When the House adjourned we were pointing out to the native representatives that, in our opinion in endeavouring to show that the European population was engaged in oppressing the natives, they were placing a wrong construction on their arguments. I should like to quote a few passages in connection with this matter. I have in mind, for example, what was said by a former Cabinet Minister; he is reported to have said [Translation]—

That is what I wanted to bring home, that we, particularly the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people of South Africa do not want the native to be oppressed; we should like to see the native enjoy honest, decent, Christian treatment at our hands. I should like to quote a few other authorities. I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Wanless) said the other day. He wanted to bring this House under the impression that all the European had done in South Africa had been to humiliate the native and to oppress him. I should like to quote from a book which was written by a certain P. S. Joshi in regard to the so-called “tyranny of Colour.” He says—

If the continuance of a native policy which will lead to the extermination of our offspring in South Africa is encouraged, the white man will not be worthy of the Christian education which he receives on his mother’s knee, and I must say that anyone in this House and outside who wants to bring the country under the impression that the white man is engaged in oppressing the native, is doing an injustice not only to the white man but also to the native. This writer goes on to say—

I must say that the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) is apparently not acquainted with the history of South Africa or the history of its people. What he alleged here is not reasonable towards the people of South Africa, and I think if he knew the history of South Africa better, he would not try to create the impression that an injustice is being committed towards the natives. I should like to commend this book to the hon. member, and if after reading it he still adopts the attitude which he adopted in this House on Friday, I shall be surprised. I think it is his bounden duty to take the side of the white man more than he did last Friday this is what the writer goes on to say—

Well, I come from the Transvaal and I maintain that that is an untruth. I think that any democratic country in which people are allowed to write such things, is a wonderful country, and I must honestly say that we in the Transvaal treat the natives fairly, and if they do transgress they are measured with the same yardstick as the European. There is no law in the Transvaal which is applied to the natives and not to the Europeans; there is not one law in the Transvaal for the Europeans and a different law for the natives. I should also like to commend to the hon. member’s attention the book, “the Bavenda,” written by Mr. Stayt this is one of the standard books which was written in regard to the native in the transvaal. I want to read to the House what he says in connection with the natives—

This man made a study of the natives in the Transvaal and his finding is that in spite of what the European has done for the native, the native does not appreciate what he has received at the hands of the missionaries, and I do think it is unfair at this stage to bring to the House, and through this House the country, under the impression that we as a nation have done nothing for the natives in the past, and this book of Mr. Stayt’s is a book of which we Transvaalers can be very proud when we think that the writer set out to describe the native point of view, and that he nevertheless proved that the Europeans had done everything in their power for the natives. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) objected the other day to the use of the word “barbarians.” If he examines the meaning of that word he will find that we have the right to use this word in connection with a certain section of the native population. I am not referring to those who have received some education, but there is a large section in South Africa which consists of barbarians; we must frankly admit that. This is what Stayt goes on to say—

I want to repeat that we have nothing against the native as such, but it must not be said that we hate the natives. This man states that the natives hate us in spite of what we have done for them in the past. I maintain that we as Afrikaans-speaking people especially have gone out of our way to do our duty towards the uneducated natives in South Africa. I go further, and I particularly want to emphasise this point, namely, the de-tribalisation of the natives. I am referring to the lobola system. This system under which a wife is bought by means of cattle is one which must continue in the interests of the natives. Those cattle do not belong to the native; the cattle belong to the family as such. When a native buys a wife, the family buys her, and as soon as he has children those cattle are sold and the cattle come back to the children again. Here it is proposed to destroy the lobola system, and I want to say to hon. members that if they do that we in South Africa can say good-bye to the headman system, and that beautiful building in Umtata, the Bunga building, will disappear, because the headman will no longer have any influence over his people. I just want to say in passing that in doing so we would not be doing justice to the natives. I want to say that in the Transkei more is probably being done in the direction of combating erosion by the National Roads Board than in any other part of South Africa. It is stated that in Basutoland more is being done for the natives in the educational sphere than in any other part of South Africa. Moreover, more land has been prepared for the natives than in any other part. In my area there is not only 100 morgen, but there are still thousands of morgen of native land. But hon. members forget that the natives are not fond of irrigation land. They want dry land farming, and the natives refuse to occupy the land in that area because it happens to be irrigation land; they do not want such land. Hon. members on that side are altogether wrong in wanting to remove the lobola system. If they do so they will be rendering a great disservice to the native. I live among the natives and I know what they want. The headmen want to retain their influence over their people, and this legislation is introduced in order to protect the native, but not at the expense of the European. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) saying the other day that the natives have more sense than this side of the House, because they elected the best representatives. I do not know whether he said that merely because there is such a beautiful lady on that side, but he must have excluded himself and the Prime Minister, because they at least are capable people. Let us hear what the Prime Minister said in connection with the natives. He said—

I think the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has just as much knowledge of native affairs and native customs as any one of us, and when he goes overseas and makes such a statement before a great people, I think we have the right to say that our native policy and legislation is on the right lines. But let us see what the Prime Minister further states—

I do think that the Prime Minister proved here that it would be quite wrong to try at this stage to make a European of the native, and I honestly think that we in South Africa today can be saisfied that we are on the right lines. I just want to say something else to the hon. members on those benches. They advocated that the natives should have the right to brew beer in their own homes. Let me say again what the native custom is. They do not brew beer for home consumption only. These people have the greatest love for what the Englishman calls “social life.” That is why they brew beer. If they want to clear the land., they like having a beer pot under the tree, so that they can get many hands to do the work quickly; and if we allowed the brewing of beer on the farms we would be rendering a disservice both to the natives and to the farming community. We who have to provide food to the cities will not be in a position to get our natives on Sunday to come and milk. If this were allowed we would be rendering a great disservice to the city dweller. On Sundays after a beer drink one cannot get a single native to do the milking, and it would be wrong to encourage the natives to brew their own beer in their own homes. I have no objection to their retaining their customs as on the platteland, but when one allows them to brew beer in the cities it must be under control. The beer must be sold in the beer halls where control can be exercised. Now I want to say a few words in regard to the pass laws. We in the Transvaal have a system under which one gives the native a pass if he wants to seek employment in Johannesburg, for example, that pass might just as well be burnt because if the native meets a native girl in Johannesburg and he does not want to come back there is no legislation under which you can compel him to do so. They are breaking the native customs; they are breaking up the moral life which has hitherto existed amongst the natives, simply because that legislation is not being applied. It would be in the interest of the natives if that legislation were properly applied so that those native families would not be torn asunder. Hon. members want to create the impression that we are engaged in oppressing the natives. I think those hon. members are forgetting one thing. Last year legislation was passed in this House in which the State aimed at giving one free meal per day to every native child. Whenever anything good is done for the natives no reference is made to it. I want to ask the hon. members who represent the natives to be reasonable. They must live among those natives and study their customs; they must make their living by the sweat of their brow with the assistance of natives, and then we will hear a different story from them. I am convinced that if they were to experience the difficulties which the platteland population experiences with the natives they will assist us to pass the necessary legislation in this House, which will not only help the Europeans to build up South Africa but which will promote the interests of the natives. I definitely refuse to believe that the European in South Africa wants to oppress the native. I maintain that we have learned, in South Africa that there is one thing that we must not forget; we must assist the native to make a good living in South Africa, but he must retain his own customs and traditions.

I want to emphasise the importance of this House considering this question in the perspective of the very considerable economic and industrial development which has taken place in South Africa since the Native Urban Areas Act was passed in 1923. At that time and when the Nationalist Party came into power in 1924 there began a period in this country which we might regard as an industrial revolution. The principal characteristic of that revolution was the urbanisation of our people, both European and non-European. For the native people it meant the transition from a cattle economy to a money economy; and a characteristic of that has been the migratory habits, the migratory policy, which the native people have to adopt since that time. This war has served to emphasise this enormous change. It has meant an increased demand for labour and increased wages. It has intensified the problem; and I think we all agree that, during the next 20 years, we shall be faced with this problem growing as it will in intensity from year to year. In view of that I believe the Minister will be well advised not to attempt to amend an Act which many of the Europeans disapprove of, and which a large volume of native opinion is against. Rather than add to the patchwork he should make himself responsible for organising a new social contract for the native people in their relationship to the rest of the peoples of the Union. I think this House is in agreement with the fundamental principles of the Bill, the principle of segregation and the principle of control; but neither of these can be truly effective unless they are accompanied by a dynamic housing policy, by extended education, by health services and by social services generally. Without these things there is no doubt that control in the urban areas will only mean degradation for the native people, and segregation will mean a social menace to us all. Until the Government of this country is prepared to plan specifically for the next five or ten years, then our attempt to amend this Act is not going to get to the roots of the economic impasse into which industrial legislation has flung us. This country expects the Native Affairs Department and the Native Commission to plan ahead in cooperation with the other Departments of State; and to bring forward comprehensive legislation to implement the economic and social plans that they may have in mind. If they proceed along the lines of getting to the causes of the disruption of the reserves, the cause of the undue migration into the urban areas, the cause of the growth of slums in all our cities with their disease and their general degradation—if these things were done then we could feel confident that native legislation would be effective. I believe that we can do no lasting good by amending these laws, until we get more data, and until we embark on a system of economic planning. On that I agree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). What should be our immediate aim as a people in regard to our native policy in this country? I think we should aim, in the first place, at integrated, self-governing, disciplined native communities in our native areas. That would give us a permanent labour force for industry. It would ensure a constant stream of educated labour for industrial purposes. Not only would it do that; it would ease the pressure on the reserves and make it possible for the farmer, who could stay there permanently, to improve himself from being a mere subsistence farmer to one producing for his own market. Secondly, a drive forward should be made on the lines the Native Affairs Department has attempted, that is the development of trade and commercial activity and enterprise by the native people on co-operative lines. There is a good deal more to be done in this direction, not only in investigation, but in immediate policy, aided by public finance through the Native Affairs Department. I would make an appeal, too, for the establishment of industries in the reserves, the Board of trade and Industries investigated this matter. It was certainly very timorous about establishing industries in the reserves which might conflict with industries outside the reserves; but it did go to the extent of suggesting that a meat-canning industry, a tanning industry, potteries, a boot and shoe industry and the development of home crafts could be undertaken on a considerable scale, then again we must face up to the necessity of providing more land for our native people. In 1936 the total area in the reserves was something like 10,000,000 morgen; in that same year, I think, we promised them a further 7,000,000 morgen.

Up to 1942, when we stopped making further grants, we had granted them a total of 1,500,000 morgen. So the position today is this, that 80 per cent. of our people are congested on only 5 per cent. of the land area of the Union. If we are going to redeem the present reserves from utter deterioration, if we are going to establish model reserves, then it is absolutely necessary that steps be taken to make available to the native people, rapidly, and according to a definite plan, more land for their occupation. If our aim as a nation—and we in South Africa have what is probably one of the most glorious opportunities of any white civilisation to build up a great and splendid and efficient native community—if our aim is to develop our natural and the human resources to full capacity, then I believe we can move with confidence towards a South African cooperative commonwealth where the races can dwell together in harmony, without fear of one another, and without fear of the future.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). I think the hon. the Minister is trying to remove an evil by means of this Bill, but instead of doing so he is introducing two new evils. The Minister is now giving municipalities control in regard to sprouted grain, and he is also giving them control over farms lying within five miles of the boundaries of a Municipal Council or a Village Management Board. I am afraid that the restriction on the sale of kaffir corn will undoubtedly have the effect of reducing the consumption of kaffir corn. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) said that he thought this Bill would rather increase its consumption. I am sorry, but on that point I cannot agree with the hon. member. If a restriction is imposed on the consumption of a product it must necessarily reduce that consumption. I have before me a letter from the Western transvaal Cooperative Society which has been forwarded to me by the Secretary. That Society represents round about 3,000 farmers and the management has decided to express its objection to this Bill because it will have a detrimental effect on the platteland. The natives on the farms close to the towns largely use kaffir corn. It constitutes practically part of their food. I am not in favour of more beer drinking in the big towns, but undoubtedly, as a result of this Bill, the consumption of kaffir corn will drop, and I therefore object to this Bill, especially to Clause 17. I know that on the farms the native families also drink beer and if we are now going to prevent the natives on the platteland, in the vicinities of the big towns, making their own tin of beer, it necessarily must result in the natives going to the towns on Saturdays or Sundays to get their beer there. I am also afraid that if the natives are no longer allowed to make beer at their homes they will go to the towns and this will have a very detrimental effect on the rural districts, the dairy farmers especially who live near the towns are going to be very hard hit because many of these natives will go to town to drink beer; they will get drunk and they will not be fit for their work. I should therefore be pleased if the Minister would accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg to refer this Bill back, or to have it properly investigated by a Commission, so that we may get a Bill which would be acceptable to this House.

When the Minister introduced this Bill I thought he made it perfectly clear to everybody—though he spoke in Afrikaans and many may not have understood him—but I did think that everybody realised that the principles embodied in these clauses were at least assisting in protecting the native against exploitation, and was putting him out of the reach of that section of the community that has lived on the native for many years. There are clauses in the Bill that protect the native, who owns the land today, against exploitation, that protect him further by making it impossible for a financier to exploit him from the point of view of the rate of interest that might be charged, and so you can go on to the various clauses. I assure you that I do not see anything in that Bill that might have caused or necessitated the mover of the amendment to adopt the viewpoint that this Bill might reasonably be submitted to a commission that may report at some far distant date, and thus allow the continuance of the state of affairs that exists today. Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to see the native representatives getting up here and opposing this Bill, doing all in their power to have it shelved for at least another year, because they know what must take place during that intervening period as a result of the non-enforcement of many of the provisions that are embodied in the Bill and which are designed to improve his lands and to put him beyond the reach of exploitation. I want to deal with one item that has necessitated a rather drastic provision, and that is the influx of natives from the Transkeian territories, and those areas bordering on the Transkei, from which a large supply of labour comes to the various parts of South Africa. As is well known, we have in Cape town some 60,000 or 70,000 natives that have rushed here as a result of the Defence Department calling for labour for fortifications, and for employment on the reclamation works, at an extremely high figure. The natives in the Transkeian territories got wind of this remunerative employment very quickly, and they have flocked here in their thousands they have, however, been very fortunate to have found these openings in the Cape as a result of many coloured men having been recruited and gone North to do their duty. Those of us who are keen observers of this position realise there are countless thousands of natives in the Cape today occupying positions that were filled originally by coloured men. What will be their position when the war is over and those coloured men come back and clamour for their jobs? You are going to have to release from the Cape those thousands of natives, because the coloured men have only been temporarily ousted from their jobs, and I cannot visualise the Western Province taking on the natives as permanent employees in place of the coloured men who they have been in the habit of employing, and who have unfortunately while in the army, been paid extremely high remuneration and very high allowances that have made it possible for their womenfolk to scorn the services they have rendered in the past. I do not know that there are many members in this House who have taken the trouble to go into the Cape Flats and see the state of affairs that exists there as far as the living conditions of the natives are concerned. Natives are living there under the filthiest conditions, with no provision whatever for sanitation, and the House can visualise what will happen if an epidemic broke out in some of those areas. Yet we have members here who, in spite of the fact that these 80,000 natives cannot remain in the Cape when the war is over, will not assist in the passing of a measure that will improve their housing conditions. I maintain that this matter of labour for urban areas might be tackled not as suggested in the Bill, but by some area further afield brought under control, but I think emergency regulations might be introduced at this stage to bring about some control at the source. When I tell you that you can go to those railway stations in the Transkei in the areas where there is a surplus of native labour, and that you will find the guards on these trains lining up the natives and picking out 50 to embark on the train, irrespective of whether they are required in Cape town or whether they can get service at their destination, or whether their rate of pay may be satisfactory or not, when I tell you of that state of affairs you will appreciate the necessity for action. I want to deal with one point that would appear to have agitated the minds of the native representatives to a greater extent than it should have done. I do not think there is anybody in this House that wants to deny to the native the right to sell his labour in the best market he can find; and, Mr. Speaker, I think every one of us who represents an area where there are hundreds of thousands of natives will endorse the view that the native must be allowed to sell his labour in the best market possible. But we have also to make provision for the future, and I would like to see the Minister take some action at this stage to dispel the impression that still exists in the minds of these natives that there is big work to be done in Cape town still, and in this way to stop the influx of the thousands of natives that has been stimulated under the pretext that they will receive a wage of 10s. a day. We are pleading for the expansion of industries. It is a very attractive idea, though from one point of view there is much to be said that cannot be said on this Bill. But I do think that industries having the prospect of absorbing thousands of natives must be protected in this sense, that they should have the right to demand a more stable and a more efficient labour force in close proximity to these industries than has been the case in the past. This is an essential feature as far as the natives are concerned, and it is essential for industry that there should be a permanent and efficient labour force to promote industrial development. The old idea that found ready acceptance in the past that the natives leave the Transkei, go to work on the mines or in industries for a period of about nine months, and then return to their homes for twelve months—that idea has gone. The day has come when the native himself demands better conditions, and the opportunity to be able to live closer to his work. I think it is the duty of everyone who has the interests of industry at heart, and who wants to see a contented native and coloured community in this country, to ensure that these demands are satisfied. There is one item I must touch on, and that is the demand for temporary labour. I still maintain, as I have often maintained in this House, that temporary labour is also demanding somewhere to live. I have reasonable grounds for believing that the Native Affairs Department has accepted the view that native model villages must be established at the various industries where the natives may be able to house their wives and families, and thus provide a source of labour that may be taken from one part of the country to the other. In those model villages you would have conditions that would meet all the requirements of that section of the community. There is one feature of that I would like to touch upon, namely, the necessity for a type of house in those areas that is suitable to the case. Whenever we talk about sub-economic housing schemes—I take it the Minister of Native Affairs will have to deal with it on those lines—it is necessary for us to put up a house in keeping with the requirements of the native; and I am speaking from experience when I assure you that where a native is actually owning a farm and a house has been built on the farm, the first thing the native does when he has built that house is to build a hut alongside it and to live in that hut. For the Housing Board to suggest that we have to put up a three, four or five-roomed house for that native is to bring us no further with the question. I suggest that the Native Affairs Department and the Housing Board should approve of a type; a rondavel with an asbestos roof will meet the demands of these natives for another twenty or thirty years. Associated with that you would have the control that is so essential for the native youth of this country. At present you have these native youths running away from their kraals or locations at the age of twelve or thirteen. They make for the nearest town, which has a great attraction for them. They engage themselves to the first man who will engage them, and there have been instances where native youths have had fourteen different employers in a period of twelve months. The consequence is that by the time he is fourteen or fifteen years of age he is as hardened a criminal as you are likely to see in this country. If that condition is to be tolerated, we are going to make hardened sinners and probably hardened criminals of these little natives before they are twenty years of age. This Bill also makes provision for something we have asked for in the House already, namely, that it be made a criminal offence for any man allowing illegal squatting on nis farms to give wrong information.

