be only very few parents with a whole bunch of adult sons on their holdings, for the holdings are small. But there are big farms in the Kalahari where one or two of the sons could farm with advantage when their parents become old. But it always remains within the province of the Minister to decide if such a person is beneficially occupying the holding, and if he is not occupying it beneficially, then the Minister can intervene. I think that this provision is absolutely superfluous. It is a provision which injures people. They have already been helped by the State, and now that they are old and no longer in full possession of their powers to enable them to attend to the development of their holdings, they are prevented from having their children there. The Minister will say now that they can come to him, hat in hand, and ask may they please be allowed to keep their son on the farm. What sort of personal influences cannot be exercised if such an application is made? It is possible that a man may have an unfriendly neighbour; this neighbour will know that such an application has been submitted to the Minister, and people of that sort will then carry tales to the Minister. I am not in favour of this discretionary power remaining here. The Minister has enough rights under the law to enable him to act if a man is not beneficially occupying the holding, and if there is overcrowding on a holding then he can intervene under that section. Why must a greater obligation now be laid on these people. In Section 2 (1) (ii), beneficial occupation is defined in the following terms—

What worries me is that word “brackishness.” Every farmer who takes his work on a holding seriously will endeavour to see that his land does not become brak; and if he is negligent then the superintendent is there to give him advice. But there are portions of the land, and they are to be found also in my constituency, where brak is occasioned by the lie of the land, and on account of the way in which the settlement has been laid out. Is not the Department at work here shunting its responsibilities on to the owners of the holdings? It appears to me that it is a point to which the Minister should direct his attention; or is he endeavouring here to evade some of his responsibilities? I know of a scheme in my constituency where there is great danger of brak, and it is a result of the furrows having not been properly treated with cement. Now it is laid down here that it is the duty of the occupier of the holding to see that the ground does not become brak. We should aim at clarity in connection with this matter. Then we come to the second principle in this connection. This is the provision that the people can never become owners of their ground. Everything that they do in connection with the alienating of land, if they want to take up a bond or if they want to lease the land for a long time, must always be referred to the Minister with a request for permission to do these things. In the past the position was, as the Minister of Lands has explained to the House, that they paid for and sold the holding, then subsequent owners could sell the holding without consent. But this provision is very radical. Title to that ground can never be changed during the lifetime of the occupier if the Minister of Lands does not give his consent. And now I come to an important point, and that is that the Minister of Lands is terribly anxious about the returned soldiers. Are the returned soldiers going to be satisfied with this provision? They are people who, as he has said, have fought for the freedom of their country, for the right to have their own bit of ground, and now that they have fought they will come on to land which will never be their own, and when one day they want to sell it they will have to obtain permission from the Minister of Lands. History has taught us—I have previously told the Minister of Agriculture this—that most of the schemes for returned soldiers have proved unfortunate. To prevent this we find that in countries such as Canada and New Zealand they are giving their attention to this matter. I have here the May, 1943, issue of “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.” The title of this special article is “Our Servicemen and Economic Security.” In connection with the attitude of Canada and New Zealand it is stated—

Now I should like to put this question to the Minister. Can he tell these men who return there: “I have placed a land settlement Act on the Statute Book for you, in which I show appreciation of your services in the past, and I am so frightened that you are not going to make a success on the land, that I am now going to create better conditions for you so that you can be your own baas, instead of every time that you want to sell having to go to the Minister with cap in hand.” If the Minister expects that they will come to him every time cap in hand, I can assure him that this will be very unacceptable to the returned soldiers, as it will be equally unacceptable to those men who have not gone to fight. Provision is made here for certain exemptions. I refer to Clause 9 (3) (c), under which the Minister, on the recommendation of the council, can exempt any company, corporate body, association, partnership or person from the provisions of this law. I will say at once that I do not hold with that. Why cannot the Minister simply exempt certain lands? I do not like this discretion that is given in certain cases where personal influence can be exercised. The sub-paragraph reads—

I wish to lodge my objection to that, especially when I see to whom these exemptions may be granted. Why should exemptions be granted in connection with the bodies that are mentioned? If it is desired that the companies or associations should have no rights then such a provision should not be inserted in the law, because it is a back door through which the enemy may appear, and render abortive the Minister’s scheme. Then I will just say this, that it seems to me very strange that the hon. Minister should introduce such legislation when I know what his attitude is in connection with other places that fall under other organisations; but I know that I may not discuss that now. The attitude of the Minister in connection with this Bill is exactly the attitude that is adopted by other organisations that have settlements under their jurisdiction. Why is there all this difference between us?