You are such a sweet boy this morning.

The Opposition has become extremely complimentary, but I shall not deal with the remark for the time being. There is no section of the farming community in this country that is asking for cheap labour, but I want to say at this juncture that if we are going to have these demands made on the farming community for greater remuneration of labour, then we have the right to demand greater efficiency of that labour. However, let us speak from the point of view of the after-the-war period. I think the Government will be well advised to take into consideration the exodus of natives from the areas which have now become congested. I am referring to those natives who are at present doing service in the towns, and who will have to be be distributed in the farming areas. It is well known that in the Eastern Province there are countless thousands of these natives parked on farms on an illegal basis. I do not think it is generally known that that is one means whereby the mines and industries are being subsidised by the farming community, by the protection and maintenance of the wives and families of the natives working in industries and on the mines. We are asking you for a remedy, and I sincerely hope the Native Affairs Department will take the matter in hand at an early date and establish colonies where these native women and children may be housed and where adequate arrangements will be made for their administration, management and protection. May I just refer to the somewhat caustic remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Wanless). The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) told a little story in the House about what a chief had told him in respect of the management of his family, and about him having stated that when his wife misbehaved herself a thrashing was the only solution. If that is not barbarous I do not know what is. Over and above that, Mr. Speaker, you have the lobola system and you have a state of affairs whereby the native converts his wealth into a harem, and if that is not barbarous I do not know what is. However, if the hon. member for Umbilo condones and approves of the idea of thrashing women and approves of the idea of six or seven wives to suit his own convenience, I have nothing further to say.

He did not say that.

I know, but he objected to the word barbarous. I recommend the hon. member to study the subject as it should be studied and then the members coming to this House ….

I suppose the members of the Natives Representative Council do not know anything about it either.

Not all of them— they don’t know as much about it as I do. I do think those remarks were quite uncalled for. I am not here to protect the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). If the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) had made as much contribution towards constructive solutions of the native problem as the hon. member for tembuland, we would have listened to him with great interest.

We did not say it.

No, but you listened to it with pleasure.

The hon. member should address the Chair.

This Bill calls for certain sacrifices—it is necessary to make sacrifices for the protection of the natives and Europeans. We should have a more amicable solution of the problems facing both Europeans and natives, and I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction.

To say the least of it the attitude adopted by the native representatives in this House is inexplicable to us. Not that we take so much notice of them. But we know what is going on outside where those speeches of those members are used for propaganda purposes to create the idea that we here in South Africa are oppressing the natives. If those hon. members would only go to the states and territories to the north of the Union where there are only natives, and where the white men cannot be blamed for the position prevailing there, they would soon find out what the state of affairs is there. Take for instance, Nyasaland—there they would find the natives working on the roads getting 4s. and 6s. per month less 2s. per month which is deducted for their food. In addition to that they are taxed on the money they earn, to help in the administrative expenses of Nyasaland. The administrative expenses are about £400,000 per year, and it is no wonder therefore that the Nyasaland natives tell us they are very anxious to come under the Union Government. They realise that the Union Government pays a decent wage, that it pays for the services they give. We pay from five to ten times as much as the native gets there. The man who has been trained in those parts to build bridges gets 12s. per month. Half of that he has to give up for food. Hon. members will realise therefore that these other territories pay the natives very much worse than the Union does. I would therefore like the native representatives to go into conditions prevailing there and see how much better off the natives are in the Union. In those areas the natives are exploited. Here in the Union the natives are still being exploited by certain business men. In our own territories we find that the natives are not being trained along the right methods, and if the native representatives come here and tell us that we must assist the natives in regard to erosion works and other things in order to improve the position in their own territories, we shall be only too pleased to give them that assistance. But instead they come here and tell us how badly the natives in the Union are treated. As I have already said, we are treating our natives very well in comparison with the treatment which natives get in other parts of the world. I challenge them to prove to us that there is any nation in the world which treats its natives better than we do in this country. If they were to tell us that the natives in those other territories should be protected by means of depôts which should be established there to deal with the question of food supplies, or in connection with erosion or other works, with a view to uplifting the natives, our reply would be that we are very anxious to help, but we get nothing but criticism here; we are continually told by them how badly the farmers treat the natives, and that they are not satisfied with the treatment meted out to the natives as a whole. When we were there we discussed matters with the natives in the Northern territories and we know what the position is there take education for instance. The natives there only get their education in the mission schools and if we compare their position with that of the natives in the Union there is a very great difference. As I have said, the natives in those parts told us that the day will come when the Union Government will take over those territories. Now that the Prime Minister is going overseas it is the wrong time for hon. members over there to say that the natives in the Union are so badly treated. In days gone by Gen. Hertzog did his best to get the native territories situated in the Union incorporated into the Union. The speeches which those hon. members are now making here may be used against us to prove that the territories could not be incorporated and the Prime Minister’s hands will be tied by those speeches; the position he may want to take up will not be strengthened by arguments of the kind we have been listenting to here this afternoon. Take Swaziland. Is the position there better than it is in the Union? Let hon. members go there and they will see for themselves that the situation is very much worse than it is in the Union. We have our Native Laws, but it would seem to me that the native representatives have completely forgotten that we have those laws. We felt when those laws were passed that here in South Africa the natives must be on the one side and the white men on the other side, we did not want these black spots in white areas. No, hon. members over there want rights to be given to the natives in white areas, merely with the object of frustrating those laws. We have no wish to oppress the natives. The white man has never done so and he does not want to do it now. But they must be separated from each other. Now that dividing line, that separation, is what the native representatives want to break down. They want white and black to be mixed in this country, and if that is done we will have the same trouble again which we had in the past. Take our location laws. They are not by any means strict enough. The original object of those laws was that the locations were only to have sufficient accommodation for the servants of the particular town to which they were attached; but what has happened since? The number of natives in the locations has increased to such an extent that there is no room for them today. A great many more natives than are needed for the work in the towns have drifted into those town locations, and now we cannot get them out and back to the rural districts. The law is so weak that it can be evaded in every possible way. What, for instance, is an idle native? If a man is idle, if a man is a loafer, the municipality can send him away, but as long as that man has a 6d. in his pocket he is not regarded as a vagrant. That is one of the great difficulties which the authorities have to cope with in locations —it is this trouble of vagrancy. Another way is for the women to work in the towns. The native may perhaps work for a month and after that he does nothing, he hangs about the locations for eight months. I think the law should be made very much stricter in this regard and should not be relaxed. So far as the factories are concerned we all realise they need native labour, but we already have a law, and we have our ways of dealing with that position. We know that the mines employ hundreds of thousands of natives but they keep their natives in compounds. If factories are established they can also keep the natives in compounds. So why should we allow a large number of these native women also to be brought to the factories? As the hon. member opposite has said, a native sometimes has not just one woman but five or six the eventual result may be that a large part of the white territories will be taken up by the natives. That we are entirely opposed to, and I can assure hon. members that we shall never allow that to happen. Hon. members can see today what the attitude of the white man is towards the native. The white man realises that he has certain responsibilities towards the native, but we also realise that South Africa must be ruled by the white man and that white civilisation must prevail here. No, we expect the native representatives to make suggestions as to how the native areas can be improved, but they must not try infiltration into the white areas with a view to pushing the white men out of those areas. So far as the Pass Laws are concerned we realise that the native has to carry too many passes. As the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has shown it would be a very good thing if the native had only one or two passes embodying all the information required. But it will never serve any useful purpose to do away with the pass system altogether. Here in the Cape Province, where a male native does not have to carry a pass, we are already getting a lot of vagrancy. In days gone by if a native went from one farm to another, or if he wanted to go and drink beer, he had to get a pass. Today that is no longer the case, and the result is that the natives on a large scale attend these beer drinks. That is where all the trouble starts. If there is a great beer drink the farmer has to look after his sheep because if the native gets drunk he has to have meat to put him right again. Let the native drink his beer in his own home. That is not what they do today; they come together in large numbers and that is where all the trouble starts. The attitude adopted by the Minister is quite correct. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, but I feel the Minister is quite correct in adopting the attitude that we cannot go along in this loose way and think we are going to save civilisation by carrying on in the way we are doing.

We have had a lot of points of view expressed on this subject and a great many opinions have been ventilated which have not done very much in the direction of explaining the position, or of solving many of the difficulties with which the Minister is faced. I feel that attempts to criticise and destroy the confidence of the natives in the Native Affairs Department and in the Native Commissioners will not help towards a solution of this problem. We have a Native Affairs Department which is wholeheartedly working in the interest of the native people—there is no question about it; and when they come forward with a measure of this kind designed to improve the conditions very considerably, I feel the House should welcome these efforts, and if we do not agree with the details of every proposal made in this Bill, let us try to improve them in Committee rather than say: “Don’t touch the question at all—you cannot alter them without altering the whole of our native legislation” That is not helpful. We have a Minister who we admire for the way he has dealt with these questions—we have never had a Minister who has taken such a deep interest in these affairs, and we feel that in the attempt he is making now he is entitled to more support than he has had so far.

tell us why.

I shall tell the hon. member why; a lot of these Utopian ideas which we have had to listen to from hon. members over there sound very well. As abstract theory they sound very nice. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) told us the other day that he required three things from the farming community—one was absolute efficiency, and then he demanded that the wages of the natives should be doubled. He did not mention efficiency so far as native labour was concerned.

You know very well what I meant.

No, I don’t. One of my principal reasons for saying that these Utopian ideas are not helpful is because the natives are not ready for these things.

Yes, we have heard that before.

The idea of absolute equality with the white man is expressed by the native representatives in this House. The natives are not ready for that, and it is not in their interest to advocate that and to stir up their feelings along those lines. Under present conditions beer halls in our larger towns are a necessity, and I feel it is necessary for these beer halls to be better run than they are today. Many objections and many of the weaknesses that have developed under the present system will be improved under the provisions of this Bill. I was absolutely surprised to hear one of the representatives of the native people suggest that natives should be allowed to brew beer freely in their own homes.

It is done in the biggest location in the country in Bloemfontein.

This is a danger, particularly at the present moment, and I feel it will be appreciated throughout the country, and I feel that ideas of that kind—playing up to native opinion—are most dangerous. Then I come to the question of native advisory boards. We have heard a lot about them recommending this, that or the other, and I maintain that any person who expects natives to agree to measures which are necessary for their own benefit is very ill advised indeed.

The native has certain ideas which they put forth—they are very clever at arguing a case, and they will not face up to some of the real things which make their lives very difficult. The continual cry from the native people is for more land—and that is their idea for solving the whole of their problems.

They have a considerable amount of land today, and there is a wrong impression created by this continual reference to the natives occupying only a small percentage of the Union. We know that they are occuping some of the best land in the Union, and if you count these millions of acres occupied by the Europeans in the Karoo and in other parts of the country—and if you make a comparison between that land and the land occupied by the natives you know that the native is not so badly off. The natives have some of the very best land in the country in the Eastern portions, the high rainfall areas, and, unfortunately, they have ruined that land. That is my biggest criticism of the Native Affairs Department—I feel that they have not been sufficiently strong in enforcing on the natives measures which are to the benefit of the natives. You see overstocking going on in the native areas to an extent which has ruined millions of acres. That problem has to be tackled and it can only be tackeld along one line—and that is compulsion. It is useless to try and get the natives to agree voluntarily to reduce their cattle. They have the lobola system and they look upon cattle as their wealth, and unless the Native Affairs Department tackles the matter seriously along the lines I have just indicated very briefly, you will not solve it.

What has the Bill to do with that?

We have had lots of recommendations from all quarters of the House, and we did not interrupt the hon. member when he put forward his recommendations.

Yes, but what has that to do with the Bill?

I feel we have to do something to help the natives, and with regard to more land for the natives, I would like to mention this question of efficiency— the natives are probably the least efficient people occupying land in South Africa. I think that is admitted on all sides, and yet the only suggestion hon. members have mentioned for improving this position is to give more land to the least efficient producers in South Africa. I think this problem will not be solved along those lines. We are finding industries springing up in this country, industries requiring more labour, and if these industrie are to succeed they must have a more permanent labour force than they can get through our present migratory labour system. I do not know whether it is expected that cities where natives can become a more permanent part of our industrial development are to be looked for as a solution. We have to get better transport facilities, better housing facilities for them, and we have to make them part of our permanent labour force. This Bill is intended to help along those lines. I feel the object of the suggested amendments are along the same lines. I think we should accept this Bill—we should accept the improvements which we feel sure it will bring about, and if these ideas advocated by hon. members are worth while there is no reason why we should not pass the Bill and subsequently appoint a commission to continue to investigate the improvements suggested on various sides of the House.

When listening to the speeches in this debate I could not help but feel that I had gathered an impression that the Department of Native Affairs was in effect a Department for the suppression of the natives. And with that in my mind I had to re-examine the Bill, and I found that insofar as those who opposed the Bill are concerned, quite an erroneous impression has been created. As I see it the objectors to the Bill base their objections on two grounds. The first is on the ground of ideology and the second on the ground that the Bill is not a magna charta for the native people. Now, in that respect I appreciated the points raised by the native representatives and the points raised this morning by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) and I think in many respects the majority of the members of this House would feel the same—many of the members of the House would support many of the views put forward by those hon. members. If one were to examine this Bill carefully one would find that it is not the intention of the Minister that this Bill should be the natives’ magna charta, and it is for that reason that while I may agree with the objectors to the Bill I cannot agree with them in regard to their procedure. If the amendments which they have moved were motions standing by themselves in this House it is possible that the majority of members could support them, but bearing in mind the points raised in this Bill I think it is not sufficient, and the grounds are not good enough, to agree that we should throw out the Bill because they do not meet the objectors on the grounds of ideology or because the Bill is not a magna charta. Now, what is the gravamen of their charge? The first point which they raised was that the Bill did not take into consideration the viewpoint raised by the Natives Representative Council, a vehicle which no doubt the Minister and his Department have used from time to time and have taken serious cognisance of. Now, far from that being the case I find in examining the facts that while they are correct in stating that in the preamble to this Report the Council also objected to the Bill on ideological grounds—the Council did take a more realistic view in that they examined the clauses of this Bill in detail ….

Do you suggest that we have not done that?

I do not suggest that but I think that when one examines this Report one will find ….

I considered it at that time.

Then I find it very difficult to understand the hon. member’s attitude. I wish to raise just one or two points in regard to this particular report. In the original Bill put before the Natives Representative Council, and the Bill now before this House, certain clauses have remained. Let me put it this way: In comparing the two Bills—the original Bill put before the Council with the one now before the House—I find that certain clauses in the original Bill have been amended or withdrawn. I find that the Minister of Native Affairs and his Department have gone to considerable trouble in examining the views of the Natives Representative Council. For instance, I find that Clause 2 of the original Bill has been dropped at the request of the Council. I further find that Clause 4 has also been dropped.

Are you making a special plea?

And when I examine other parts of the Report I find from time to time a phrase such as this : “Your Committee supports this clause.” take Clause 12 which deals with the question of reasonable suspicion—there the Minister has met the views of the Council. Then I find at the end of the Report two very important suggestions put forward by the Council, or by the Committee of the Council, which have both been accepted and are now in the Bill as Clauses 6 and 19. So I think that the Minister has shown very clearly that his Department has taken cognisance of the Report of this Council and has in a measure agreed to many of the points raised by that Council. For that reason I find it very difficult to reconcile these amendments which have been proposed here, in the light of that particular Report.

The Council objected to the Bill.

Yes, from an ideological point of view. For example they object to passes. The pass system in not under consideration here. It is merely an extension. We are not considering the question of the pass system in South Africa. And it is on that ground that the Council objected. As I have said, they have taken a more realistic view ….

Read Clause 4 of the report.

Well, there are some 40 or 50 clauses in the Bill.

If you read Clause 4 I don’t see how you can say they accept it.

Apart from the general criticism I have not heard any comments from the objectors congratulating the Minister on many of the good points contained in this measure.

You know perfectly well that we support certain parts of the Bill.

I am glad to hear it, and I shall be glad to withdraw my remarks on that point. Well, the Natives Representative Council did not object to Clause 2 and to Clause 18 (4). I assume, too, that there is no actual objection to the provision preventing the exploitation of natives. We need not go over the grounds the Minister has given us to indicate that people in this country are still trying to exploit the natives. In regard to that clause I would suggest to the Minister that he should go even further and take into consideration the fact that there are many non-natives who hold quite a fair amount of land in those areas, and who have already issued a fair number of bonds at a high rate of interest; and I think it would be the correct thing for him to take powers to expropriate those loans. It would not set up a precedent because under the Slums Act the Minister of Public Health is permitted to take action where it is considered necessary for the improvement of these areas, even though it is not a slum area. I could wish that the Minister might go even further in this particular case and take steps to protect the natives of these particular areas from the so-called land speculators, who give bonds to the natives at high rates of interest. That is my only objection to that particular clause. I would ask that the Minister should face up to the various requests that had been made to effect an improvement of this clause. In this debate I have heard a tremendous amount of argument regarding this new phase of the industrialisation and urbanisation of the natives. That having come about, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the native himself is essentially a farmer, that he is a polygamist, and that he likes large families. I agree that there is a fair section who over the last few years have wanted to become urbanised permanently, and it is in regard to this particular category of natives that I think we should be a little more cautious, and that the Minister is correct in that attitude. But I do feel that in the granting of certain powers to the local health commissions wherein the Minister has agreed that these commissions should perform the functions laid down in the Native Urban Areas Act, the Minister has gone a long way towards improving the conditions in these neutral belts in urban areas; but I think we must not lose sight of the fact, and here I have in mind a remark made by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), that the Government has indicated the broad principles of its future housing policy. That is an important commencement, because the native section of the community has suffered under the existing housing scheme, because not only has the local authority had to have the approval of the Minister in the question of the land, but when they come with their sub-ecnomic housing schemes they then have to have the approval of the Administrator and the Minister of Social Welfare, and the Housing Board and the Minister of Native Affairs; and then they have had to go back to the Administrator again; and it is on record in Durban that under that system the local authority has from time to time taken the minimum period of two years to get through the sub-economic housing scheme for the native community. Now that the Government has announced that they are appointing a Housing Commission and doing away with all this red tape, I think one can assume so far as the welfare of the natives in those particular areas is concerned, this Bill makes very important provision to deal with that question. I should like to raise the question of these kaffir beer provisions. One does not criticise the local authority, but I think one can just look at their own doorstep. It is a recognised fact—I presume the Minister of Finance will agree with me—that the treasury is not mainly concerned with the policy of a particular department, but is more concerned with the hard, cold facts of financial adjustment; and it is in that respect that local authorities from time to time, particularly the treasury section are trying to load these beer accounts with a view probably, to placing unnecessary charges against that particular department. It is in that connection that I welcome the provisions in this Bill dealing with the limitations of the use of beer profits. The only comment I would add is that I hope the Minister may in the consideration of this clause, allow a little more latitude to the local authority in regard to the question of surpluses. As I read the clause at the moment, it strikes me that it is if anything somewhat restricted and I ask the Minister whether he could ease off the restriction a little. In regard to this new provision concerning home brewing, I would say that as one who has from time to time witnessed these terrible sights of hand-cuffed natives being marched off to prison — there is a prison just opposite my house — I cannot help but feel that the natives themselves have been suffering under an injustice as the result of this restrictive legislation in the past, that they have been put in gaol where their physical well-being has suffered, and that they have, in some cases, become criminals of the recidivist type. I am satisfied in my mind that with the improvements put forward by the Minister in this Bill with a view to allowing home brewing, however small this measure may be, the native will at least accept the principle from the Minister, and that it will furnish him with an indication that this doctrine of trusteeship is no idle or empty one. I want to conclude on this note, that while I can support in particular the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) and many of the remarks made by the native representatives, I feel that we on this side of the House must take exception to their method of procedure. While they cannot agree with the Bill in some respects it is not enough merely because the Bill does not comply with all their requirements for them to cast aside this Bill with all its important provisions, and I would ask them to reconsider the procedure they are adopting and ask themselves whether it is one that can be accepted by this House. Rather should they advocate and propound a magna charta for the natives. Such a measure would receive the support of this House. But we must see that this Bill, with all the important provisions it contain is accepted and placed on the Statute Book.

This House has discussed this most important matter very fully, and one feels somewhat hesitant to say anything further about such an important question. To my mind the native question is one of the most important we have to deal with in this country and I feel that a Minister of Native Affairs, more than anyone else, has the wellbeing of the future of South Africa in his hands. We on this side of the House do not in any way want to contribute towards making the position of the Minister of Native Affairs more difficult. There are, however, some minor points on which I want to say a few words. The first is the question of beer. It is thought sometimes that this is a very minor question, that it is not very important, but I feel it is one of the most important subjects when we deal with natives. We as the guardians of the natives must uplift the natives and put them on a higher standard of living in this country. That is our duty towards the natives and it is also our duty to European civilisation in this country. And speaking as a man who lives near a native area and in a district where we have a lot to do with natives I feel that the use of this intoxicating liquor must be controlled. If there is one thing which it is our duty to do, it is to reduce the consumption of beer. I am sorry therefore that the Minister, in Clause 10, seeing that native beer halls are permitted in locations, also wants to permit private individuals in the locations to brew beer. We know what that means. I happen to live between two small dorps and in the one dorp the Municipality or the Local Government exercises good control, while in the other place the control is not good. In the one dorp, where control is exercised over the brewing of beer you can send your natives to attend to various things for you, and they will come back sober. You can give a native a few pounds advance on his pay and he will come back with the necessary requirements for his family. But if you give the native who goes to the other town a few pounds, you can be sure of his coming back drunk and it means that for a whole week you can do nothing with him. It really is our duty to check beer drinking. It is said that beer is the natives’ food and we must therefore be very considerate when we talk about curtailing his opportunities to get beer.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was talking about the brewing of beer. I know that the general policy is to avoid natives suddenly being removed from all their customs and habits. It would cause confusion to do so, but we as the natives’ guardians surely have a duty imposed upon us gradually to remove these deeply rooted evils out of the lives of the natives, and one of the principal evils is excessive drinking of beer or any other intoxicant. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not to give in, but gradually, in the best way possible, to curtail excessive drinking. Now, there is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and it is this, that in this Bill there is a provision that the revenue obtained from the sale of beer by a local authority is only to be used for social services. I want to ask the Minister why such revenue is only to be used for social services. We know that the local authorities have to spend a lot of money to make the lives of the natives in the location more comfortable. Why then this restriction? As long as the Department knows that the revenue is used for the general welfare of the native population in the urban area, that should be sufficient. Why lay it down that the revenue is to be used only for social services? We know that many of these small municipalities have the greatest trouble to get money to adMinister their towns, and also to adMinister their locations. As this money is got from the natives I want to know why the local authorities must be handicapped, and why they must be told that the revenue received from beer must only be used for certain purposes, and not generally for the welfare of the natives. I object to that, and I hope the Minister will go into that aspect of the matter again. There is another question which touches a very great principle and that is segregation. We all feel that natives should be granted trading rights in their own locations. But when we look at conditions in European areas and in locations in European areas we must realise that the time has arrived once and for all to apply our segregation policy. Have we not laid it down as a definite policy that segregation is to be applied for the good of the Europeans and for the good of the natives? I know this is a very important and far-reaching principle, but none the less I want to have a clear answer from the Minister on this point. We have our native reserves in South Africa, our black areas and we have our white areas, and the question I am now asking is whether in view of the fact that the principle of segregation has been adopted you are still going to allow white and black villages to develop next to each other, each properly organised, and each with its own commercial and trading facilities and so on. Hon. members should bear in mind that we in South Africa are in duty bound as the guardians of the natives, to unlift them. Anyone who refuses to act in that spirit is not doing his duty to the natives nor is he doing bis duty to white civilisation. But we are also concerned with the question of the preservation of white civilisation in this country and we must give the white people certain definite rights, certain rights which have been secured to them. As I have said, I am not opnosed to natives getting trading rights in their own territories, not even full trading rights, but I am very definitely opposed to our allowing the natives in the town locations to trade and to have trading rights. We must see to it that the white people also have the rights they are entitled to. As a Free Stater particularly I hesitate to allow the natives to have trading rights in the locations. We have not got the problems in the Free State which other parts of the Union have. We have not got the Indian problem and there are other problems too which we do not have to contend with, but if we allow the natives to develop their own locations into independent dorps, if we allow them to have their own trading rights and to put up shops, there is the danger that the Europeans whose standard of living is higher, whose costs of living are higher, may be pushed aside. The native himself will be in a position to trade more cheaply than the white man because he can live so much more cheaply. The result will be that people will deal with the native shops. It is a fact unfortunately in South Africa that people often do not think far enough—they just go where they can buy at the lowest prices. If we allow the natives to trade in their locations it is possible that even white people will go and buy there. I want to ask the Minister whether he will allow us to move in Committee that native business concerns in native locations will not be permitted to trade with Europeans, and that they will also be prohibited from delivering goods in white areas. You may otherwise have this position that although the white man does not go to the location he may order goods by telephone, or in some other way, and he may have the goods delivered to him. I feel very strongly on this point. I feel that we have a duty to the native, but we also have a duty to the Europeans, and our duty is particularly to the Europeans. We cannot allow trade to be taken out of the white man’s hands in white areas.

You are now talking about locations?

Yes, the plea I am putting up is that Europeans shall not be allowed to trade with native shops. I want to ask the Minister to prohibit it and to stop it.

I want just briefly to say that there are certain portions of this Bill to which I greatly object, and to indicate which those are, and to give my reasons for disliking them. My standpoint is not based an any cranky ideology, on any visionary or nonsensical speculation, but on certain broad principles which I had hoped we were all agreed upon. It is a fact that at this moment we are, and have been for years past, fighting a great war for liberalism, and it is plain therefore that to be logical we also must be liberalminded. We are fighting overseas today against the exploitation of weak peoples, and my objection to parts of this Bill is simply that it legalises further exploitation within our own borders. We hear a great deal about the Atlantic Charter. I am going to remind ho members of the essence of this Charter on which, so far as this Bill is concerned, our legitimate case must rest. The President of the United States of America, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deemed it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries, on which they based their hopes for the better future of the world—

The question I propose to ask is this. Inasmuch as we in South Africa are subscribing to that Atlantic Charter: “That all the men shall live out their lives in freedom from fear, and want”; do these words apply to the natives, or do they not? The people of this nation, a rapidly increasing number of this nation, say that the Atlantic Charter most certainly does apply equally to them. I have spoken to a large number of Europeans about this, and I have received what I consider strangely similar replies. I have enquired the views of many manufacturers and industrialists, and the great majority of them sincerely desire the betterment, the improvement and social uplifting of the natives. I have discussed the question with commercial people; they also were in agreement on this point. I have had talks on this matter with artisans and craftsmen, and with farmers too, and I assert that there is a common wish in South Africa today that the lot of the Bantu, of all the native peoples, shall be greatly changed, greatly bettered. Now I wish to pay tribute, thus differing entirely from an adverse statement made in this debate this morning—I wish to pay a great tribute to the representatives of the native people who for five or six years have put forward in this House, with admirable clarity, the difficulties and the needs and the hopes of the natives—I wish to express appreciation to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), and the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) because I attribute to them the very much improved public opinion on this subject of the welfare of our native peoples. Probably I should not have intervened in this debate at all, except that my anxiety on this matter was greatly increased by what I consider a most reactionary leading article which appeared in the “Cape times” as recently as last Saturday, 25th March. This paper, and all the newspapers widely circulated, are to some degree formative of public opinion, and the conservative and cautious nature of this article has caused me considerable alarm, especially as it may be taken by many as being representative of the Government point of view. It has to do with the increase of wages for the native mine workers and it refers to an increase of 4d. to those men who work on surface jobs, and 5d. per shift to those who work below ground.

I am afraid the hon. member is travelling very far from the Bill.

I am trying to illustrate this point, that I fear there may be a distinction between the professions of the Government and the performance— I think I see in this article, as in the Bill, a retrograde tendency. I don’t know if you would permit me to call attention just to one standard, as it were, taken according to this account by the Mine Natives’ Wages Commission. It indicates the great difference there may be even during the progress of this war for freedom, between theory and practice, between promise and performance. This article says—

But what has that to do with this Bill?

If I could be allowed to continue I would show what it has to do with this Bill. I should like to illustrate a tendency at least on the part of a fairly large number of people to set the standard too low, a tendency which has influenced and formed public opinion, and which is perhaps going to affect the Government’s policy. May I just be allowed to quote an example of this? this article says—

I wish to protest against that. It is not a question, surely, of merely keeping together the bodies and souls of the natives. It is a very much wider question than that. Perhaps the Minister will answer me, and say plainly whether that is the spirit which is behind this particular piece of legislation. If he will tell me it is not I shall be greatly reassured, but I think he is not in a position to tell me it is not. That apparently is what the Commission feels, that a very low and barely life-sustaining subsistence rate is all the Commision is entitled to recommend. Does the Minister in this Bill of his have a very much more generous intention? We are asked at the end of the article I have mentioned to suggest an alternative. I submit that also has a bearing on this case, and is eloquent of the half-hearted attitude of the Government. There is a lot of talk in this report of how poor this country is.

I wish the hon. member would come back to the terms of this Bill; the House is not discussing that report.

Very well, I shall put my contention in the form of a question to the Minister—a suggestion to the Minister. It is desirable as an alternative to any sort of restriction or repressive measure to free the native from the relative serfdom in which he exists at present, to give to him education and real training, training for crafts and industries, agriculture included, so that he may be able to make a bigger contribution still to the production of wealth for the enrichment of this nation? If the Minister will answer me there, and assure me that that is the intention of certain clauses which I shall mention, I shall be greatly relieved, but I doubt whether that is the course which the Government has in mind. I suggest that the native must not be more tightly bound; he must be more free. That he must not be more restricted; he must be liberated, and then he will produce a still greater proportion of our national wealth, and will be entitled to a larger share of the good things in this world. And I think that will go a long way towards solving the problems which this Bill is no doubt honestly intended to meet. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration in letting me proceed to make these points, and in conclusion what I chiefly have to say is this: I am not against this Bill because it is not a Magna Charta. I object to what is in this Bill, and not to what is not. This Bill in certain clauses is definitely a step backward, and to that I take exception. The retrogressive portions to which I refer are Clause 7, Clause 14, Sub-clause 4, Sub-section (u), and Clause 18. I would invite the Minister to adopt this closing suggestion. There are restrictionary, repressive clauses, and I hope the Minister will agree to their amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill.

Two very definite and very clear lines of thought have been expressed in the course of this debate. In the first place we have those who still believe in the general oppression of the non-European, and secondly we have a large group who are in favour of the artificial and speedy development of the non-Europeans.

Who are the first group?

The hon. member will know where to find them. Then there is a small group which is perhaps not represented in this House, but which can be found in this country, which is in favour of the native making rapid progress and which wants to give the native complete equality with the white man. The people holding that view are not so much concerned with the interests of the natives, they only use the natives to achieve their own purposes, and once they have succeeded in achieving their end they will leave the natives in the lurch. That group perhaps need not take up much of our time here, except that I should just say this, that they do a tremendous amount of harm to the natives themselves. So far as the two main groups are concerned, may I say that we do not only find these two lines of thought in this House but also outside, in the country. It is a pity, it is even ironical if we think that the native who himself has no say about his own lot has often been made the football in the party political arena. I therefore feel that it is essential —and that fact has not come out so very strongly in this debate—that we should keep our native affairs outside the political party arena in our discussions in this House. I know that in days gone by elections were often fought on the native question, and I know that the cause of the native as well as the cause of the white man has been seriously injured as a result. So far as this Bill is concerned we can say that it has selected the middle course—it has fought shy of both extremes. This Bill is intended to give certain privileges to the natives according to their development, and at the same time it aims at giving protection to the natives according to the progress they have made—if one looks at that progress from the point of view of the relationship between a primitive agricultural population and a highly developed urban population. We have heard complaints about this Bill being an amending Bill and not a consolidating Bill. In a case like this where the Bill is trying to amend a large number of existing laws we feel that an amending Bill is not really quite the correct thing. An amending Bill increases law costs and creates difficulties in administration, and in many respects it is perhaps not desirable. We also find here, if we study the Bill, that we get these amendments placed before us without any explanation of the proposed amendments. Perhaps it is not the tradition of this House, when such amendments are proposed to an existing clause, to set out the original clause together with the amendment. I feel, however that if an improvement contributes towards facilitating the administration and towards improving the administration, tra dition has to take a back seat. The Bill attempts to remedy a number of shortcomings and the question immediately arises whether the time has not arrived to consider a revision of our native policy in South Africa. You see, Mr. Speaker, with all modesty, as I see the position, I feel that the white population in South Africa is developing very rapidly today. The development is accelerated by wars, by industrial development and all the rest of it, and the natives necessarily are in close touch with white civilisation. It is therefore self-evident that they are influenced by white civilisation in every possible way, with the result that legislation which today may perhaps be regarded as concessionary and perhaps even as liber alistic, may tomorrow already be antiquated and even oppressive in its tendencies. I therefore feel that if there is one question which requires review and perhaps periodical review, it is our native legislation. South Africa’s legislation is based on the principle of segregation. This policy of segregation has been strongly objected to in the course of this debate and also elsewhere by the champions of equality. On the other hand there are those who want to carry out the principle of segregation very conscientiously. It is clear from the nature of things and from the development which has already taken place among the natives that the conscientious application of the principle of segregation in a time like the present has become almost impossible. On the other hand we have not yet reached such a stage of development, so far as the natives are concerned, that we can completely jettison the principle of segregation. The conflict between these two points of view occurs particularly in urban areas where on account of industrial development the Europeans and the non-Europeans naturally are in much closer contact with each other, and those contacts between primitive non-Europeans hailing from primitive rural surroundings and the already highly developed townspeople, must necessarily lead to tremendous conflicts. The question now is what can be done to avoid those conflicts, and in these complex urban conditions segregation to all intents and purposes has merely become a party slogan. With all due modesty I want to try and place another outlook before this House, namely that of parallel development in separate areas. Speaking generally, this outlook can be defined as the establishment of parallel non-European or native towns alongside European towns, where the non-Europeans have to undergo a gradual transformation from their rural mode of living to the urban mode of living until the contact between the primitive rural natives and Western civilisation in the towns becomes such that conflicts and clashes will be gradually done away with. The non-Europeans will have to pass through three separate stages. In the first place the stage of hostel life. In the second place, the stage of sub-economic housing, and thirdly, the stage of economic housing. When the native under present-day conditions goes to town, and goes to look for work there he can be housed in a hostel; that is as long as his family is still in the Reserve or on the farm, or wherever he comes from. If he decides to settle down in the town, and if he becomes a permanent resident of the town he can be put in a sub-economic house. The third stage will come about after a few years when the native has become an urban resident, and when he should be given every possible opportunity of living in an economic house and to buy his own house. Such a non-European town will in all probability also have to pass through three stages. The first stage will be the stage of strict control by local authorities; the second stage will be that of lesser control, and the third stage of very little control, a condition of affairs under which the native will have certain privileges of local government under the guidance and supervision of the Provincial Authorities in co-operation with the local authorities.

Do you want to have black spots in white areas?

The hon. member is anticipating my remarks, if he will wait a little while he will see that that is not my intention.

But that is what you are actually suggesting now.

No, not at all. I want to have separate residential areas. Putting it briefly the position is that even with the existing legislation and to a certain extent also under this Bill an influx of natives is taking place into the towns, and when they go to the towns there is no definite place for them to settle and in the majority of cases they have no prospects either. In very many cases they have come to an already over-supplied labour market and in nine cases out of ten they land in the worst slums of the big towns. We already have that position today in the big towns of the Witwatersrand, and I particularly want to refer to places such as Sophiatown, Martindale, Newclare and Alexandra Township. My hon. friends on my left, the native representatives, are under the impression that the natives in these places are leading an ideal life, because they can have their own property there. They are under the impression that the right to own property is the be all and end all of everything. First of all let me say that that is a myth. These people who live there under those conditions are subjected to the worst types of exploitation by the man who builds those houses. Conditions there are deplorable, and they constitute a blot on the fair name of white civilisation. Reproaches have been cast at the City Council of Johannesburg. I don’t want to defend that municipality but I want to say this, that if there is one municipality in Johannesburg which has tried to solve the native problem it is the municipality of Johannesburg. But it cannot keep on building houses for ever, because we find that there is a constant influx into the towns, and that this influx goes on uncontrolled. Serious objections are raised against the control which this Bill is providing for. One would like to ask the native representatives what is better—control or just allow the native population to drift to the towns without any control.

But we don’t want control for the purpose of exploitation.