You know that is a misrepresentation of the position,

It is no misrepresentation. When you analyse the logical consequences of the owners’ rights, then it is exactly the same.

It is absolutely a misrepresentation.

It is not a misrepresentation. I do not think it is a misrepresentation. I join issue with the Minister there. Here is a right of alienation in regard to which no cession can be made without the approval of the Minister. In the other case there is a right to possession which cannot be ceded without the approval of the other body. What is the difference? The Minister may say: “Well, in the first case the people are selling their holdings for £1,200 to £1,500.” In the other case the settlers are also selling their holdings for £1,200 and more. What then is the difference? In the one case the Minister holds one opinion, and in the other case another. It strikes me as very strange. This clause to employ a legal phrase, is: “Vague, embarrassing and bad in law.” I cannot see why the hon. the Minister has introduced such a provision in such a manner, because in the first instance it falls under the ordinary irrigation rights. Now the Minister comes and he introduces the provisions of the Irrigation Act of 1912 in connection with the obtaining of a servitude for the leading of water with the object of expropriating settlers’ ground. If there is a difference of opinion regarding the value of the holding, for instance, should application be made to the Water Court; and what has the Water Court to do with the matter? Moreover, is it not possible to let such expropriation take place so that the owner surrenders little of his previous rights. It is true he obtains 100 morgen of land, but now the Minister lays down where he must get it. Cannot the Minister by inserting one or two clauses in the Bill, so change the position that the bad conditions that now prevail cannot occur on this land? It is very simple. If one reads this Bill, it takes one a long time to understand what it means, and even after the Minister has explained it to us, it is not yet clear to me whether his explanation is correct; and it may well be that as a result of this Bill, many cases will be brought to court, which naturally will be good for the advocates, but we must remember that our Chief Justice said not so very long ago in an appeal case, that our laws are drawn up in too complicated a manner. That is proof that if the hon. the Minister had come with a consolidating Bill we would not have had this patchwork.

You cannot incorporate amendments in a consolidating Bill.

The Minister does not need to incorporate amendments in the consolidating Bill. He can make provision in it for these requirements. But the difficulty is that the Minister is too busy running round the country telling people about his big plans. His duty is to draw up a constructive Bill, not to run around the country parading his plans. I know that the hon. Minister means it well, but he should sit down and reflect over these things, and he Should summon his senior officials together and say: These are the things I want, and I want a lawyer to draft the Bill. If the hon. the Minister had done this, then he would not have come along with such patchwork as we have before us.

It is a lawyer who has drafted the Bill.

This Bill will very possibly lead to a whole crop of law suits in the future, and especially in the Water Court, about land that was intended for settlement purposes, because this law has been so ill-considered, and because it makes provision for certain things that are quite unnecessary, and casts reflections on the settlements. That is why we do not think it would be in the interests of the country for this Bill to be adopted.

I should like to refer to the introductory speech of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). He has talked about a preference for the land. Well, if he is serious about, that then he ought to support this Bill, for he must admit that the greatest heritage that any man or any nation can possess is his land, and the Minister’s object in connection with this Bill is to look after that land. The responsibility rests on the Minister to ensure that that land is preserved. Recently there appeared an article in the “Cape Times” that referred to the work of a certain writer on soil erosion, and he was of the opinion that all the difficulties with which we have to contend today are in a large measure to be ascribed to the fact that we do not look after our land properly. If then we have a preference for the land, if that is the way that hon. members opposite also feel about it, why should not the same liking for it also exist in the heart of the Minister? That is just why the Minister feels impelled to introduce this Bill. It seems somewhat strange to me that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has taken it on himself to lead the opposition to this Bill. The hon. member said that the Minister possesses all the powers that are necessary to secure the position. The Minister has in his opening speech explained that while it is true that powers have been vested in him under the law as it has been amended from time to time such alterations have no permanent application; in other words, if we refer to the 1937 law we find that certain restrictions were imposed in regard to the sub-division of land, and the sale, alienation or preservation of it, but later on there was a legal decision, and arising from that legal decision, it appears that once a transfer has been made those restrictions fall away. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who was at that time the responsible Minister, had deemed it advisable to introduce a Bill about the unbeneficial occupation of land, and to amend legislation in regard to land settlement, why is it that he cannot support the policy of the present Minister? All that the hon. Minister is doing today is to give permanent effect to the changes that were introduced at that time.

Now you are dreaming.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad, intentionally or otherwise, put through that law. I will take it that it was not his intention—I will assume that the intention at that time was to apply the restrictions in respect of every transaction. But then the lawyers said that once conveyance was issued the holding could no longer be deemed to be a holding, and when transfer then took place in respect of that ground the restrictions fell away. The hon. member ought to evince his thankfulness to the present Minister and to say to him: “I am grateful that today you have rectified the defects which at that time I could not see in the law.

How do you know what I should have done? It seems to me you are seeing visions.

The hon. member ought to be thankful to the Minister for having remedied these defects. The hon. member says that we are active here in creating a condition of slavery. Perhaps he has forgotten when he went to Marico during the by-election in 1938. The then hon. member for Marico, Rev. Du Toit, at that time introduced a motion in this House registering the strongest protest against the then Minister of Lands having told the settlers the following—

We did not expect from an hon. member who has borne the responsibility of a ministerial post for many years, that he would go round sowing suspicion, and that he would frighten the life out of the settlers, though there is no justification for that in the present Bill.

What can one expect from you?

The hon. member talks of slavery; he talks about the undesirability of leaving this discretion to the Minister. I should like to put this question to him: During his term of office as Minister has he ever exercised his discretion unreasonably? Can we not all testify to the fact that when we go to the present Minister and say to him: “This man has two or three sons, he is short of native labour, he may be only 55 years of age, but he is physically incapable and he wants to keep his sons with him.” Does not the Minister in those circumstances always agree to make a concession in respect of the man concerned? I challenge the hon. member to show that the present Minister has acted unreasonably in such cases. Hon. members will agree with me that if there is one department with which we members from the platteland have to deal, it is the Department of Lands. We can thus testify from personal experience, and I say with emphasis that if there is one department with which we come a great deal in contact then it is the Department of Lands, and if there is one department that has gone out of its way to accommodate us, it is the Department of Lands. If that is so, and if the hon. member for Wolmaransstad deemed it desirable to introduce this legislation in 1937, then I cannot realise why it is that today he is so strongly opposed to the principles that he laid down at that time. He went further. Take, for instance, his measures concerning unbeneficial occupation of land. That Act applies not only to Crown settlements, it also applies to private lands.

It only applies to private land.

I was under a wrong impression. If the hon. member in his capacity as Minister considered that the Government should take the right to exercise control over private land, where he can expropriate, where he can take away the land entirely from these people, where does the difference lie? And in that law of 1937 the then Minister laid down that if the State could prove that a man was not beneficially occupying his land for farming purposes, the State had then the right to intervene. In other words, so long as he could make a living out of that land it did not matter if he impoverished or exhausted the soil, and if he allowed the best of his land to be washed away into the sea. That law can only be applied when the State can prove that a man does not enjoy beneficial occupation of his land; in other words, he must simply derive benefit from that land, and so long as he can prove that he can make a living, the Department has no right to intervene. But that was perhaps not the then Minister’s intention. He intended to protect the land, but the fact remains that the law does not say that. The present Minister, however, goes further. He says that he wants to preserve our land in South Africa, not only for the present generation but for future generations. We talk about love for the land, and of property rights, but who of us has the right to say that the ground is our own property? We are only the trustees of the land, which goes down from generation to generation, and when we have passed away it must be given over to the generation that follows, and has not the generation that follows the right then to expect from us that we shall take care of the land? The Minister has in view in the present Bill the proper care and maintenance of improvements on the land, the maintenance and improvement of the fertility of the soil, the extermination of vermin and the eradication of noxious weeds. Is this not praiseworthy? And if a man has really a love for the land, and he wants to improve it, this law will never be applicable to him. What objection can be made to it? The hon. Minister mentioned to us a case at Brits. I would like to ask the Minister how much money the State has already lost in connection with those cases which he has mentioned here. I am astonished that the hon. member for Gordonia has raised an objection to this. He is a member of the Select Committee on Crown Lands, and he knows how many thousands of pounds have to be written off every year. I make bold to say that those settlements at Brits have by this time cost the State more than £2,000,000, and that every settler costs the State at least £2,000. Have we not then an obligation to the Treasury; have we not an obligation towards the taxpayer; cannot the Minister say: “I want to protect you against yourself”? The price of land has soared tremendously of late. A man sells a piece of land, because perhaps he can get an attractive price for it. He may be able to pocket £1,000, but later it becomes necessary for him to buy more land; then he finds that he cannot buy it with the money he has got. So he has to be protected against himself. Within a comparatively short time that man will be without land and without money if he is not protected against himself, and when he finds himself in that position it will be useless for him to go to hon. members on the other side of the House and say: I am sorry you have put me on the wrong track; I am today without land; I have no money, nor have I any earnings today.