This control does not aim at exploiting them. Is it not better to exercise control, to give advice and guidance to the natives than simply allow them to rush to the towns without any prospects and to allow them to land there in conditions which will drag them down to immorality and crime. No, the whole position has to be investigated and carefully considered. First of all we must have an investigation into the reasons for the migration to our big towns. Those reasons to my mind are clear. There are two reasons which contribute very greatly; the first is economic pressure and the second is the urge for social amenities. If those two gaps, those two shortcomings in the rural areas are overcome our farmer friends will have no cause to complain of a shortage of native labour, and the balance between the urban and rural labour forces will be restored. My contention is that control to a large extent is essential in the interest of the native himself—entirely in his own interest, so that he will not be allowed to land in the towns without any prospects. So far as the towns themselves are concerned a periodical investigation has to be made and a survey has to be made of the labour forces which are available, and of the amount of labour that is required. I think that if a survey is made and if proper control is exercised we shall no longer have these conditions which we have in the towns today—we shall no longer have surplus natives there—natives who in many cases are unemployed and who take part in things which are detrimental to them, who are sometimes employed by gangs of thieves to assist them in housebreaking and crimes of that type. Those conditions will disappear and at the same time the platteland and the Reserves will not be suffering from a shortage of labour. We cannot allow conditions to continue as they are doing today. We have laws but those laws are not carried out. Those laws are not intended to oppress the native, they are not intended to exploit him but to control him in his own interest. If those laws are not applied, then I am afraid we are going to get to a condition of affairs, especially in the big towns, which will become impossible both for the Europeans and the natives. That brings me to the last and most important part of the Bill. I said at the outset of my remarks that it was desirable to review our native policy from time to time in regard to the reaction in the wider fields of the contact between the non-Europeans and white civilisation in the towns. I said at the outset that this Bill should fill a number of other gaps as well. But there is one aspect which is very important, and that is that when legislation is introduced to deal with native affairs the repercussions which will take place in other respects have to be carefully watched—especially the repercussions in the sphere of labour and in the sphere of justice. In this connection the public had been looking forward to legislation on the lines of the recommendations of the Elliot Commission, legislation which would contribute greatly towards protecting the natives in the big towns and which would tend to remove illegalities. Apparently, however, that aspect of the matter has not been dealt with at all. I feel there should be coordination between various departments, especially where legislation in regard to native matters is concerned. On account of our having taken up an attitude of—one can almost say—“It’s not my business,” we have allowed a condition to develop in the big towns in the past which is very detrimental, especially to the natives themselves. I therefor again want to make an appeal to the Minister to do his utmost to try and remedy those conditions and to introduce the necessary legislation in the near future with that object in view.

I just want to nut to the Minister the attitude which was adopted by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) in connection with the question of trading in the locations. The position is that in the ordinary town locations there are no trading rights. There are no shops in the locations which, are under the control of the natives themselves. If we allow the natives in the locations to open shops and to trade, we would run the risk of a gradual infiltration of natives in the European community. I want to put that clearly. I am also speaking here as a Free Stater, and there is no reason why either in the Free State or in the other provinces one should go out of ones’ way to create opportunities for the provision of such trading facilities within the locations. I think the general position is that the native’s sphere of employment is not within the location but in the European community, and when the native goes to his sphere of employment he avails himself of the opportunity to make the necessary purchases at the European store or at shops which are under the control of Europeans. We are strongly in favour of the continuance of that state of affairs. What we do not want, and we want to say it very clearly, is that native stores should spring up in the locations and that they should have full trading rights. Take, for example, the Bloemfontein location and give the natives there the right to open shops. The argument of this side is that those shops would not be confined to the location. Because the standard of living and the costs of living of the natives and Europeans are not on the same level, the natives sooner or later will offer unfair competition as against the Europeans in the European area, and one may have this position that the less privileged section of the European population will, for economic reasons, make its purchases where the goods are cheapest. It will create an impossible state of affairs and simply break down the colour bar between European and non-European. We want to obviate that under all circumstances. We want to have and to maintain the colour bar. We do not want the Europeans to be forced by economic circumstances to make their purchases from non-Europeans. That is not the position today, and we do not want it to happen in the future. One may also have this position, that the individual who has trading rights within the location will later on extend his trade to the European area by sending out his commodities.

I explained in my speech that we want to prevent that.

Then we are apparently agreed on this, and I hope that the Minister will stipulate that there must not be mixed trading and that he will not allow locations to develop into self-controlled black belts within the European areas where they do not belong. I think that if there is one thing which has been shown clearly in this debate it is that in connection with the native question in our country in all its aspects, it is necessary that the existing legislation in regard to natives in urban areas as well as on the platteland, must be taken into review. In this respect I can only draw the Minister’s attention once again to the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus)—

From the nature of things it is clear that this question is of immense importance and that it demands a thorough investigation. The Minister himself knows that today the position in the cities is untenable. We see what happens in Cape town day after day. There is an enormous influx of natives who come from the Transkei and other territories in the interior. The influx to the cities is uncontrolled. Thousands of natives get off at Bellville and walk up and down Cape Town looking for a job. That is one side of the picture, and the other side of the picture is that there are many parts of the platteland where this labour is needed. People seek and simply cannot find the necessary labour. It is clear, therefore, that this whole question should be considered, and I think it has become apparent from the debate that we have reached a stage in our history when the whole of the native question of our country will have to be studied thoroughly, and there must be proper co-ordination of legislation in that connection, which will prevent the development of conditions such as those with which we are faced in Cape Town and in other cities. If there is one thing which became very evident from this debate, it is, in the first place, that there must be a proper system of distribution of labour, that there must be proper registration of all the available labour in our country. It is necessary to have proper registration as far as the native population is concerned. Only then would one be in a position to lay down quotas and to control; only then would one be able to say: “In this part labour is needed; in that part all the labour which has flocked there is redundant.” I therefore advocate a system of registration. I do not think I am going too far in saying that as far as the influx of male natives to the cities is concerned, it has assumed a proportion in South Africa today which is tantamount to a sort of national migration. There have been cases of national migration in the history of the world, and what is happening in our country today is almost tantamount to national migration. A section of the inhabitants of a certain part get an idea into their heads to pack up and to shift to another part. It so happens that I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Native Affairs and I just want to say how this happens. A hundred natives may come from the Transkei as scouts. The circumstances under which they live in the territories from which they come may not be favourable. We know that a few years ago there was a famine in the Transkei. A hundred natives would come down to the Cape Peninsula to see whether there is not work for them here. They find that there is work available, and under circumstances which are more favourable than those in the territories from which they come. They may get higher wages here than they have ever got. The native then notfies those who remain in the territories: “If you want employment, come down here.” He may send a few pounds and say: “See to it that you come down by the first train.” We know that the natives have more contact with one another than other races. Hon. members who have dealing with the natives will know that if they are not all brothers, they are at least brothers-in-law. They have contact with one another, and they notify those who remained in the reserve to come down here. That has been going on for a long time, and the problem has got out of control. That is why the position in the Cape Peninsula is what it is today. There must therefore be proper control in connection with the distribution of labour, and for that purpose proper registration is necessary. You would then be able to apply a quota system. We should see to it that only those who can find employment here are allowed to come here, and those for whom there is no employment should not be allowed to come down here. I think the Minister agrees with me in that respect. It is not right to wait until a position develops such as that we have today. We cannot, first of all, allow thousands to flock here and then to say that we are going to exercise control. You must control it at the source. If there is only room for 1,000 natives in various spheres of employment in the Cape Peninsula, you cannot allow 15,000 or 16,000 to come here, as happens today. One must control this influx. I want to say this quite frankly. Is it not possible in the future to stop this influx of natives at the source? If no other control is possible, cannot one simply say that no railway tickets will be issued to natives for whom there is no work? Cannot they be stopped before there is a concentration such as we have in the Cape Peninsula today? this matter has got out of control, and it has become necessary to take steps. But this state of affairs must be avoided. It is wrong to sit back and then to attempt to send back the redundant labour. As has been said, this problem, perhaps on a small scale, has become one of national migration. I want to ask hon. members whether five or ten years ago we had this enormous number of natives wandering about in the Cape Peninsula, as in the case today. The conditions which exist today did not exist previously. This matter has assumed the character of national migration. The Minister now has to make provision for reception and distribution depôts.

Formerly the majority of them went to Johannesburg.

In Johannesburg the problem is more or less the same. But my contention—and I know that the hon. Minister cannot refute it—is that once you have allowed an influx and you then establish a distribution bureau to send these people back, you are putting the cart before the horse. What is required is proper registration, and you can then have proper distribution and in that way prevent this national migration. But today this influx is allowed while there is not room for everyone, and then steps have to be taken to exercise control and to send these people back. On the other hand, the Government says that the farmers in the platteland must produce— produce, produce, produce. South Africa must become self-supporting as far as possible. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said at one stage: “South Africa must prepare herself, because the time will arrive when the first duty will be to feed starving Europe.’’ Our farmers are urged to produce. Why has production not increased to the extent it should have increased; why has production come to a standstill, to a certain extent? Owing to lack of farm labourers. The position has become intolerable. One cannot get the necessary labour. I want to put this very strongly to the Minister. Sooner or later he will have to devote his whole attention to this matter, and it will be necessary for him to pass legislation, in order to divide the labour force in such a way that there is not a shortage of labour on the one hand and a redundant influx of labour on the other hand. The balance will have to be maintained. I should like to say a few words in connection with the control of liquor, and in connection with the abuse of liquor, and I want to supplement what was said by the hon. member for Smithfield. It will not be quite correct to lay down the proposition that the native must get his beer because that is his food. That creates the impression that the native must have beer from Monday to Saturday because that is his food. It is not quite correct to put it in that light. One can no more say that the native must have his beer because it is his food than one can say that the European must have his liquor because that is his food. I refer mainly to beer in the form of intoxicating liquor. Once it becomes intoxicating liquor, it is no longer food as far as the native is concerned, but a definite evil. I just want to tell the Minister what the position is on the platteland, in those parts which I know and represent, and also what the position is in other parts. There is not sufficient control over the brewing of kaffir beer and the consumption of kaffir beer. What are the various forms of beer? There is the type of beer which the native makes as a cool drink, “letien.” That is not intoxicating. One might say that that is part of his food. Then one gets “magou”; that is not intoxicating liquor; and then you get the “jwulala.” That is not food, but only intoxicating liquor. If the native is allowed to obtain that liquor from Monday to Saturday he will be in a continual state of drunkenness. It is therefore necessary to have proper control. We know that originally the position was that when a native wanted beer on a farm he had to do two things. First of all he had to obtain the permission of his master, and secondly, a permit from the magistrate. The permit system fell into disuse, and as a result of that all control was undermined. The native still has to get permission from his master, but if he cannot get it he gets beer surreptitiously and the next time one sees him he is drunk. As a result of that every conceivable evil has developed, and the time has arrived to impose restrictions. The consumption of intoxicating liquor by the native must be placed under proper control. One cannot simply say that the native should be allowed to brew as much beer as his master will allow him to do. In that case there would be big beer parties Sunday after Sunday. Beer is brewed on a farm, and the natives of the whole neighbourhood congregate on that farm, and the farmers would get very little service out of their natives on Monday morning, because it usually takes a day before they return to normality. I repeat, therefore, that control is necessary so that the farmers and the native will at least know what the position is. One would not only prevent the excessive consumption of beer, but also other abuses. In conclusion, I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to one specific point in his explanation of the Bill, which struck me particularly, and that is that he said that in the existing circumstances the Native Development Fund was practically being robbed, that certain monies which had to go into his pocket went into the pocket of the Minister of Finance. In that connection I just want to say …

I referred to fines under the Liquor Laws.

I take it that the one Minister does not every now and then wear the other Minister’s trousers, because the one Minister is shorter than the other, but as I understood the Minister, he said that in the event of liquor contraventions amongst the natives, throughout the whole country, the police are sent out and if the natives are fined before the court, a portion of the fines goes into the ordinary Revenue Account, but that it should go into the Native Development Fund for special purposes.

That is not exactly what I said.

In any event, I want to object to a phenomenon which is gradually developing, and that is that the services for the natives are continually being expanded, and, on the other hand, the European taxpayer is taxed to an ever-increasing extent to provide those services. One of the aspects in that connection is that when the natives have to be controlled and when beer parties have to be combated, the machinery of the Department of Justice is used. The services of the police are used and the European taxpayer is called upon to pay for that machinery. The police force is used to track down the criminals, but when they are fined the money is not deposited into the fund which pays for the administration, but it is deposited, in my opinion, into the wrong pocket. My objection is that this tendency is becoming greater and greater. It is also admitted by the hon. Minister of Finance that that was the position, and this matter is now assuming greater proportions. Last year I mentioned a certain matter, and the Minister of Native Affairs held it against me and said that my plea was of a malicious nature. I want to put this again. If we have to control the natives, we must gradually cultivate a sense of responsibility amongst them. They must realise that when the administrative machinery of the country is used to provide services for them, they must contribute towards the maintenance of that machinery. This principle is gradually being departed from, and a sense or irresponsibility is being created amongst the natives instead of a sense of responsibility. They gain the impression that they have the right to demand services from this country, but that unlike the European population they are not called upon to pay more if they want extended services. I think that is a dangerous principle, and I shall be glad if the Minister will give his attention to this matter. I want to conclude by stating that the discussion of this Bill has shown clearly that the native question is so comprehensive that the whole position must necessarily be reviewed, and that co-ordinating legislation must be introduced so that the people, at any rate, will know what the position is. There must be legislation to permit of proper control, legislation which will prevent a clash between Europeans and non-Europeans, which can only have disastrous results.

I have listened to this debate with considerable interest, and one thing that has become clear from it is that the Minister’s intentions are quite obviously to help the native people. I disagree with the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) who said it was ungracious to criticise a Bill that was produced by the Department of Native Affairs, because it would shake the confidence of the native peoples in that department. I think the House is very willing to pay a wellearned tribute to the Department of Native Affairs for the careful way in which they have adMinistered the Acts for native people. But to suggest that the members of this House should therefore not criticise a Bill emanating from this department is going a little far, because, of course, the members of the House are here to give their views on any legislation brought forward by the Government. I am quite sure the Minister of Native Affairs does not take that view. He does not take it in any unfriendly spirit, I am sure, any criticisms that may be made on his own side of the House. I want then to pay tribute to the hon. Minister and his department for their very sound intentions, but I would like to say how this Bill has struck me as an unbiased observer of this debate. It does seem to me to have made clear one thing, that on the Minister’s own showing as well as on the statements made from the Native Representatives’ benches, the restrictive provisions as brought into force by the Urban Areas Act and which were designed to prevent an influx of natives into the town, have broken down with the result that instead of 14,000 or 15,000 natives in the Cape you now have approximately 60,000 natives. That I gathered from the hon. Minister’s statement and yet he proposes to extend the restrictions that have broken down in Cape Town itself to local advisory boards such as the Divisional Council. I do quite appreciate that the Minister’s intentions are sound. I realise that he seeks the welfare of the native, and I for one strongly approve of the very greatly strengthened advisory boards that he proposes to set up in this Bill, and even more strongly of the powers that he takes to restrict the rights of the Europeans to take bonds over native lands outside the municipal areas, because I have seen what has happened in Alexandra township in that regard. I have seen deliberate exploitation of natives in that area by people who take advantage of their desire to buy land and who take bonds at very high rates of interest, and I have drawn the Ministers’ attention to it with a view to restricting the possibilities of this happening. But what I am not clear about is this. Even if the divisional councils do get the same powers as the local authorities in Cape town to restrict the movement of natives, and if they are given those powers, I am sure they will take them, but can the hon. Minister convince the House that while they take advantage of that power, they will have the financial power to take advantage of the social welfare clauses also? That is what is worrying me. I am sure, as I say, they will take advantage of the restrictive power, but I am not at all sure that they have the financial power and the financial strength to take advantage of the welfare provisions. For that reason I am not at all sure that this Bill that the Minister has brought in with the sound intention of helping the native peoples will in fact do so. That is one side of the matter, but from the point of view of general welfare of the country, I am very seriously concerned, because it does seem to me that this Bill, all unheralded though it is from that viewpoint, may be the turning point in the industrial development of this country, and I say that, not on my authority but on the report of the Industrial Legislation Commission. Let me remind the House again that the purpose of the Native Urban Areas Act was, in my opinion, to prevent the formation in the towns of a permanent native population. The Urban Areas Act, as I understand it, did enforce this policy on the natives who came to work in the towns. They came into the towns for a short period and then went back to their reserves. So that the whole idea of the Native Urban Areas Act, as I understand it, was to prevent the formation of a considerable urban native population, and yet here we have the report of the Industrial Legislation Commission which says this, quoting in applauding terms the report of the Native Economic Commission—

It is notoriously lacking in permanence because the Native Urban Areas Act enforces a policy of impermanence. But then the Commission goes on to add—

Well, if in fact the Native Urban Areas Act has prevented a stable native labour force from arising in the towns and if you are going to extend in this Bill the restrictions of the Native Urban Areas Act, what becomes then of the recommendations of the Commission that this country should as a portion of its deliberate state policy attempt to set up a stable native urban population. If the Minister’s Bill goes counter to the report of this Commission, I begin to be disturbed, more particularly when by implication the Van Eck Report supports this viewpoint. This is one of the reasons I have for disquiet. Another reason is this, that I am one of those who are looking forward after the war to a great industrial development so that we shall out of that industrial development which will need a large industrial labour force, both European and native, be able to build up social security for this country. That is the only security I can see for the inhabitants of this country that arises from all our efforts and it is clear that if we are to have social security we have to have a stable native labour force in the towns. What then becomes of the policy that is now being put forward by the hon. Minister of Native Affairs? I, quite frankly, am puzzled by the contradictory nature of his Bill in relation to the report that I have quoted, and for that reason I am very perturbed. There is one other thing that I am interested in. I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) in which he supported the view that it is necessary for industry to have a stable native population in the towns, and I quite understand his support of this viewpoint, because he, too, obviously must have read the report of the Industrial Legislation Commission, because the Industrial Legislation Commission goes on to say—

I take it that the hon. member for Moorreesburg realises as the Commission seems to have realised that once you set up a stable urban native community, there will be released for labour on the farms that casual labour which is so much in demand on the farms. And therefore I can understand his supporting the viewpoint that is put forward here and his support of the viewpoint that in the general interest there should be a stable native urban community. I do feel therefore that in view of this report that I have quoted at some length to the House, that the Minister might take pause and reconsider his attitude. If he does not feel that a Commission is necessary to consider the whole of this Bill, then I suggest that he might go forward with those sections of the Bill with which the whole House is in accord and which I understand also has the approval of the Natives Representative Council. Incidentally there was one point made here that because the Natives Representative Council approved of certain sections of the Bill, that therefore the whole Bill must be sound. That, to my way of thinking, is an illogical argument. It seems to be understandable that if you cannot get everything you want, you look at the Bill and approve of its good features. But to revert, I will ask the Minister in view of what has been said on all sides of the House and in view of the attitude of the Natives Representative Council to reconsider the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps he can come forward with the good provisions of his Bill, with the section dealing with the Native Advisory Councils and one or two other sections.

And let this uncontrolled condition go on in Cape town?

Yes.

You would like it, would you?

I suggest to the hon. Minister that he might consider the advisability of sending the contentious sections to be reconsidered by his Department. If he does not think that a Commission is advisable because it will take time he might, I repeat, have these points considered by his own Department with a view to meeting some of the criticisms that have been made in this House.

I am taking part in this debate not as an expert but as a layman. I want to admit frankly that I am not entirely au fait with the native question, or with the problems associated with the native question, because we are situated at a spot remote from the native territories, and from those parts that are served by native labour. But with the tremendous influx of natives into the Western Province, and in particular to the Cape Peninsula during recent years, you can hardly help taking an interest in this problem. But in view of the fact that I am not exactly conversant with matters in connection with the native problems and with the difficulties bound up with them, I shall not endeavour on this occasion to proffer any advice to the Minister, who has made a conscientious study of the subject, and who is trying to do the best he can in the interests of every section of the population. I only want to take this opportunity, as a layman, to put a few simple questions whereby the Minister may direct his attention to certain aspects of the matter and which perhaps may also evoke certain information from the Minister which will thus make me better informed on the subject. The whole matter is somewhat obscure to me; I cannot get clarity on the whole question. In the one part of the country we have a great shortage of native labour; it is probably not necessary to mention various areas, but one need only refer to the Free State that is screaming out for native labour; then there is also a very considerable shortage of farm labour in the Western Province; there is the case of the mines which, we know, have in the past been compelled to go beyond the borders of the Union to recruit the requisite labour. And while you have this condition of affairs in certain districts you have, on the contrary, the position such as exists in the Cape Peninsula, and also in other parts of the country where we have a surplus of labour. The natives are walking round looking for work; and, what is strange to my mind, these natives are very anxious to work. You only need to drive in the afternoon from Cape town to Grabouw and between Somerset West and Grabouw you will find hundreds of natives on the road who are walking round looking for work. They are extremely keen to find work, and my experience has taught me that on the farm native labour is reliable labour. I am speaking as one who has had experience, as one who has frequently native employees in my service. With native labour you get good reliable service if you treat them decently and as human beings. They are excellent, especially in looking after cattle and more particularly in dairy farming. They are adaptable to any sort of farm labour. Those natives are extremely anxious to work and here they are walking round without work, while just beside them there is a labour market screaming out for labour. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot direct his attention to this aspect of the matter, with a view to directing things in such a way that the surplus of labour on the one hand may be able to cure the shortage of labour on the other hand. Today we are sending applications to the native territories for recruits. Native labour is being recruited in certain native territories. That labour is sent on to the Western Province. Often it is efficient labour that renders very successful service; on other occasions it is inefficient labour. Is it not possible instead of recruiting natives in the reserves to institute a recruiting bureau in the Cape in order to recruit the natives here, so that they may go out from here to the farms? The same thing might be applied in other areas. It may possibly be convenient to recruit from the native territories for other labour markets, but while the native labour is actually here in the Wetsern Province is it not desirable that we should try to recruit the natives within the Cape Peninsula for those markets in the neighbourhood of the Western Province that are crying out for labour? If the Minister succeeds in arriving at a successful solution of this matter he will not only be rendering a great service to the country but he will be conferring an inestimable service to both sections of the community. When I am discussing this subject I cannot refrain from congratulating the Minister of Native Affairs on the effort he has made in the interests of both natives and Europeans. I want to admit frankly and honestly that I believe that the Union has never had a more conscientious Minister of Native Affairs than the present Minister. As one who is acquainted with him, as one who is aware of what has been accomplished in this sphere, as one who appreciates how seriously he regards this subject; I cannot but think that he will undoubtedly contribute a great deal towards the solution of the native problem during his tenure of the portfolio. I know that the hon. the Minister does not believe in half measures. He makes a thorough success of every task that he puts his hand to, and I have the fullest confidence that he will pursue this task without resorting to any half measures and perservere until complete success has crowned his efforts. He is engaged in probing the native problem to its roots and I cherish the hope that he will solve the problem to the satisfaction of every section of our population. I am also entirely convinced that he keeps before him the pro’s and con’s of the question as affecting the various sections of our people, both European and non-European. We are very anxious to place the whole problem on a sound and satisfactory footing in the interests of all sections of the community. The whole future of South Africa depends on the satisfactory solution of the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans, and I fail to see, bearing in mind that Providence has placed us together here in this country, why there should be eternally a measure of friction between Europeans and non-Europeans in this country. We need each other; we are complementary to each other in practically every sphere of our social life, and why then cannot this question be satisfactorily solved? We are in earnest over justice being accorded the European population, but we are also in earnest that the non-European population should be justly treated, and I think we would be falling short in our duty if we did not help the Minister in the efforts that he is making to place this matter on a satisfactory footing. When anyone intervenes in this thorny question with non-constructive criticism, I cannot help expressing my disapproval, but I applaud it when the Minister is supported in his honest and determined endeavours by constructive criticism that is calculated to help him in this weighty matter. There are few other matters in this country which have occupied so great a share of the time of the House as Native Affairs. During all the years that I have served here as a member of this House, so much time has been devoted to this knotty question that the thought occurs to me: When you have someone like the present Minister of Native Affairs, who is pre-occupied in placing the matter on a sound foundation, is it not our bounden duty to support the Minister by word and deed in his honest and honourable efforts to solve this problem?

Was the previous Minister not honourable?

The question comes to my mind: Do we make the best or the wisest use of the labour forces that are available in this country? How many countries would not be delighted if they had this source of cheap labour that we possess in this country in our natives? Do we make proper use of this labour? Do we appreciate to the full what the native population means to us in this country? If we do not appreciate it fully it will be our own fault. We must see to it that that source of labour is employed in the best interests of the country. In many respects we have been so spoilt by an abundance of native labour that I am sometimes surprised that one hears in this country that one type of work or another is native work. The question arises always in my mind: What is native work? Who does that work that we describe as native work in the various countries of Europe? There the very same work that we regard as native work and which we imagine ourselves as being too superior to do, is performed by Europeans in those lands.

Will the hon. member please return to the Bill.

I have just mentioned that in parenthesis to indicate the importance of the development of the labour market that we possess, and with which the present Bill deals. I ask what is the cause of that continuous friction between the two elements of our population who are indispensable to each other? Why cannot we try to reconcile these two elements so that the one will fill the requirements of the other, we in relation to the natives, and the natives in relation to us? In so doing we would be performing a service for our country. We have a valuable source of labour in the native, and a labour market that is screaming out for that labour, but we are not making the fullest use of that labour force. If the hon. The Minister succeeds in rectifying this matter, if he succeeds in eliminating this friction and in steering that labour force into the right channels, he will be doing a service of inestimable value to the country. And I would ask him with his fine intelligence to apply his energies in this direction in order to place this matter on a satisfactory basis for the benefit of the natives as well as the Europeans.

May I say that it has been very pleasant to me to see the liberal spirit which has been exhibited in this House in connection with the native question. For my own part I take second place to no one as far as liberalism towards the native people is concerned. But at the same time when you think of the amount of discussion that has taken place on this measure and one takes into consideration not only the position of the Minister but the position of his Department, and when we take into consideration the fact that of recent years we have had no fewer than four Ministers of Native Affairs in just about as many years, one must have some consideration for the difficult position in which the Minister finds himself today. After all said and done he and his Department have to work within the orbit of the present legislation, and there is no desire on his part to look upon this Bill as something which abrogates every thing that has been done in the past. When I look at the provisions of this Bill, whether the Native Urban Areas Act has broken down or not, the position is that the hon. Minister and his Department by the inclusion of the provisions of this Bill are doing everything they possibly can to better the position of the natives as such; and I sincerely hope that my friends on the native representatives’ benches will not think that in supporting this Bill I am out to exploit the native. Far from it. I reckon that as far as our native population is concerned, it is the biggest asset which this country has, —and taking into consideration the difficult position in which that population finds themselves as a result of the fact that they are uneducated—we as a legislative body have to do everything in our power to assist them, to try and guide them. I do think and feel that the Department and the Minister are trying to do everything they possibly can under the provisions of this Bill to bring about a better state of affairs than exists at the present moment.

Do not put them into straight jackets. That is all we ask.

I do not know so much about straight jackets, and may I say that I do not profess to be as great an expert on the question of Native Affairs as their representatives in this House, but I have a certain amount of common sense. One has to realise that the Government has obligations to the whole community. They have obligations to the native community and to the European community; They have to maintain law and order. They have to see that a position does not arise where health is impaired, and the Minister is responsible, and from point of view I welcome the provisions which are contained in this Bill. I do not profess to be a lawyer, but at the same time may I say that the provisions which are in this Bill are, as far as I can see, intended to assist the native. Take the clause which deals with land. That clause is in the interest of and for the protection of the natives. Furthermore there is the question of the control of brewing which I think is very desirable, and the question of the revenue from that brewing which is also very desirable. Then there is the question of the setting up of Advisory Councils, which I think is also very desirable. Then you have the question of permission for home brewing in certain instances and provided that is properly controlled, I think that is also desirable. Then you have this clause dealing with the control by an urban local authority of the sale or the supply of sprouted grain in peri-urban areas. I think that is very desirable. I am quite convinced that the sale of sprouted grain, is one of the curses of this country, and I am pleased to see that that provision has been brought into this Bill. Then you have the question of the jurisdiction of headmen and the appeals therefrom to the Native Commissioners which I think is a very good provision indeed. Finally, you have the registration in connection with locations. As I say, I am not a lawyer, and I do not profess to be an expert on native affairs, but I am convinced that the Department and the Minister in the interest of the natives have included these provisions in order that the position of the natives may be improved. I want to say generally that as far as the question of congestion in our urban areas is concerned, that that is largely due to the fact that we are today dealing with a migratory population. That migratory population is such that we are losing a tremendous amount of our manpower in wastage, wastage through people flitting and going from place to place to find employment; we know that the inducement to employment has been increased of recent years through industrialisation; and if one takes into consideration the difference between the wage laid down by wage determination in industries and what is paid in agriculture it must inevitably increase the migratory tendency. If we are to get the optimum of production out of our manpower, it is inevitable that the Government must take control, complete control of the manpower of this country. Because if we don’t do that we are going to have either a feast or a famine and production will suffer.

You want that control to apply to both black and white?

Yes; to both white and black, but I am talking particularly about black now. I hope hon. members will not think that I am talking about exploitation when I talk about the control of manpower. Only a few years ago the Government had to introduce legislation to control the influx of Europeans into certain areas in the Transvaal. I say that the Government must take a strong line to control manpower. Otherwise the result will be that too many people will be attracted to one area and that none will be left in other areas. Now, may I just say before I go on that I am one of those who believe that labour is entitled to a fair remuneration for services rendered and I want to see the native population get a square deal.

Do you want to even up the wages?

I want to see the native population get a square deal. The disparity in wage levels between agriculture and industry is widespread and unless you can level that up you are going to have trouble.

You mean even it up?

If you like. While I don’t want to interfere with the liberty of the subject I say this, that if, you get all the high wage levels in one area, all the native population will gravitate to that centre and that centre will be your urban area. It is possible that some of my farming friends will not like what I am going to say now, but I consider that the Government should take into serious consideration the question of full control of manpower—it has to take a survey of manpower and of wages, and it has to see to it that those who work in agriculture are given as fair a chance of earning a decent living—

I hope the hon. member will not enlarge on that subject.

No, I won’t expand that too far; I am not only directing my remarks to the Minister but also to the representatives of the Native Affairs Commission, and I hope the Minister and the Native Affairs Commission will realise the necessity of controlling our manpower to such an extent that we shall have an even distribution of manpower all over the country. This is not exploitation, it is in the interest of the native, that wherever that native may be designated to work, whether it is A, B or C, he shall have as fair a chance and it will be immaterial whether he goes to A, B or C. And I would make an appeal to the Minister to regulate the flow of labour. I do not like this legislation as such, but until you get something better I shall support this Bill. Now, if one looks at the clauses of this Bill it will be noticed that some of them have been amended four, five and six times. I think that is undesirable. I think the time has come when the Minister should take into consideration the bringing forward at an early date of consolidating legislation, bringing our whole native legislation up to date.

I have got up to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus).

The Minister in this Bill is proposing a number of amendments. Several of those amendments are welcomed by us in the rural districts. Take for instance the amendment dealing with the natives in areas in the immediate vicinity of the towns where nobody has any say today. A condition of affairs is developing under which natives are living there, and when the police arrive on the scene they are alleged to be in the service of the land owner, but immediately the police leave they are again the tenants of the land. And so it goes on year after year in those peri-urban areas; that is why we welcome the step taken in the direction which this Bill now proposes. We have been listening to the little uplift work which the native representatives want to undertake. I can only speak here as a practical farmer who knows the natives. I have grown up with them, and I have quite a number of them on my farm and in my area. There are some very good ones among them, and there are some bad ones, and if the Minister is to listen to everything and accept everything that is proposed by the native representatives, in other words if the natives are to have free social admission to every part of the country, if they are to have as much beer as they want, if all passes are to be abolished and so on, then I want to know what sort of conditions are going to develop in this country? Those hon. members suggest that wages should be doubled. Let me tell them that since the beginning of the war the wages of the natives in the rural areas have been more than doubled, but the position is that although the natives are paid more there has been no improvement in the services they render. They simply go on in their own sweet way. The native has not got the mentality to compare the value of wages with the value of services rendered. The natives simply cannot do it. If they think they are going to have greater freedom somewhere else, that they are going to be allowed more beer there, they will go and work there, even if they get less money. That is how I know them. And now the Minister comes here and provides for beer halls in the locations, and the municipalities are given the right to have all the say about the sale of sprouted grain for the beer halls. I am in favour of a provision under which, if the natives get beer, care is taken that he gets clean and good beer. I am also in favour of shebeens being done away with in the locations and in those places where the natives accumulate. These shebeens are a curse and lead to the ruin of the natives. But as farmer I also know this—I am speaking on behalf of the Free State and on behalf of the large part of the country which I know—that the native has the farmer in his hands. If the farmer puts the police on to his labourers because they brew beer, he will be without labour the next year. They simply go off. And if the pass system is to be abolished as well, and if the natives are to be free to move as they like, hon. members will realise what’s going to happen. I should like the native representatives to be on my farm on a Monday morning and see how many natives there would be to do the work under those conditions. Power is given the Government under this Bill to proclaim an area five miles round about an urban area. This will have the result that every Saturday night, Sunday and Sunday night, all the natives in that area will be in the town. While they used to be allowed to make four gallons of beer in their homes they will now have to go and get a licence to make a few gallons of beer. They will not be bothered. They will simply allow themselves to be taken to court on Monday mornings, or otherwise they will run away to the locations and the beer halls. From the farmers’ point of view this is a very difficult subject. We know that we cannot take the beer away from our natives altogether, but the farmers also know how the native abuses his beer if he is allowed to make it. I am strongly in favour of registration and I want to add identification to that. If I drive a motor car in the Free State I have to have a licence on which my photograph has to be shown. I think some step of that kind would be desirable— I am referring to identification for the native so that we would know whether a native comes from an urban area, a rural district or a reserve. We know that in the Free State today we have to contend with a shortage of native labour. There is a maldistribution of labour. We go to the Railways, the Provincial Administration and to other public bodies and we beg of them not to draw the farm labourers away from the rural districts, but to return our farm, natives to the farms, and those bodies promise they will do so. They tell us they are agreeable not to take farm natives away from us and that they will send them back to us, but now we find that the natives get a pass on the farm; they go to town and there they get a pass from the police to look for work, and one never sees them again. If he is compelled to register and to have an identification certificate the employer will know whether he is dealing with a native from an industrial area, from a farm or from a reserve. If a step like that could be taken, I do not think we should have such a shortage on the platteland, and I think the position would be considerably alleviated. It would enable us to send back to the farms the natives who live in the rural areas, and we would be able to prevent them from accumulating in the towns where they become a burden to the authorities and are responsible for heavy expenses and a lot of trouble. Today we find that the young natives do not want to stay on the farms. I really believe that those hon. members who represent the natives are doing a disservice to those natives; they get up here and make speeches. There may be people in the galleries listening to them who afterwards tell the natives what these hon. members have pleaded for and what they asked for. The older natives have not got the mentality to understand that sort of thing, but so far as the young natives are concerned we find they are led astray and they drift to the towns. And that is where all the trouble takes place. Afterwards they land in gaol, and once things have developed in that way these men are no longer farm labourers. We never get them back on the farms. They simply stay in the towns where they degenerate and get into trouble. As I have said some of these amendments proposed by the Minister in this Bill are welcomed in the rural districts, and one of the principal amendments which we welcome is that we shall be given the opportunity of determining a quota of the number of natives required for every urban area. We shall then be able to determine whether there are too many natives in such an area, and if there are too many they can be sent back. That is what we in our amendment strongly urge—we want the necessary labour to be concentrated in one area and those who are not needed can immediately be sent away.

Hon. members on various sides of the House have raised the question whether the Urban Areas Act was sufficiently restrictive or whether it was too restrictive. It seems that the Minister in this Bill aims at making it more restrictive. That it was restrictive is proved by quoting from the Inter-departmental Report of the Committee on the Social, Health, and Economic Conditions of Urban Natives—

So we must accept, and the Minister must accept too, that in the cold informed logic of the department the nature of the Urban Areas Act is restrictive. Now, it is restrictive because everything the native does is given direction by a minority of Europeans. That is the principle in South Africa. And there is no doubt that as long as the minority of Europeans feel that they are outnumbered and fear the majority, but that they have the power to direct, they naturally will direct. And it must be agreed that the native only moves as directed by the European minority. It is unfortunate that, in our minds this whole problem has seemed to be a peculiar one. It has been said that the more things change the more they remain the same. And we must cast our minds back to the first landing of the white man in Africa if we are to realise what that saying means as applied to South Africa. He had ideas of setting up some new order in a new country. The passage of time has revealed to us that the white man was only successful in founding the same kind of society which he had left, a society in which human beings had to live and which had the same human problems. The black people in this country, that is the majority, have come under the strictures of the white man, and the white man has assumed that the black man is inferior, because he has a different colour. What is plain is this, that one section of the population has behaved in an unsocial way to the other section, and the sooner we realise that a European cannot be unsocial in his relations to the coloured man, the better. That is no more right than that a coloured man should be unsocial in his relations to the white man.

What do you mean by unsocial?

I am not debating the question, I am stating a fact.

He is only asking a fair question.

Colour bar—I am answering for him.