Why did your Minister then give such a rebuke to Kakamas?

We have that responsibility. If the law is explained in the proper way to the settlers they will also support it, but if feelings are stirred up then I can well understand that difficulties may be caused. But if the people understand that this Bill is intended for their own protection they will be satisfied with it. I have had several cases where we have gone to the Minister and where we have asked for permission for a son to be kept on the holding. I cannot think of a single case where that permission has been refused. Take the question of alienation. The right has existed for several years, and we cannot mention a single case where that right has been abused. Take the Vaal-Hartz scheme. Over £4,000,000 has been spent on that scheme. At the most 2,000 settlers can be placed there. This means that so far as land alone is concerned, every settler costs the State £2,000. If you take the interest on that money, and if you take the costs of administration into consideration, as well as other incidental expenses, it will work out at about £10 a month that every settler costs the State. Where that is the case, has not the State the right to say to that settler: We must see to it that you do not misuse these assets. No, hon. members are not serious. If they are really concerned over the future of South Africa then they must support us in taking every possible step which will ensure that the land is preserved. I should like to go further. I want to ask the hon. Minister that where the man is already in possession of a small slice of land, and where he is anxious under Section 11 to purchase another piece of land, the Minister should come to his assistance. As the law stands today the Minister is unable to help such a man, because he is already an owner. I should like to see the Minister take the right in this Bill to be able to intervene in such a case, so that where the settler has a small piece of land he may be entitled to purchase an additional portion, and accordingly I ask that the Minister should take that supplementary right in this Bill. I am also sorry that the Minister is not in a position to bring in a consolidating Act, but we realise his difficulties in this connection. We are very anxious to see that no stumbling blocks are placed in the way of this Bill, and I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the other side of the House to support it, if they want to assist in protecting our greatest national asset, the land and the fertility thereof.

I wholeheartedly support this Bill. There is one important point that has been made by hon. members on the Opposition side, and it appears to me that they are attempting to attack this Bill from the angle and on the basis of what they think is the foundation of this Bill, while to my mind it is not so. They talk of slavery being implied in the Bill. I cannot see myself how slavery comes into the present Bill any more than it has appeared in legislation in the past. But what I do realise, and why I give the Bill my wholehearted support, is that we have called on the Government and appealed to them to create certain settlements in order to rehabilitate families. The State goes to great expense and undertakes large schemes which cost enormous sums of money. Let me mention a few figures, and those I am quoting here are official. I want to take a few figures giving the average cost per morgen on the settlements. I want to quote these figures, and then show why it is necessary that the Government should exercise full supervision and control over these schemes in the future, even though the holdings have been paid off. Take Buchuberg. This costs the State £150 per morgen. If we assume that the holdings are 30 morgen in extent, that means £4,500 per holding. Take Hartebeestpoort. That scheme costs the State £87 per morgen, and if you take it that the holdings are of the same extent, this means £2,610. Calculating the cost at Marico on the same basis, the holdings there cost £3,900 each. Rust-der-Winter costs £2,500. The Olifants River scheme holdings cost £3,300, Vaal-Hartz £2,000, Loskop £3,000, Riet River in the Free State £3,000 and Pongola £1,000. The State embarks on schemes for the rehabilitation of people at a fairly high cost, and now in the present Bill settlers are merely prevented from quitting the land. What happens? The holdings are allotted and developed, and now the objection is raised by the Opposition that when a man has paid off his holding he has not the right to sell to a person who does not want to purchase for the purposes of settlement, but with a view to speculation. I am not opposed to the idea that after a man has paid off his holding he should be able to sell it at an increased price, provided that the holding passes into the hands of an approved settler, and not into the hands of an undersirable class of person who does not require it. If we do not take measures against this, then you will find that the State will incur expenditure up to £150 per morgen in experimenting along the Vaal River, the Modder River, Riet River, Pongola River, and all the rivers, and as soon as the scheme promises to be successful, a man will come along with an eye to speculation and scoop up the land. Then we will obtain over a period of, say, 100 years this position, that on the settlement along these rivers, which were originally intended for the rehabilitation of people, and which have been created at great, cost to the State, people will have bought up the land, because they have speculated on the chance of the price going up, and we will not have on these settlements the people who really require such land. That means that you will be doing nothing else but undertaking experiments at the cost of the State—big experiments along these rivers for the benefit of land speculators. In this manner we will miss our objective entirely. What right have we to spend Government money on that? Take Vaal River, or Pongola, or any other of the big schemes. After 25 or 30 years, we find that three-fourths of the people are bought out, and that the land is in possession of people who have land elsewhere as well. A man will have, for instance, holdings at Vaal-Hartz to cultivate lucerne, while he is also farming in another part of the country. I ask again what right have we to allow that sort of thing? If we do not carry out what is proposed in this Bill we shall have a powerful agitation from the side of the public, and the public will say: You take great amounts of money and launch schemes, and now the land has been bought up by people who do not utilise the land for their own needs, but who have purchased it with a certain object. We must not be surprised if, as the result of that, strong public opinion is formed against land settlement. You defeat your purpose. Within twenty years we shall be just where we started, and then the public, the taxpayers, will have the fullest right to say: “You begin these schemes, but what becomes of them? To whom does the ground now belong? We shall no longer allow you to play this trick on us.” Then in the course of 25 or 30 years you will find that the door has been closed to land settlement. The public will have every right to say that they will not stand for that sort of business. The Bill has been described as slavery if he must live there. If he is in a man can make a living out of the holding, and even have a prospect of making enough to pay off that holding later, then it is not slavery if he must live there. If he is in a position to pay it off and wants to sell the holding later on, if he feels that he is no longer interested in settlements and that he would like to move to another area, let him sell the holding to another man who will then have the opportunity to progress. Then we will ensure that the scheme that has been built up at the expense of the State will be preserved for settlement for all time. If you do not proceed along those lines then you will defeat your purpose. That is the principal reason why I am supporting this Bill, and I should like hon. members to take the figures I mentioned into consideration. An agitation has already commenced in the country in connection with the settlement schemes which have cost so much money. There are also certain individual farmers, fortunately not many of them, who say that with these schemes they have to compete with farmers who are not settlers. They will have the fullest right to take up that standpoint if we allow the land to fall into the hands of people who cannot be regarded as bona fide settlers. You get that today. Let us say then that this land will be retained for settlement. Let hon. members direct their attention to this: love for the land or no love, there comes a time when the attractiveness of an amount of money totally eclipses that love. It is not everyone who appreciates the value of land. There are many people who think that if they can get £1,400 for a house and 30 morgen it is a lot of money. They run to sell; to my mind that is folly. In my opinion a man would only do that if he did not realise the value of a dwelling place and a spot where he can make enough to provide his family with food and clothing. We must realise that the idea of land speculation which has already taken root in our country is the most baleful thing in South Africa. The idea has already developed too far that land may be regarded as a thing for speculation. If we place people there, and they then grow weary of it, and want to take themselves to another area, in another atmosphere, then I am fully convinced that they will obtain the right to sell to other people who are bona fide settlers. On account of speculation we shall lose sight of the objective that we have in the establishment of settlements and I want to express the hope that an end will be put to this once and for all. Our land settlement policy, if I may describe it as such, is still in its infancy. The reason I say that is because viewed from my standpoint land settlement has had only a short history; I am not taking the old settlements of bygone days so much into account. We are living today in different circumstances. Settlement must be so planned that as many people as possible are rehabilitated. I should like hon. members to take an interest in the short history of Vaal-Hartz for example. They will discover that there were very few failures there. I make bold to say that there were less than 5 per cent.; I speak subject to corrections.

Much less.