The position therefore is that you have not a peculiar problem but a human problem and the only approach to a human problem is that you must exercise fair play. Now we have agreed as a House that the native should have representatives here, but we have said that those representatives shall be Europeans. The vote that puts those representatives in the House is the native vote, but the representation—the people who represent the natives are Europeans. This is the peculiar thing, and it is certain that if three natives sat in those seats as they logically should do, they as representing the natives could not agree to any legislation which is more restrictive than the legislation already existing. They want freedom and the fact that they have not got freedom is a commentary on the attitude of the white man towards the native. It is a strange commentary in that claiming to be liberal the European seems to think that he is entitled to repress a section of the community among which he lives. I don’t want to bring religion into it, but that fact challenges our attitude as Christians, and the time has come when we must face the logic of this particular position. Now it seems to me that the Minister, instead of facing the logic of things, has listened not to the representations of the natives but to the representations of others, or perhaps to the dictates of his own thoughts. In the ultimate he has listened to the expression of opinion which is in favour of continuing that which is restrictive and we in this House have demonstrated that we do not want to “seem” to be doing that.

But you are doing it none the less.

Obviously we should not do it. And if we find that things happen which we do not want to happen, then we have to look for the reason. The individual wants his freedom and that desire for freedom is expressed in his desire to get his share of the world’s goods. That applies to the European—it applies to the native, and surely we are not going to shackle him in that primal and natural desire. If we do we stand condemned, and we shall not solve our problem if we take that approach. The times in which we live call on us, call on the Minister, to take the wider view. If the Minister had come to the House and had proposed some extension of that freedom he would still have got opposition but at least that opposition would then have been evident as a purely self-interested opposition; it could not have had any justice behind it. Here is our opportunity for us not to “seem” to want to do a thing and then not do it. Some of our friends are really deluding themselves into believing that they are liberal when in actual fact they want to make the law even more restrictive than it is. There is a very significant paragraph in the begining of this report. It refers to a particular class of native who is finding his way from the reserves to the gold mines. It says this—

And then the conclusion is as follows—

In other words, it is now said that he is unable to exercise that control over himself which, in the past there was no doubt he was able to do. For I do not think anybody will question that in the early history of South Africa there was a very efficient control exercised by the native in his kraal civilisation. But immediately it becomes a matter of the native as a worker against —and I use the word in its best sense— the exploiter of this labour, then there is the fear that if the worker organises he may be organised by the wrong kind of people. Apparently they are the people who see clearly that the worker is in an unfavourable position, and their initial essay into the art of organisation is not to gain control of anybody, but it is to get behind organisation the whole of the public opinion that is vital, and obviously the whole of the public opinion vital for the native workers organisation on the gold mines are the natives. Is it felt that there is going to be a battle between the man who is called a demagogue and a man who is called an exploiter? Because if it is, obviously the Goverment’s role is to stand somewhere between the two. If you have a demagogue you must agree that also amongst the employing classes there are those who really exploit in the baser use of the term, and therefore it is the Government’s duty to stand in the middle between these two, and it is not the Goverment’s duty, to my mind, to do anything in the way of passing laws that will further restrict the people who may be at the mercy of the demagogue, but who are definitely at the mercy of the exploiter; it is not the Government’s duty to do anything to repress those people in their natural desire for more freedom. That, Mr. Speaker, is I think the logic of it, and I have no alternative—I may say that I am not expressing myself as a member of a party but as an advocate of what is right for its own sake—I can do no other in the circumstances than to admit that the native representatives have put up a case which is absolutely just and which should be agreed to. I can sympathise with the Minister in that he has inherited something as one not in the direct line of descent, but it is now on his plate and he has to deal with it. How is he going to deal with it? By recognising its restrictive character, or will he be courageous and admit that the whole situation wants reviewing and that the amendment is perfectly reasonable?

In the first place, I want to congratulate the Minister on having brought forward this Bill. Nearly every aspect of the Bill has now been under discussion, and I should only like, if I may, to refer to one point, namely, the Urban Areas Act which has been so much criticised during this debate. In this connection perhaps I may be allowed to give a few figures showing what the Johannesburg City Council has done for the benefit of the native. In the first place they have carried out a housing scheme at a cost of £183,645. They have also supplied native hostels for men at an expenditure of £242,698. They have provided bazaars for the benefit of the natives at a cost of £9,660; they have also provided a native women’s hostel at a cost of £5,369. I have had these figures from the City treasurer’s book. Taking these figures into consideration I think the case for the Native Urban Areas Act is convincing as far as Johannesburg is concerned. I am not going to judge any other municipalities, because I have not the figures, but I thought it only right to quote these figures to the House.

What has that got to do with the Urban Areas Act?

The Urban Areas Act has been much criticised, and if I remember correctly the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) made the statement that it was a failure, but I am not sure.

Yes, I did.

If he did I think I have the right to criticise it. I am not going to dwell on that matter, but I want to say this, that another aspect of this Bill which I strongly support is what we call the control clauses, those dealing with overcrowding. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) gave figures in respect of overcrowding in the Cape District. I want to say that there is not only overcrowding in the Cape District but in Johannesburg as well. Looking these facts in the face, I think the part of the Bill which is going to control that sort of thing is very justifiable. Possibly some of the evils of overcrowding are responsible for many of the burglaries that are committed in Johannesburg. Many of these burglaries are being committed by natives, and I believe the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) recently lost nearly everything he possessed. I want to reply to the question regarding kaffir beer, and I want to ask the Minister to give this his attention. I see from the figures quoted by the Municipality of Johannesburg, that for the year 1942-’43 they made a profit of £47,272, while for the year 1943-’44 the estimated profit is £52,925. I hope the Minister will look into the matter and see that the conditions of granting these licences are carried out. The conditions that were prescribed—and I was interested in that at the time—were that all profits made from, that beer would be spent on behalf of the natives. Whether that has been done I do not know. However, I make the suggestion that the Minister should look into the matter and see that the profit is used for the benefit of the natives. I would say this in conclusion that I do think that generally speaking this Bill is designed to promote the welfare of the natives, and that it will afford a certain measure of protection to the European population in the large cities of the Union.

The native representatives have told us that white South Africa wants to enslave the natives, or has enslaved them, and that white South Africa has done nothing yet for the upliftment of the natives. Hon. members over there have cast an undeserved reproach on white South Africa. If we stop to think what the State has already done for the natives in the past we must realise how unfair that contention is. Go to the Transkei, to Pondoland, and other native areas, and you will find agricultural schools there with white staffs to teach the natives to farm in a practical manner. The authorities have even gone the length of improving the natives’ stock. A great deal has been done to help the natives economically. Then I want to point out what the church has done for the natives—the English Church, the Wesleyan Church and the Dutch Church. Just to mention one example: Do hon. members know that the Dutch Church alone every year spends £100,000 on missionary work for the uplift of the natives? And yet hon. members come here and say that nothing is being done! Only the three of them do anything. Let me ask this House what they have done so far to uplift the natives? Can anyone of them say they put £1,000 in a business to help the natives? No, they talk very cleverly but words do not count, we want action, and I am afraid the native representatives are not rendering good service to the natives. In all probability they get their advice from irresponsible individuals; they pass over the native chiefs who can give them good advice and who can tell them how the natives want to be treated. The native representatives should consider these matters in a calm and dispassionate manner. Nobody in this House wants to enslave the natives. In actual fact we are better champions of the natives than they are. If they had their say the white trusteeship would be taken away entirely; and let me ask those hon. members: “If it were taken away where would the native be?” He would become a barbarian again, he would revert to those barbarous conditions which prevailed among the tribes in days gone by. I want to urge the Minister most strongly to consider the question of giving the native chiefs greater power. The natives are very anxious to be governed by their own chiefs, and I am afraid that the chiefs today have not got the hold on their people which they used to have. The natives do not want to be dictated to by Europeans, but they are quite willing to be dictated to by their own chiefs. The present condition is the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction. I have noticed that if there is trouble between the two native tribes, and the police interfere, the two sides do not keep on fighting each other but they start fighting the police. They don’t want the white man to interfere. If the native chiefs were given the right and the authority to rule their own people to such an extent that the natives would not only be held responsible by their chiefs for what they did in the native areas, but also for what they did in European areas the result would be most beneficial. We are also in favour of the natives being allowed to develop economically. A great duty rests on us to make the natives economically independent so that they can look after themselves and work out their own salvation. It should be our main object to help the natives to such effect that they can help themselves in days to come. The natives should not have to look up to the white man for ever and a day, and we can only achieve that object by giving the natives in the native areas more than they have had in the past. We should cast our thoughts in that direction and allow the natives to trade in their own areas, to have their own doctors, their own lawyers, their own magistrates, even their own courts of law, their own postal facilities and all the rest of it, so that the native may feel that he is governing himself and is not governed by the white man. That is the direction in which we should cast our thoughts. Gradually to help the native in such a manner that he should not feel aggrieved, that he should not have any grievance against the whtie man who punishes him, but that if he has a grievance his grievance should be due to the fact that his own nation has punished him. But what is the position today? The native gets an ingrained hatred of the white man if he is punished by white judges and put in gaol. Until we achieve the object of the native ruling himself we shall simply be fostering a feeling of hatred in the native against the white, and it will cause the native to feel that he is being enslaved. At the same time we should pass legislation providing that no native shall be allowed to go to a white area on his own initiative, and no white man will be allowed to go to a native territory. We must impose restrictions both on natives and on whites. I don’t know how much truth there is in it but according to a circular letter sent to us, from the 1st January to the 11th March no fewer than 10,000 natives have entered the Cape Peninsula, that is to say about 1,000 per week. It shows a most irresponsible state of affairs. What is going to be the result? The position is so serious that the Government and the Minister of Native Affairs in particular should make this a matter of conscience and take action at once to put an end to it. If they do not do so a chaotic state of affairs will be created which we shall learn to rue in days to come. In addition to that the position is unfair to the coloured people in the Cape because every native coming to the Cape Peninsula takes the bread out of the mouth of a coloured man. They also have to live but the natives deprive them of their livelihood, and they also deprive our poor whites of their livelihood. We have to prevent that sort of thing. The number of crimes in the towns is increasing, and while this influx is taking place in the towns the farmers are without labour, they cannot continue to produce. I can assure the House that in the North West today every farmer has to look after his own sheep because he has no natives or coloured men to assist him. The position is most unsatisfactory and the Minister must take steps. I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. This amending Bill does not go far enough, and it comes too early. We appreciate the Minister’s efforts, but he is acting with undue haste. We all feel the seriousness of this matter and we want to help the Minister to solve this big problem, but this legislation will place handicaps on the great ideals connected with this problem. We are anxious to pass effective, just and comprehensive legislation, but this legislation will handicap our great cause. We would rather see the Minister avail himself of some expert advice and come forward next year with comprehensive legislation. I shall be glad if the Minister will meet us on this point and we promise him our hearty co-operation if he does so. We cannot treat this matter too lightly. Crimes are increasing apace among the natives; the native is not so very stupid; he has the intelligence to organise where crime is concerned. We see what is going on in Johannesburg. We are told about the clever tactics employed by the natives in regard to various crimes. This is a very serious matter, and it requires the attention of the Government and of our intelligent Minister of Native Affairs to tackle the question in such a manner that he will render a great service to the country.

I wish to dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). He stigmatises the Bill and the attitude of the Minister as un-Christian. He also said it was a very oppressive measure. I would like to know from the hon. member for Germiston whether it is oppressive if you guide your child into the correct channel. If ever a Minister deserves to be congratulated on introducing a measure into this Parliament, it is the Minister of Native Affairs in respect of the introducing of this Bill. I cannot see any oppressiveness in this measure. For years now natives have been flocking to the municipalities, and unless we take the steps contemplated in this Bill we shall be rendering the native people a disservice. We shall be guilty of a crime unless we take timely steps to guide them into the correct channel at this stage. Unless as I have said, the Minister takes steps to prevent the natives from flocking into the municipalities, and into the larger towns, you will be confronted with a problem in the very near future that will baffle the intelligence of this House and of the country. We have to take timely steps. Nobody is desirous of oppressing the native. I, Mr. Speaker, take second place to nobody in appreciating the feeling to see justice and equity meted out to the native peoples, but where you see a danger arising, where you see something happening in the country that will tax your ability at a later stage to control, then it is the duty of one’s Government to take timely steps to prevent that calamity. When the hon. member for Germiston spoke I recalled the words that were used by Mr. Merriman in a letter to Gen. Louis Botha in 1908. This what Mr. Merriman wrote—

There is no question that the hon. member for Germiston and the members who feel like him are unwittingly rendering a disservice to the people they profess to serve and help. They are rendering a disservice to them in allowing these people to come to a town like Cape Town or Johannesburg or Pretoria, where they seek work and find no work. By that you are actually driving them into crime. You are the cause of them committing a crime. In Pretoria last week 280 arrests were made to check up on the crimes that had taken place. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue the Minister and his department will be guilty, and they will be a party to the creation of crime. As far as I am concerned, I must congratulate the Minister on the timely step he has taken to try and check it, and to relieve the pressure on the towns. Nobody can tell me, Sir, that it is an oppressive measure if you try to prevent somebody getting into difficulties. When there is work and bread for a native to come to in a municipality or town or in any locality, the native naturally will be allowed to go there. But to allow him to drift as at present is not rendering him any service but a disservice. I therefore congratulate the Minister once more and assure him of mv support of this Bill.

I agree with a lot in this Bill and I am glad the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs has tried to remedy certain matters, yet at the same time I must associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) because we are anxious to have this great and comprehensive matter tackled as a whole. There is much in this matter which affects the whole population and particularly the native population. I was very disappointed to see that those who pretend to represent the natives got up here and only pleaded for more and more rights and greater privileges for the natives. As they have put it it does not in actual fact mean greater rights and privileges, but greater licence. They would have rendered a greater service to the natives if they had made an attempt to understand the natives. We have had this difficulty in South Africa from the very early days, that people who do not fully understand our problems come here with European ideas, with ideas of liberalism which used to prevail in England. Those ideals were all very well in England in those days because in England they have a homogeneous population, a certain portion of which was oppressed. Those people were exploited by the rich. There it was right to give those people greater freedom because they were civilised people, but here in South Africa we have a different position. We have the position here of a man like Dr. Philip coming to this country with the idea of giving the natives freedom, and even of putting them on a footing of equality with the whites, but the natives and the coloured people are not ripe for that freedom. That is the mistake which the native representatives are making; they want to give this freedom and those rights to people who are not yet ripe for these things, and who cannot yet appreciate such freedom. When we come across people who live among the natives and understand them we get totally different views put forward—we have the views expressed by a man like the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) for instance. He is a man who, judging from his speech, has a real knowledge of the difficulties and who fully appreciates them. The native representatives start off from wrong premises; they do not understand the problems of the natives and they are doing the cause of the natives more harm than good. They should start off from the point of view that the native cannot yet get the same freedom as the white man because he has not yet achieved the level of civilisation of the white man. The native is still in a period of transition. The native has been under the strict discipline of his tribes and of his chiefs, but since civilisation has come to South Africa the powers of the chiefs have been taken away to a very large extent. Since then the native has to a large degree been subjected to the law of the white man. That has brought with it the fact that the native chief, and even the father of the native, has lost the powers which they used to have in the tribe, particularly in respect of the young natives. The native has always looked upon it as a weakness if mercy is shown to him because in his tribe he has known very little mercy. He does not yet understand what it means for a man to be considerate. The civilised races of the world look upon consideration as a sign of greatheartedness and generosity, but the native looks upon it as a sign of weakness. When those hon. members over there plead for the natives to be allowed to roam about without passes, to be allowed to do as they please, they are not rendering a service to the native population because as I have said the native is not sufficiently developed to appreciate that freedom. On the contrary, if certain restrictions are imposed upon him the native as a whole is being protected. If the native representatives were to plead with the Government for certain depôts to be established in the Union and in the Reserves, to make it possible for the natives to come into direct touch with the employer, they would be rendering a service to the whole of the population and to the natives as well. The great trouble today is that the employers and the employees cannot get into touch with each other. That is the great difficulty today. There are many employers who are in need of native labour, and there are many natives who are very anxious to get work but they do not know about each other and they cannot, get into touch with each other. If we can get depôts in these areas where the natives can report, and to which the employers can write, we shall be doing the natives a great service. Our experience now-a-days in the Free State often is that when the crops have to be gathered and we want to get natives from Basutoland or some other parts, the farmer has to take his lorry at considerable expense and has to travel for miles to find labourers to help him. He may get a number of workers but there are thousands of other natives who are anxious to do this work but cannot get into touch with the employers, in spite of the fact that the employers are looking for people. I therefore think it would be one of the best things they could do if the native representatives were to devise means to get the employers into touch with the natives who want work. Then there is also the question of kaffir beer. We cannot allow the native to have free access to beer. The supply of beer must be subject to certain restrictions because if that is not done it will lead to an undersirable state of affairs. We must also guard against the illicit liquor trade because this is a serious offence, as a result of which the natives are made to suffer. We must take up the attitude that the native has not yet got the self-control which the civilised man has. He cannot yet fully appreciate what that freedom, for instance, to get beer means to him. In his tribal life he has always looked on any relaxation or any concession as a sign of weakness, and we have to be careful. It also appears to me that the native representatives are trying to get all the natives into industries in the towns, but I believe that even a native has certain duties to the State. It is wrong to want to supply all the facilities to the natives and to enable him to go to the towns. The legitimate sphere of employment for a large number of them is on the farms, and we should see to it that farming gets its legitimate share of the native labour available, because we know that a large proportion of the natives are better equipped for farm work than for the other skilled industries. If the natives are to be given passes and are to be allowed to go to the big towns in large numbers we may easily get this state of affairs, that too little food will be produced in this country. If the farmers on the farms have not got enough labourers, and if too little food is produced, the natives will be the first to suffer, and they will then tell the native representatives that they have not represented them in the way they should have done, because the very first thing they should see to is that the natives do their duty to the country so that enough food can be produced not only in time of war but also in times of peace. I want to repeat that to my mind the native representatives should consider in all seriousness, whether the correct course for them to take is not to obtain employment for the natives in the rural districts under conditions where they will be happy.