The reason is that the holdings are large enough and that the dwellings there are attractive enough; and another reason is that farming operations are conducted under expert advice which is of such a character that if the advice is faithfully followed the people there can make a living. I think that Brits was less successful but in spite of having been less successful there was this development, that people who had bought their holdings for £150 sold them for £1,400, which in my view is quite wrong. In 90 per cent. of the cases I make bold to say they lost their money. It will be very much better if the man could spend his life there and make a living. When a man has worn himself out on a settlement—that is a point over which hon. members are now worried—and the old man wants one of his sons to take his place I am convinced that there is no Minister of Lands who will say that his son cannot take over. This is self-evident. If all the sons go away to find a living elsewhere, which is the wish of the Government, then well and good. If an old man has seen the best of his years and wants to dispose of his holding let him sell it, but let him sell it to someone who is going to live on the settlement. Otherwise you will get the position, which already exists at Vaal-Hartz, that you will get undesirable people there who it was never intended should come near the settlement. I support this Bill and I hope that the Minister will not accede to the request of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) to withdraw the Bill. I want to emphasise that the Government must exercise full supervision over the land at all times. If this is not the case, even if the ground has been paid off, we shall make a failure of settlement. The Government has the right to say that thanks to the enterprise of the State, the settlements are there today and they offer a living. But the State must ensure that the settler does not alienate his land and again become impoverished. I am in favour of even more extended powers being put in the hands of the Minister, and I base my opinion on what I have seen of settlement schemes where people farm in a proper manner and make progress under expert advice. If there is no proper control then you can have this position that the people may plant the wrong crops; they may sow mealies when mealies should not be produced. I say that the State itself must have the right to tell a settler that he must rotate his crops, that he must no longer deplete the soil but that he must grow beans and other leguminous plants in order to build up the soil rather than to exhaust and impoverish it. I have seen many of the settlements, and I want to conclude with again expressing the hope that the policy that is now being proposed by the Minister will not be modified, but that it will be further developed. Then the settlement policy of the Government will be a success both in the immediate and in the distant future and the people and the generation that follows will be grateful for that.

I have listened to the two previous speakers and they reminded me of the proverb: “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”. It is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) did not go to the trouble to read the Bill, and as far as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) is concerned, even if he had read it, he wouldn’t have understood it. I can, however, understand the statement of the hon. member for Krugersdorp in a way, because he is a socialist and naturally he wants the State to have possession of the land and to place people on the land as “bywoners” to cultivate the land and make a living there. He wants the State to retain control. But I would be glad if he were to go to Riversdale in my constituency and to tell my settlers what he has said here. If it is such a good thing as the hon. member for Ermelo has said, why is he not in favour of a provision that he should not be allowed to sell his farm without the consent of the Minister.

His farm has not been bought with State money.

State money? All the difficulties we have had in connection with settlers are due to the fact that the Governments of today bought land which was too expensive for the purpose. However we do not want to bring up these old stale matters. One does not want to throw mud, because it sticks to one. But I want to tell the Minister that I have only been a member of Parliament for six years, but never yet have I come across a Bill which encroaches on the private rights of the people as this Bill does. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I should ask your ruling as to whether this is not a hybrid Bill because it encroaches on private rights. These people have entered into contracts with the State and now the Minister comes and wants to amend these contracts.

Appropriation.

They are people just as we are, but the hon. the Minister wants to retain control over the land permanently. The hon. member for Ermelo talked about votes. I do not believe that of the Minister, though I do not say that there are not thousands of other people who would believe it. I do believe however that the Minister takes these steps for that purpose, but I would like him to go and meet the settlers. Then he will hear what they have to say about it. They will tell him that they are afraid of the control of his department, that they are even afraid to talk to other people. They feel that they are on land over which the Government holds control and they do not know what the Government is going to do. The Government is their master. Inspectors come round. They have even appointed a man by the name of Moll. I do not know him, but people who know him say funny things about him. Now the hon. member for Ermelo says that legislation was orginally passed to get the votes of these people.

I never said so.

He asked the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) whether he did not amend the Act in certain respects in order to get the votes of these people. In other words, we know what is at the back of his mind—he gave me the impression whilst he was speaking that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek.

On a point of explanation. I never stated that the Bill was introduced in order to get votes. How can one catch votes with a Bill which causes a position of slavery, as hon. members there contend? I have never said so. The hon. member has misunderstood me.

Did the hon. member not accuse the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that he went among the settlers and when he found that they did not want to vote for him, he introduced legislation?

No.

Did the hon. member not refer to votes? Yes, he did.

I referred to a by-election which took place in 1938 or 1939, and the Act was passed in 1937.