Although I cannot associate myself entirely with this Bill I none the less feel I can support it. I don’t want to try to lecture hon. members on the native question but I do feel that I should defend the Minister against what I might describe as the immoderate arguments advanced by the native representatives and by other members. I have grown up among the natives and I have had a lot to do with them; I have had to work with them throughout my career as a farmer; I know their habits and their customs and I know how they want to be treated, and I say that the charge which The native representatives have made against the white man, that he wants to turn the native into a slave, is untrue. As a matter of fact we find that the white man is always ready to stand up for the freedom of the native and to protect him and see that he is well treated as a native. As the native develops and becomes more adaptable for development we want to give him the opportunity of enjoying his freedom, but the difficulty about the native representatives and other members of this House is that they are fifty years ahead of the times. The native is South Africa’s problem and he has to be dealt with and treated as he deserves to be treated. The native representatives will have to account for the charges they made here when called upon to do so. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) has tried to show that the white man is engaged in a campaign to enslave the native. The hon. member has entirely misrepresented the position, which is due to his ignorance of the whole situation. This problem is one which we should tackle on its merits and we should leave politics out of it. The white man in South Africa has to live in the same country as the natives; we have to live with the natives, but we must see to it that he is not put on a basis of equality with the white man, because the native’s sense of responsibility has not developed sufficiently to enable him to occupy a position of equality. The native is not prepared to accept any responsibility whatsoever. He wants to be irresponsible and free, and only then does he feel happy. We get bad and good natives, but taken generally we have to take the native as he is and we must assist him to maintain his customs and practices and allow him to remain a native. We cannot adopt the attitude which the native representatives want us to adopt. Perhaps that may be done in fifty years’ time if conditions develop in the direction they want them to develop. I have heard some members say here that the natives should be allowed to go about without passes. It is quite impossible to allow that. About six months ago an enquiry was made into the conditions prevailing in the big towns, and it was found that there were 30,000 natives who had no passes, who had no work, and who were committing a lot of offences. If they had not been compelled to show their passes how would it have been possible to trace them, who would have been able to find out that they were where they had no right to be? We don’t want to treat the natives unjustly or unfairly and I say that to the good native the pass is a sort of protection, and it is most unjust to the country and the white population to spread the story that the white man is depriving the native of his rights, and is enslaving him. I don’t think that people who have any real knowledge of affairs should spread that kind of story. The Bill before the House constitutes a step forward to the benefit of the natives. I associate myself with the view that the natives must be allowed to develop, but I say at the same time that we must be careful to let that development take place in such a manner that we do not dislocate the whole of the relationship of the native population. I can only say that many of the statements made here are not only unfair towards the Europeans but are also unfair to the natives because these statements are going to have the effect of severing the natives from their customs and their habits, and that is a fact which even they themselves do not try to hide. The native wants to live in accordance with his own customs. He wants to put up a screen behind which he can live and where he can enjoy his beer. He does not want to become a white man. It is in conflict with his habits and customs to be what many hon. members here want him to be. It is not in his nature—I am talking of the natives in the rural districts—to go to the towns, to go and work and stay there. He does not want to have all this responsibility; perhaps he wants to go and work there but he wants to go back to his own customs. Now I don’t want to say that we must compel the native to be responsible before he is prepared to accept responsibility. I am not talking about the natives who have grown up in the towns; I am talking about the ordinary native of the rural districts. It has been stated here that the Government is not doing anything for the natives. Hundreds of thousands of morgen of land have been bought for them where they can go and farm, and where they can learn to become responsible people. Thousands of pounds have been spent on education. The Government has even provided for old age pensions for the natives. Surely that does not give one the impression that the natives are being oppressed? The natives are assisted wherever it is possible to do so, and yet we are told, not only by the native representatives but also by other members, that the white man is oppressing the natives in South Africa. Nonsense! I felt that it was my duty to say these things, if only to contradict the statement made by the native representatives and by other members who seem to want to create the impression that the white man is engaged on rooting out the native and turning him into a slave. Statements of that kind are most unjust and they may have such serious effects that I felt it my duty to contradict them. I hope those statements will not have any ill effects.

There are two minor points which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. The first is that the parents of the young natives are dissatisfied, and their complaints amount to this. They say that according to their customs the children only become of age when the head of the family dies. And now we are making the young natives into majors when they turn 18 years of age, although the Europeans only become of age when they reach the age of twenty-one. We see this influx of natives to the towns going on and if we study the position we find that the people going to the towns are nearly all young natives and young women who run away when they become of age. They leave the old people in the lurch on the farms. We can go to the farms and everywhere we will find the same complaint. When I was in my constituency recently a big deputation of old natives called on me and asked me to see to it that young natives should not come of age until they reached the age of twenty-one, and that the same law in that respect should apply to them as apply to the Europeans. We realise that if the Government agreed to that request it would mean giving up a large sum of money because from his eighteenth year the native has to pay poll tax, but if we look at the discomfort which is being caused to the farmers on the one hand and to the old natives on the other hand when they are left in the lurch by the young men, with the result that the farmers are saddled with these old men, then I think that the Minister should give serious consideration to this request that the native should become a major at the same age as the white man. Another disturbing fact is this. I don’t know whether I shall be in order but this is a matter which the natives themselves complain about and it is that there are no fewer than 67 recognised sects among them.

No, the hon. mémber cannot discuss that question now.

Then there is just one other matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice and it is this, that in the towns and villages the Europeans hire natives immediately beyond the boundaries of the town or village. They bring the native in; they give him a pass, and once he is there he stays there. He uses his residential pass, he is not called upon to return it, and once he is in a town you cannot get him out again. I want to urge the Government to introduce legislation so that this class of native can be got away from the towns.

I have listened to this debate with great interest and with great attention, but frankly I never thought that such an innocuous and straightforward Bill would raise such a full debate on native affairs. Quite a lot of what has been said was entirely irrelevant to the Bill, but the matters raised were of such great importance to native affairs as a whole that I was very glad that the debate was allowed to proceed as it did. This Bill has been talked about during the debate as magna charta of the natives, as the Atlantic charter of the natives. It is an ordinary little innocent Bill and it has been made to look as if it is the biggest native legislation we have ever had before the House. Well, it is very interesting and very flattering, but I think a good deal could well have been left over for some other occasion. The subject is one which could so easily create a lot of heat in this House, as so many hon. members feel strongly about it, that it was very interesting to note the way the debate went on. So many hon. members hold views which are diametrically opposed to the views held by others, so many hon. members are so completely sincere in their views, and they express their views so strongly—and yet in such a manner that it was possible for us to have a carefully reasoned debate, which showed that we have taken a great step forward in regard to an important question such as our native policy. It would not have been surprising if tempers had been roused in this debate. I can imagine if we had a debate such as this ten years ago that things would have been said which would have hurt not only the European but also the native feeling, but I must say that this debate has been conducted at a very high level and in a very temperate manner—it has gone on for two days and the way the debate has progressed gives me great hope for the future; it makes me hope that at least we shall in future be able to deal with native affairs from an objective point of view and keep it out of the political arena. This in itself indicates the advance which has been made in South Africa’s approach to this very vexed, complicated and difficult problem of native affairs, and I do feel that nothing should be done or said to destroy this good feeling which is now apparent among all sections of the population. As I have said before, no native policy can be static, no more than evolution can be static, it must go steadily forward—there must be steady progress. Evolution does not jump forward by leaps and bounds; it has a steady flow. If a child tries to run before it can walk, it has a tumble, and if it has a serious tumble its progress may be arrested for a long time. Now, there is a strong urge among all the reasonable people to see that the position of the native is bettered—to see that the natives get a straight deal—to see that he is fairly dealt with, and that anomalies and hardships are cleared up as far as possible. There is a big urge in that direction on the part of every person with a reasonable mind. One finds this most strongly marked in the youth, both English and Afrikaans-speaking, in the army. It was brought to my notice very strongly in the few weeks I was up North. The tide is flowing—it is almost a flood—the tide is flowing in the direction of achieving a reasonable and square deal for the native. No one can hold back that tide. But no one can achieve the object which we have in view unless he carries the majority of the people with him. It is impossible to do anything unless you, carry the people with you, and any impetuous, any ill-considered move, made on the spur of the moment, can swing public opinion over and may lead to a serious setback, so that it may take years again to re-start the flowing tide, and it might well be turned into an ebb. The native policy must be based on sound foundations. It must not be spectacular, and the fact that I have been criticised from all sides of the House by people entirely opposed to each other shows perhaps that I am following the right course. The advance must be definite and steady, even if it may appear slow to some people, but there must be no going back on an advance, because nothing breaks the heart of an individual who is going ahead more than to be pushed back again. There is no reason in my opinion in a native policy for opportunism or for superficiality. It must be based on a sound foundation, and you must consolidate the position. There must be no attempt at political gain or at political manoeuvring. The policy must be liberal and sincere, and at the same time realistic. We must face the position as it is and we must carry public opinion with it. I am anxious to help the native to advance, to give him a square deal to which he is entitled, always bearing in mind the interest of all other sections in the country— not only of the whites but also of the coloureds arid others. I shall come back to that point later. You have to carry along with you, if permanent progress is to be made, all sections of the population. I am alive to the difficulties and the hardships and the feeling of frustration which the educated, the civilised and the cultured native—cultured in his own way, and sometimes cultured in the European way—suffers from, but at the same time I am a realist.

I want to see that the natives’ economic position, his health, his wage, his social security, his education improved and consolidated, all these things, are being attended to, but I realise that all these Utopian ideas have to be handled very carefully unless the native is placed in a position in which he will be no better off. What I am asking for is to see that his health, his education and his wellbeing are looked after. If ever there was a platitude, and I hate platitudes, but if ever a platitude was applicable to the present position then it is this, the more haste the less speed. Let me give an example. Five years ago there were 15,000 natives in and around the Cape Peninsula. Today we have roughly 60,000 or perhaps a little more today, and they are continually streaming in. Now, what is the effect going to be? The Cape Peninsula is the first reserve of the coloured man. This is the coloured man’s main town where he has to make his living, By raising the wages to 9s. in some unskilled jobs, it was really the intention to help the coloured man, but in these few years 60,000 natives have come in. Some years ago the lifts in the Cape Peninsula, for example, were operated by coloured persons. Today they are almost entirely run by natives. These people are living under most appalling conditions, very often in the peri-urban areas, and they are undermining the chances of the coloured man of obtaining employment. The coloured man will not be getting a square deal if this influx continues without any restriction. That is the position. The living conditions of many of these natives are simply appalling. One only has to go through these places as I have done, to see under what appalling conditions they live, very often under bushes in the peri-urban areas.

If by waving a fairy wand you can within 24 hours properly house and properly employ all the natives who are here today. I suggest that in three months’ time there will be exactly the same number of natives living under exactly the same conditions in the Cape Peninsula. I see in the newspaper that there is a report that the natives of Johannesburg are building shacks on municipal ground as a protest against the overcrowding which has taken place in the Orlando township. Exactly the same thing happened there, and my hon. friends who represent the natives in this House do not want me to take any steps to control them.

We do not want you to adopt this method.

They always want some other method to be adopted, but the other method is never put forward. Those hon. members want to have their cake and eat it. Let me say here that those hon. members are here to represent the natives, and they are representing them with extraordinarily great skill and sincerity, and it is their job to do it, and I am always out to help them where I can. They are doing no more than their job and I appreciate that. But at the same time I must point out the other side of the picture. This influx of natives is rapidly creating a dangerous position for themselves as well as for every other person, white and coloured, living in the Caue Peninsula. Public opinion will not tolerate the continued existence of this position. The coloureds, when they come back from the war and find that their jobs are gone and that they are replaced by natives, will not be happy.

That is quite right.

Not Clause 2.

I thought the hon. member did object to Clause 2. In case I have failed to make the purpose of this clause perfectly clear, I will repeat something I said when I made my speech on introducing the second reading. An impression has got abroad that this clause is a further inroad into the rights of the native. Nothing is further from the truth. But the hon. member now says that he is not against Clause 2.

I thought it could be done by another measure.

I thought the hon. member definitely spoke about Clause 2.

That is so; I did.

Let us at least have unanimity from the hon. members on those benches. Clause 2 brings the acquisition of land by non-natives from natives in areas set aside for the residence of natives into line with the requirements of areas outside municipal limits where the Land Act operates. The object is to prevent natives from being exploited by non-native speculators. In future the acquisition of land by non-natives from natives will require the Governor-General’s consent, and that means in effect that the conditions of sale will be carefully gone into by people who know something about it and ultimately by myself. I have investigated every bond that has been passed up to the present moment, and as a result of my experience I have learnt how the man who wants to bond his property can be caught by an unscrupulous moneylender. I have looked at every one of these bonds. Where the conditions are fair no questions are raised, but where, as frequently happens, the conditions are there purely in order to exploit the native, the transaction will not be permitted. The representations I have had show that there is exploitation on a large scale that calls for intervention by the Government. I do feel that where the native is unsophisticated and has not got the same chances of getting his money like the ordinary white man has, he ought to be protected. On Monday last when I introduced this Bill I spoke in Afrikaans, and perhaps I should again give a few details to show the reasons for introducing this clause. I said that out of 37 bonds that we investigated in Alexandra township and Lady Selborne five of the natives were charged at the rate of 10 per cent.; three were paying 9 per cent.; 21 were paying at the rate of 8 per cent.; one was paying 7 per cent. and in the remaining 7 cases interest was charged at the rate of 6 per cent. These rates are mostly exhorbitant at the present time. Ten of these bonds were not available for inspection. I unfortunately could not get hold of them.

Why?

Because I have no right to demand the production of a bond. I could not get hold of the actual bond. I was not able to get hold of it at the time. But of the remaining 27 bonds, 15 could not be redeemed unless the interest was paid in full for five years, a particular hardship as reputable Building Societies are now lending money to such natives on identical terms to those offered to Europeans. In one case the native actually signed a blank form and was not aware of the five years’ condition until he tried to pay off the bond as he could obtain a loan elsewhere on much more favourable terms. But hon. members who represent the natives—I think they are fighting for a principle and I respect anyone who fights for a principle—I think they will agree with me that from a realistic point of view I am doing the right thing. They will argue against it but they will pray to God that I put it through. In some cases capital reductions are only calculated annually so that interest is paybale on a fixed sum for 12 months no matter what amounts are paid off in reduction of capital during that period. High inspection, raising and other fees are charged for which the native gets no compensating value and sometimes he receives no cash but is debited with work done or materials supplied at prices which are alleged to be often excessive. This clause will ensure that a native secures reasonable terms when he buys a property and he will then have no need to augment his income by erecting rooms for sub-letting and turning his premises into a slum in an endeavour to meet his liabilities. I do not want to go into the matter any further, but I did want hon. members to see why one is doing this and what the reason behind it was. I feel that those who oppose the safeguard contemplated, are unwittingly assisting the unscrupulous moneylender who is exploiting the native. Many of the natives who are party to these transactions have not reached the stage where they are capable of protecting themselves. And let me say that many Europeans, many educated white people, are not in a position to look after their own affairs, and you see case after case where the widow or the orphan who has to handle his or her affairs for the first time is exploited. Therefore I find it difficult to appreciate the objections that have been made to this clause. Now I come to Clause 7. What is the object of Clause 7? this clause is intended to permit the local authority to maintain a reception depôt in terms of Section 12 of the Native Urban Areas Act at places outside its own boundaries. It might not be possible to put up a place inside its own boundaries. What we have in mind is a state of affairs such as that prevailing in a place like the Cape Peninsula. The Cape Town municipality has established a place like the Langa Location and has applied control there, but the natives in thousands have taken up their abode in the most appalling conditions in the peri-urban areas, in the Divisional Council area. Last year I managed to get the Municipality of Cape town to take over Windermere. But as soon as you take over Windermere the natives move a little further out and create the same conditions there. The natives in their thousands have taken up their abode in the most dreadful conditions in the Cape Flats, and there is no control whatever. The object of this clause is to set up a central depót at a focal point beyond the Cape town boundary and to give a central authority the control over it, to regulate the flow of labour into the area, not only on behalf of itself but on behalf of its neighbouring municipalities that might be adjacent to it or nearby; in other words, every municipality which will use that depót. The Government has been criticised for permitting this state of affairs in the Cape Peninsula to continue. I might say that in this depôt there will be a labour bureau so as to find jobs for the people, and the employers will know where to go to get employees. Hon. members will appreciate the need to take steps to prevent the position getting completely out of hand. In these four years the native population in the Cape Peninsula has gone up by 44,000 natives, and unless there is adequate control, it will lead to further complications, when, as I have said before, the coloured soldiers will come back and expect to get their jobs back. They will then find that 44,000 natives have taken up their abode in the Cape Peninsula during the past four years. There is no control whatever. The demoralisation of the natives in these circumstances is proceeding apace. The native is not allowed to buy drink but the coloured person is allowed to buy liquor and he can pass it on to the natives and exploit the native in this way. I am sure the native representatives will agree that we cannot sit by and watch this thing developing; we cannot do that with equanimity. Mr. Speaker, the spread of typhus in the territories is a serious matter. Assuming an epidemic of typhus were to break out here, what would be the position amongst the thousands of natives who live in the peri-urban areas in conditions of squalor, without any effective control?

Will you observe the speed limit?

You are talking too fast; it is difficult to follow you.

I am sorry, I am told I am speaking too fast. I will put myself into second gear. It is not only not in the interests of the natives, it is not only in the interests of the European, but it is not in the interests of the coloured community that this state of affairs should be allowed to continue, and I feel that it should be dealt with at once. The method that I have indicated is aimed at regulating the position as a whole and trying to get a grip of the position. There I am replying in general to speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) and others. That is my reply to the point made by him. Where hon. members have raised points in Afrikaans, I shall reply to them in Afrikaans, but where the same points are raised on both English and Afrikaans, I trust I shall be forgiven for not repeating my remarks in Afrikaans. Now we come to Clause 14. Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) (h) of the Native Urban Areas Act of 1923, areas may be set aside within an urban area outside locations and outside native villages as places where natives may reside. That is in the Urban Areas Act of 1923, and that clause was brought in and amended by the Government of the day after the 1936 legislation had gone through to bring this Act into line with the 1936 legislation. There was a special section to bring the legislation into line with the rest of the legislation. In those areas the natives can own property, and Section 4 (bis) which prohibits them from acquiring property without the Governor General’s consent was expressly excluded by Parliament when the Native Laws Amendment Bill was passed in 1937, and I do want hon. member to bear that clearly in mind. Such areas have been set aside at places like Lady Selborne near Pretoria and at Grahamstown, and experience has shown that control is absolutely essential to prevent abuse. The Johannesburg Municipality contemplates setting aside such an area outside Johannesburg. In this area the natives at present living in conditions of squalor in Sophiatown and Westdene, Claremont, Newclare and who have definitely become permanent. Town dwellers many of whom have been there for generations and have never seen a native reserve or a territory, will be allowed to get allotments in that area from the municipalities and build their own houses under the supervision of the municipality on the lines of the great example set by Bloemfontein which caused such great satisfaction amongst the natives. I was told when I was at Bloemfontein that this scheme caused great satisfaction. The natives will then receive financial assistance from the municipality and will be given an opportunity of staying there with their families under suitable conditions. This applies to the person who is definitely and always has been a town dweller. Hon. members will appreciate that we cannot permit this settlement to become a place of refuge for undesirables as has been the case where no control has been exercised. This has led to the ghastly position one sees all over these native townships in Johannesburg and in many other parts of the Union. Section 14 (4) of this Bill gives the power to prevent such abuse. Why should it be thought that we are taking away anybody’s rights. All we are doing is to try to prevent the appalling conditions that exist in most of these townships. This control is absolutely essential, and if you have not got it, it is impossible to have a permanent native urban population arising. You cannot have your cake and eat it. This venture is a great step forward, and I cannot but express my genuine surprise at the criticism against a measure of this kind which is the outcome of a desire to help the “middle class” native, as Mrs. Ballinger called them, to live under decent conditions where in his own area he is the master of his own little plot. I frankly cannot understand this criticism. A lot of other people have taken the bit in their teeth and bolted after hearing the fine speeches which have been made by the native representatives, and they also thought that something dreadful was going to be done to the natives. But I have shown that this measure is in the interest of the native. Then we come to Clause 18 of this Bill. A result of this uncontrolled influx to the Cape, which I refrained from mentioning in my opening speech, is that it adds a further aspect to our colour problem. The natives are consorting with liquor sellers, with the lowest type of coloured women, and the result has been that a new coloured race is springing up. That is the ghastly thing one has to face at the present moment. The whole idea was that the coloured people would go along, not socially but nevertheless politically and economically with the white man in the Cape. He was to take the side politically and economically with the white man, provided he had the necessary qualifications to exercise the franchise. But here a new coloured race is being created with a slightly darker skin. That is what future generations have to face, and that is what any man who holds the position of Minister of Native Affairs has to take cognisance of if he wants to do his duty. Today the position is that not only in spheres of employment but in the residential quarter the coloured people are being ejected by the natives. Clause 18 gives the power to apply suitable provisions of the Native Urban Areas Act in areas controlled by bodies which do hot fall within the definition of a local authority. I hope that is quite clear to hon. members. It applies therefore to areas controlled by the Divisional Councils and health committees. Sir, what on earth will be the use of the Health Commission which we have today in Natal, which is building houses for the natives in the peri-urban areas, which is doing splendid work in the interests of the natives, if it has not got the power to control within reasonable limits the work it is doing? It is quite impossible to exercise any sort of control …

Why do you want Divisional Councils?

The hon. gentleman asks why Divisional Councils? Unless I am mistaken the hon. gentleman attended a conference where a plea was made for the setting up of Divisional Councils to control these conditions. Now he wants to know why we want divisional councils. I refer to Bethelsdorp.

I was not there.

I apologise and I withdraw. I was wrong.

I was there.

I am always getting mixed up between the hon. members for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). At any rate, that was what was said, and the native representatives who were there from another place supported that contention. Hon. members are aware that on the outskirts of every big city natives have taken up their abode in most undesirable circumstances. There is no sanitation; there is no adequate water supply. There is no control over undesirables, and the undesirables get the control and the decent fellow is too frightened to open his mouth to say that he objects. There are many cases in Alexandra today where the decent type of native objects most strongly to the conditions which exist there, but he never has a chance to object, because he is afraid the native scolly-boy will go for him. As I said in my opening speech the Divisional Council system only operates in the Cape. There are no divisional councils in the other three provinces. To meet this position the Transvaal and Natal have created provincial health councils. The Natal one has worked very well. The transvaal one has only come into being. But without any power of control they can do absolutely nothing. Natal was doing excellent work and is preparing a housing scheme for the natives. How can they be expected to operate a housing scheme if they have no powers of control? It is requested that some of the provisions of the Urban Areas Act should be applied to those other places under its jurisdiction. This request is reasonable, and the clause provides the necessary machinery. The same applies to areas outside Pretoria where 18,000 natives—taking the urban area of Pretoria as a whole—are living under no local government, under no control whatsoever. At Windermere outside Cape town some 20,000 natives drifted in, and in a few months there was a huge township where these natives were living under the most appaling conditions of squalor ever seen. The municipality has taken over Windermere. But other places are going up in divisional council areas where the same conditions prevail, and powers are necessary in the interests of the divisional councils and in the interests of the natives themselves. It is no good having a divisional council looking after natives if this divisional council has no power to control them. That is one of the theoretical things that mean nothing in the end. I want to reply to various specific points as briefly as I can.

†*Now I want to come to the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). My reply to the suggestion contained in his amendment is that the Native Urban Areas Act contains adequate provision for control within urban areas. Under paragraph 5 (bis), which restricts admission, and under paragraph 12 in regard to a registration system, adequate powers are placed in the hands of municipalities to prevent the accumulation of vagrants.

And if local authorities do nothing?

Well, if the sun does not rise tomorrow it’s not my fault. The question, of course, is quite justified, but they can take steps under this legislation, and if they do not do so we can take action.

The fact that the things which have happened, have happened proves that they have taken no steps.

What happened at Graaff-Reinet?

I am very anxious to deal as effectively as possible with the questions raised, and I think that supplementary questions can be better dealt with in committee. The trouble is that this provision which I have just mentioned does not apply to extra-urban areas, it does not apply beyond the municipal boundary. They have the power under Clause 5 (bis) but not beyond their boundaries. I now want to extend their powers to beyond their boundaries and I want to bring periurban areas within the provisions of this clause.

The distance is too far, five miles.

That is not the question we are dealing with now. We are talking about urban areas, we are not talking about sprouted grain. Clauses 17 and 18 of this Bill give the necessary powers to prevent such, conditions beyond the boundaries of municipalities; in other words, the local authorities can use these powers beyond their boundaries. For these reasons I am unable to accept the hon. members’ amendment. In regard to a consolidating Bill I am pleased the hon. member has made the suggestion. I shall take steps during the recess to have a Bill preprepared, a consolidating Bill only. We do not propose reviewing all the Acts because that would require a special Session of Parliament but we shall prepare a consolidating Bill. In regard to a census, the hon. member knows that a census has to be taken every five years in accordance with the provisions of the law. This will have to take place again in 1946.

I am talking of the local census every two years.

I shall go into that matter. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) made a speech with which I largely agree. He spoke about those who are always crying “stinking fish”. There are people who are always disposed to make the natives believe that the whites are oppressing them and doing them down, they are always out to make the natives believe that they are being unfairly treated and misled. Well, if you keep on telling a man long enough that he has been misled and that he is unfairly treated he will come to believe it himself in the long run, and the non-European who is always being told that he is being oppressed will eventually come to believe it, but the people who are doing that sort of thing will one day reap what they have sown. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) discussed the question of the hours when kaffir beer halls were allowed to be open. The hours are fixed after consultation with the municipalities concerned. That point, however, is again being considered and I shall keep the hon. member’s suggestion in mind. In regard to separate accommodation for different native tribes, that is a very difficult point, but it deserves the attention of the municipalities and if I get an opportunity I shall discuss it with them. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) dealt with this whole question very clearly and very fairly. He dealt with a number of points raised by hon. members, and by doing so he has saved a good deal of my time, because he explained the position so clearly that there is no need for me to reply any further. I want to thank him for what he said. He speaks from experience of native affairs. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) says that natives only come to the towns to work and that after that they return to the Reserves. I am somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member say so because that does not conform with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. But let me ask the hon. member whether he does not know of the millions of natives who have never yet been in a Reserve? There are about 3,000,000 of them who have never been in a Reserve, natives who have grown up on farms and who live and work in the towns. Many of the natives who have come from the farms are not at home in the native areas and there are many others who have lived in the towns all their lives. They cannot go back to the farms; they don’t belong to the Reserves. There are almost 3,000,000 of them who have never been in a native Reserve. What about them? The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) referred to the state ment that nothing was being done for the natives and I agree with what he said. It is often thrown at us by people who have never been in South Africa, or have only been here for a short while, that we do nothing for the natives. One often feels that it would be much better if those people cleaned up their own doorstep a bit before trying to teach us our business. I should like to know of one single British Colony where the natives have old age pensions, blind pensions, and invalidity pensions, costing £700,000, as is the case here? Those people in the British House of Parliament and elsewhere who criticise us should bear these things in mind. In which other parts of the world have such large amounts been set aside for housing schemes? Cape Town alone has approved of the expenditure of more than £1,000,000 for that purpose, and it has spent large amounts of money, and other municipalities have done the same. What about education? The expenditure on native education has doubled itself in the past ten years, and it will now amount to £1,800,000. And what about the £6,000,000 for the purchase of land for natives? What about the improvements effected in the native areas? We never hear anything about those things, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying this today. We are told that the natives are badly treated but in which other parts of the world has the native population increased by 2.9 per cent. per year—in India the increase of the native population has been only 1 per cent. per year. The native population has doubled itself in 39 years. What has become of the aborigenes in Australia and in other territories? What about the Red Indians in America and Canada? Have they doubled themselves? One does not want to mention these things but we have our national pride and when we are attacked we must reply. I hope we shall make propaganda and that books will be published to show what we have actually done for our natives. We cannot allow such allegations to be made. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) said that the profit from beer halls should not be used for social welfare. Well, the hon. member for Pietersburg was a member of the Native Affairs Commission when they presented their report on the question of kaffir beer and this is what the Commission said—

The hon. member was a member of that Commission. I think it is no more than fair that that should be done, otherwise we will get some municipalities trying to cover everything cut of the profits on beer; they will try to cover administration, street lighting, housing schemes etc., from those profits. They have a monopoly and they may possibly charge such a high price for beer that they will be able to pay for everything for the natives out of these profits. That I think would be wrong. The hon. member also mentioned a point of considerable importance in regard to trading in locations. I can only say that in 1936 it was the policy of the late Gen. Hertzog that natives in their own locations should be allowed to trade. What this Bill makes provision for is the protection of the European shops outside the locations. Now the local authority which grants a licence to the native location first of all has to draft regulations which have to be approved of by my Department and my Department will close up any loopholes. We shall see to it that Europeans will not be allowed to buy in the locations and that the native shops will not be able to undermine ordinary shops or business concerns in the towns.

Can Europeans go there and carry on trade?

In my second reading speech I specially said that we wanted to prevent Europeans making use of natives who had a licence, and using those natives as a cloak to do business themselves. That sort of thing must be stopped. If the regulations are no good we shall not approve of them.

Will a European be allowed to buy in the location?

No, I cannot say exactly what the regulations are going to be, but we are making provision for the local authorities to make regulations which I have to approve of, so that I shall be able to prevent that sort of thing. That was the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council of Bloemfontein and we have given effect to that.

Is it not possible to lay that down in the Bill?

No, but I am prepared to give an undertaking that I shall see to it as far as possible that the regulations will make the necessary provision.

If it is going to be of general application it can surely be laid down in the Bill?

We may find perhaps that the regulations are not strict enough. It is better to grant powers to frame regulations so that if necessary they can be made more severe. The Bill, however, contains the principle that the municipalities are to draft regulations. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) made an appreciative speech. When one gets such a lot of criticism it is pleasant to listen to a little praise. The hon. member thanked me and said I was a good Minister. Being a voter in the hon. member’s constituency I shall always vote for the hon. member in future. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) spoke about fines in regard to kaffir beer offences. My Department has discussed this matter with the local authorities. The local authorities were unanimous in their request that the fines should be paid to them instead of going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and I do not think the hon. member’s constituents would thank him if they find out that he wants to give them money which they are going to give to the Minister of Finance.

I said very clearly into which pocket I thought the money should go.

Some other member, or perhaps it was also the hon. member for Boshof, said that it was unfair for the State to have to pay for police and justice while the fines did not go into the coffers of the State, but I think I have replied to that. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) raised a number of points. I think it will be better to deal with them in committee, but there is one point I want to touch on, and that is in regard to vagrant women. May I point out that they can also be removed under Clause 17 of the Native Urban Areas Act. I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). He always talks intelligently and in the interest of the country in general. I am afraid that hon. members behind him did not speak in the same strain. The hon. member is opposed to the profit on kaffir beer being used for the natives’ social welfare. Well, I have already said I feel there are certain things which should not be paid for out of the profits. I have mentioned these things and I do not think it is necessary to go into that question again.

Cannot it be left to the discretion of the municipality?

The hon. member knows what a previous Mayor of Johannesburg said—he said that he was entirely in favour of the Bill.

But I understand that the municipalities as a whole made the point which I have just made.

In regard to his remarks about strange natives entering the country, he wants the House to understand that local natives are replaced, are pushed aside, by strangers who are allowed to come into the country. That was the hon. member’s main point. Let me tell him that at the moment there is a shortage in the mines of 70,000 labourers, and in the coal mines 800 are required every month, while the farmers are at their wits’ end because they are unable to get workers. How can the hon. member say then that because strangers are coming into the country the local natives are unemployed?

But are they paying proper wages? What about the mines?

That is an important point. I have, however, already pointed out that in the Cape Peninsula wages have been increased to 9s. for unskilled labour in certain cases, and the effect has been the very opposite—it has led to an influx of natives and there is not sufficient work for all of them.

†Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I listened to the hon. member speak and though I know he is a very hard-working front bencher, I gathered the impression that he has not read the Bill. I should like to say what I have to say in his presence, but he does not appear to be here now. I would not suggest perhaps that he had not read it, but it was quite clear to me that he had not studied it very carefully, because he used as an argument the question which I replied to earlier in the debate, the amount of land purchased and the prices paid. He suggested that the amount of land was 450,000 or something like under 500,000 morgen at a price of some £999,000. But in that question it was clear I was replying to what was paid from 1939 to the present date. Actually the amount of land purchased since 1936 is just over 1,500,000 morgen, and it was bought at a cost of £4,750,000. Those are the facts which the hon. gentleman did not perhaps follow at the time. He referred to the high price paid for the land. I entirely agree with him. The price today is too high, and for that reason I am not going to buy land at present. I am not going to compete with speculators who are buying land not on a basis of its economic value, but in order to make something out of it. I must develop the land in the native territories. Later on he said that we were making it more difficult for the natives to come into the towns. This is not strictly so. There are no pass laws in the Cape, and the natives can go where they please. This Bill is trying to regulate the flow to the requirements of industry, so that those coming into the towns can be absorbed in employment and not left about the towns unemployed, and starving and living under the most appalling conditions. Surely the hon. member for Troyeville approves of that provision of the Bill; surely he must agree with that. He made great play of the fact that the House did not know what the Natives Representative Council said or did. He referred to a Select Committee of the Natives Representative Council and said the House was not aware of what happened, so hew could they judge. I laid that report on the Table of the House on the 3rd March, and it was the hon. member’s job to have seen and read it if he wanted to suggest that their views had not been placed before the House. When he speaks from a responsible position on the front bench I think he should be very careful in seeing that his facts are accurate. He indicated to me and to this House that the Natives Representative Council would have nothing to do with the Bill, nothing at all. I just wish to give some details of the way this Bill was dealt with by the Native Representative Council. The attitude of the Natives Representative Council it this, that they do not approve in principle of any single Bill which does not apply the same to Europeans as to natives. With that proviso they were prepared to discuss this Bill on its merits. But I want to make it clear that they do not approve of any legislation of that kind or with the Urban Areas Act.

That was not our point.

No, I am trying to be fair to the Natives Representative Council, because I want to show that once they have made that proviso they were prepared to discuss the Bill on its merits, and the result of their discussion was Clause 1, no comments; Clause 2, supported; Clauses 4 and 6 supported; Clause 7 opposed; Clause 8, no objection; Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and the first two sub-clauses of Section 14, supported; Clause 14, opposed; Clause 15, opposed;

Clause 16, opposed; Clause 17, opposed;

Clauses 18 and 19 supported; Clause 22 sup ported, and the other clauses were not submitted. Out of a total of 24 clauses submitted to the Council, in two they raised no objection, fifteen were approved and six Objected to. To tell the House that the Natives Representative Council had nothing to do with the Bill at all is, in my opinion, not entirely sticking to the facts. That is the position. I am deeply sorry that the hon. gentleman who sits on the front bench with me cannot support me; nevertheless, I will, with a few friends I have in the House, struggle through with the Bill. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) in a very brilliant speech told the House that in the European countries labourers came in to the large towns to settle down as permanent urban dwellers. But did he tell the House of any place in Europe where the Government buys millions of morgen of land for their people where they can graze their stock free of cost other than certain taxes and where the Government provides numerous facilities to enable them to carry on farming without any cost whatever?

In the Balkan States.

I understand that in the Balkan States 75 per cent. of the people are farmers or connected with farming. I am mainly referring to a great industrial country like Great Britain. Anyhow, it is neither here nor there. He told us, however, that the law had broken down, and when I asked him to support me in trying to tighten up the law so that it did not break down, he would not give me that support.

It is quite impossible.

Of course the hon. member is perfectly right to stand up for principles that he thinks are right, but I had to answer the points he has made. He brought his case and I must put mine. He said that exorbitant rates of interest would be charged and natives exploited, unless special banks were created, such as Municipal Banks. I suggested that the ordinary supply of money, when money is cheap and security is good, would take care of the position—in circumstances like that you do not want any banks, ordinary finance institutions will lend you the money at ordinary competitive rates. He said that urban natives were necessarily part of the economic structure of the towns. Yes, I quite agree. But there are a certain section who must be recognised as a permanent part of the urban population. But control is necessary of the large floating population which is streaming into the towns.

They will still float in after you have passed the Bill.

He says that the Land Act is to blame. I cannot agree that the Land Acts are responsible for this influx. The Land Acts were designed to provide more land for native settlement. We cannot contemplate a state of affairs in which large numbers of natives are allowed to come in free without any control. We cannot allow natives to enter the towns, buy land and settle down there without any control. The amendments contained in this Bill are necessary; they have been drafted after full consultation with those whose interests are affected. I am sorry I cannot accept his amendment and I must say that I have a grave suspicion that the hon. member thought so when he moved it. Then there is the point about the beer halls. I have to a large extent dealt with that in my reply to other members. No, I can see no reason for another commission and I regret very much that I cannot agree with the hon. member. Then the hon. member for transkei (Mr. Hemming) spoke as he always does with authority and with a full sense of responsibility, and he said we should improve the conditions which have now arisen and prevent them from arising again. I asked him across the floor of the House how we could do so without control. He said: “Make the wages more attractive.” Again I would refer the hon. member to my remarks to a previous speaker — look what attractive wages have done for Cape town? No, the very conditions which the hon. member complains of are the very ones which have created the condition here, and I have to take responsibility and I have to see that that sort of thing does not happen. There are many other points on which I would like to reply. But I have no doubt that these matters will be raised again when we are in committee. I was quite prepared to have gone on with my reply and deal with every point raised — as a matter of fact I could have gone on for another hour, but it is rather late, and I feel these other matters can be raised in committee. So I move.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, t. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, t. P.

Hare, W. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

NOES—38:

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Hemming, G. K.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Molteno, D. B.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Payne, A. C.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Original motion put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mrs. Ballinger, Messrs. Hemming, Molteno, A. C. Payne, Sullivan and Wanless) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared it agreed to.

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