I do not know what the hon. member refers to. But it is not necessary to continue this kind of dialogue. The position is quite clear that the settlers outside are afraid. They were afraid of the 1937 Act and they are still more afraid of this Bill. A few days ago, when at Riversdale, I was asked to address the settlers and to tell them what the contents of the Bill are. They are afraid. And during the election they were afraid to say on what side they were going to vote, because they knew that they were under the control of the Government. I do not say that that is the intention of the Minister, but there are thousands who think otherwise. The position merely is that I also want to make a success of land settlement. I always tried to get a piece of ground for poor Afrikaners. There are hundreds of them in my constituency who are entitled to a piece of land. A few of them went to Vaal-Hartz and were very successful. These are people from my constituency and that is the reason why Vaal-Hartz is such a success. I listened carefully to the hon. the Minister. I want to be convinced. I want to do the right thing. I am prepared to assist where I possibly can be of assistance. I have read the Bill and carefully studied same, and I have listened to what the Minister had to say, and it appears to me that the purpose of the Bill is to prevent, overcrowding and the division of land, because the holdings are too small. That is the first thing. The second point is the policy that the land should never get out of the hands of a family by a bond, or otherwise. The Minister wants to prevent the land changing hands. I think the Bill is wrong in that connection and at a later stage I intend to explain why I say that. I think the Bill starts from wrong premises. That is the object the Minister has in view with the Bill. He has quoted cases to us and I take it for granted that these cases have been correctly stated. He said that there is overcrowding and that there are people waiting to buy up plots as soon as the owners obtain title. I want to tell the Minister that I have not yet lost confidence in our Afrikaner nation. I know there are some who have to be watched and to be looked after. But I want to tell the Minister that he is not going to attain that end by means of this Bill. He is not going to improve these people by means of this Bill, but he is only going to attract an undesirable class of people to these settlements. There are Afrikaners who are farmers and who have not got a piece of land, but who are anxious to get a piece of land in respect of which they can obtain transfer, and where they can have their own home and maintain a family. It is the duty of the State to see to it that these people get in possession of a piece of land. We have to go back to the original Act to see the object of all this legislation, the original Act and the various amendments. The object was to provide for these people I have referred to, to provide them with a plot and it was the aim and object to provide them in a proper way. What I do not like is that the hon. the Minister places the man who buys under Section 4 in the same position as the man who has nothing and never had anything. The man who has nothing is placed in the same category as the man who buys his own holding and pays off part of the amount, who has saved a little bit of money in order to buy his own piece of land. The Minister treats them in the same way. I go further and I say that the man who buys under Section 11 is treated worse than the other. It is quite apparent that wherever a servitude is attached to a holding, the value decreases. It is easy for the hon. member for Krugersdorp to talk. He knows nothing about it. If I want to buy a piece of land which will remain under the control of the Minister for ever and always, even if I pay for the land, then I will tell the Minister to keep the land. The effect of this Bill is going to be that we will not attract decent people, the people you want to have there, to the settlements. A decent man is not going to a settlement to exert himself for 30 or 40 years in order to pay off the holding, and then to find that he can never become the owner of his property. If that is the policy of the Government, let the Government make it known that that is their policy. Let them tell the people: “We will never grant you the right to call your land your own. You will have to come to us for everything, if you want to do anything in connection with land, you will have to come to us, you first have to obtain our approval.” Are we going back to the socialistic system that land belongs to the State and that the people only are allowed to cultivate the land? Why then should the people go to the Government for assistance? Then a man may just as well remain a bywoner all his life under conditions which afford him the opportunity to do just as well as on a settlement. I have experience of bywoners, I have some on my own property, and I want to tell you that the life of a bywoner is like that of a bird of the air. He never knows where he stands. Now the Minister comes along with legislation of this nature which subjects the people to all kinds of conditions. Look at Clause 2 and the restrictions imposed on the holdings. Restrictions are imposed on a man who bought his land 30 years ago when there were no restrictions. What right have we as a Parliament to come and to say: “You have entered into a contract with the Government but we are going to alter that contract and to impose other conditions?” What right have we to do that. Do you realise that in Clause 3 the Minister even goes so far as to say that if land was acquired by a settler prior to the 1912 Act, the Minister can issue a proclamation for that district and impose certain conditions which will diminish the value of the land? That is the position. That is why I say that I thought I would have to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether in these circumstances, where a contract entered into with the Government is altered by the Government and the people are compelled to accept new conditions, conditions different from those which were originally imposed, whether that does not amount to an infringement of the private rights of settlers and whether this Bill should not be dealt with as a hybrid Bill. Let me tell you what happened. If I want to buy a piece of land under Section 11, I go to the owner of the land and ask him What he wants for his property. I am allowed to go up to £3,000. If he informs me that he wants £2,500 then I acquire an option for three months and then I forward an application to the Land Board. If that is approved of, I pay a certain percentage of the purchase price and the Government pays the balance. If the land is bought, the Land Board is sent out to inspect the land and to approve of the purchase. After approving of the land, they also make enquiries concerning the man, and if they find everything in order, the Government grants the land to the man on lease. The person who wants to buy the land, informs the Land Board that the price is, say, £2,500. He has to pay a small instalment and then he has the right to pay off the balance in instalments. During the first 4 or 5 years he does not pay interest, but that interest is added to the capital. After he has paid for 20 or 30 years, the land is his own. The man has paid for it with his sweat and blood. After he has paid the Government to the last penny, he owes nothing on the land and it should be his property. I admit that in some cases capital amounts have been written off. But whose fault was that? The man has gone through this process. The Land Board has valued the land and advised him to buy. But I can mention various cases where not a penny has been written off. I can mention the case of a young man and his father who had no land. They both bought under this system, some 20 years ago. Today that man is rich and he can buy me out. He bought his father’s farm and another farm as well. He is the owner of a farm with a hundred thousand vines and he makes 500 or 600 leaguers of wine. Now the Minister comes along and says: “Look here, I am going to take the right to place conditions on your land.” He proclaims that area and stipulates that in that area land may not be sold to certain people. What right has the Government to do that? It is an encroachment on private ownership. I protest against that part of the Bill. I have no objection to the Government adopting a policy from now on that land settlements will be treated in that manner in future. Then the people know what the the position is and they buy with their eyes open. Then it is the man’s business to enter into a contract or not, though I am convinced that people who have a little money are not going to buy on that basis. But in view of the fact that the Minister is going to make this part of the Bill retrospective, I cannot see how we can possibly vote for the Bill. We are anxious to assist the Minister, because we realise that there are people on these settlements who in their own interests should be placed under supervision. But we cannot make 75 people suffer because 25 people were selected wrongly. One must bear in mind that all the settlers are selected by the Land Board, and if the Land Board makes a mistake and selects the wrong people it is their business, but you cannot try and rectify the matter in the way suggested by the Minister. I can only say that the settlers I have come into contact with are alarmed and that they feel very much hurt. They feel that there is something contemplated which is not right. I do not hope that the Minister is going to advance the excuse that he is not going to proclaim this or that area. He will not always be there. This Bill will still be there after he has gone, though I do not hope that he will die soon. There may be another Minister, a man who is not so favourably disposed towards the farmers as the Minister. We are not passing a Bill for the duration of the term of office of the Minister. That is why I say that if the hon. member for Ermelo had studied the Bill, he would agree with me that we cannot make this Bill retrospective. We are going to bring these people into difficulties by imposing conditions which were not embodied in their contracts.

Was the Act of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad not retrospective?

He and I were not here, when that Bill was passed, and the hon. member knows just as well as I do that two wrongs do not make a right. It does not help us to advance that kind of argument, because we now have to judge this Bill. I can only tell him that that particular Bill was passed in 1937 and the settlers were up in arms against it. I have explained the matter to them and I gained a number of votes because the Government of the day passed that Bill. If you read Clauses 2 and 3 you will find that the Minister is imposing conditions on the transfer of people who have not yet taken transfer, and in cases where the people have had transfer passed, the Minister in Clause 3 goes to the length of laying down—

Then it is laid down to what people that land may not be sold. The man has obtained his land under lease. He has paid everything to the Government. It is his property and he has the right now to say what he is going to do with the property. The position simply is that the Government goes much further than the hon. member for Wolmaransstad went at the time. The Minister is simply laying down conditions of transfer by telling the people that they will be compelled to sell their land to so or so. We all know that if conditions are attached to property we cannot get the same price as we would otherwise have obtained. The man buying the land takes into consideration that if he wants to sell the land again one day, certain people will be excluded as buyers. I am sorry to have to agree with the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that this Bill has been framed in a vague manner. It is not my experience of Bills of the Minister of Lands that they are framed in a negligent and inaccurate manner. Turn to the first page of the Bill, and you will see that there are two paragraphs (b) in the same clause.

I have noticed that.

I do not like that kind of thing in a Bill. It takes up one’s time. Then I would like to know the meaning of the following—

It seems to me to be one and the same thing. How can a person occupy a holding personally if he does not live on it?

At 6.40 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 1st March.