I beg to give notice of objection to the adoption of the third report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders so as to afford members of the staff an opportunity to make known their objections in regard to remuneration and pension rights as affected by the recommendations made in their report.

As notice of objection to the adoption of the third report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, presented to this House yesterday, has been given by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), it now becomes necessary for a date to be fixed for the consideration of the report.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, like many other members I view this Bill with somewhat mixed feelings. It is no doubt inevitable, having regard to the nature of the subject dealt with and having regard to the conditions of the country, that this Bill should be in the nature of a compromise. I accept the Bill as a compromise. That does not mean that I like everything in the Bill. But it does mean that it is only as a whole without any omissions or additions or alterations as suggested by the various Opposition groups that I can approve of this Bill and vote for it.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the point from which one should start in approaching this Bill is the 1927 agreement between the Government of the Union and the Government of India. There are two points I want to make in regard to that agreement. The first is that that agreement was the result of a round table conference. No less a person than the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) on that occasion tolerated the interference of the Government of India in our domestic affairs. Let me say at once I do not say that by way of criticism.

It is not true.

The hon. member entered into discussions.…

Read again the correspondence that took place between me and the Government of India.

The hon. member entered into discussions with the Government of India. Surely you cannot get away from that.

What?

The hon. member entered into discussions with the Government of India in regard to our domestic affairs.

In regard to repatriation, that was a different matter.

I am not criticising him on that ground. He had good reasons for doing so. But those reasons which he had for discussing our domestic affairs with the Government of India are not without their bearing on the present situation. We today criticise the Government of India for, as we describe it, putting an oar in our domestic affairs. We attack the Indians in South Africa for looking outside South Africa for help in regard to these matters, but we forget, Mr. Speaker, that most of those local Indians or their ancestors came to South Africa because of an intergovernmental arrangement. They came because we or our predecessors wanted them to come. They came because it was in the interests of the white man that they should come. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) last night tried to indicate that they merely came on a temporary basis. If that were so why did the government that brought them here not take steps to send them away again? If they came here on a temporary basis why were they not sent back after the period of their indenture?

The Prime Minister said it was a mistake by the government of that time.

Never mind if it was a mistake. What is of importance is it was done and it is not the first time that the sins of the fathers have been visited on the children to the second and third generation. Whether it is a mistake or not, it was done, and they came here because of governmental pressure from South Africa on an unwilling government in India. They were not sent back by the government that brought them here.

What were the terms of the indenture? They came on a three years’ indenture. After three years the labourer was required to re-indenture for a fourth year or, if he liked, for two additional years. Thereafter he was free to live and work in Natal as he willed, and then after a further five years he had the right either to a free return passage— he was not sent back—or the equivalent of its cost in Crown land. Quite clearly from the very outset in those days, the Indian was welcomed as a permanent settler in the Colony of Natal and as a contributor to the prosperity of that colony. I say again that that arrangement was come to between governments. It was a South African Government that pressed it upon an Indian Government. That Indian Government resisted it; it resisted it time and again. It was overborne by governmental pressure from this end; and ultimately the importation of indentured Indians into Natal ended only in 1911 and ended only because the Government of India stopped it. And that being so, the Government of India has surely continued to bear some measure of responsibility in regard to these people and the descendants of these people whom it was pressed to allow to come to South Africa. The hon. member for Piketberg could not resist that in 1926. That being so I do not see how we can blame the Government of India for seeking to discharge that responsibility as long as we withhold from our local Indians the opportunity of stating their own case here in Parliament through their own representatives. We cannot blame the local Indians for, as we put it, running to Mother India, unless we recognise them as South African citizens with rights of citizenship. It is not for us to lecture them and tell them they must choose whether they want to be regarded as South Africans or Indians. The first move is with us. The first move is for us to recognise them as South African citizens and to give them the means of exercising their citizenship, and that first move is what we are taking in this Bill.

The second point to which I want to come back in that 1927 agreement is this. The hon. member for Fauresmith said last night that that agreement contemplated the reduction by emigration of the Indian population of South Africa. Yes, it certainly did. But he went on to imply that that agreement regarded the whole of the Indian population of South Africa as purely temporary. The hon. member for Fauresmith did not quote from the agreement. In that agreement the Union Government declared its firm belief, and adhered to the principle, that—

And it also recorded its acceptance of the view that in the provision of education and facilities—

I say that again for the benefit of the hon. member for Fauresmith, this is what the hon. member for Piketberg put his signature to—

That is the obligation we in South Africa took on ourselves. Once again I do not criticise the hon. member for Piketberg for being responsible for our assuming that obligation. I believe he was right in agreeing to that. But the point I want to make is this: The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, in the last part of his speech, in effect admitted that we had fallen considerably short in our efforts to carry out that upliftment obligation. That is what the last part of his speech meant. In effect, in that last part of his speech he pledged South Africa to make a new attempt in that direction. I believe that a very important reason for our failure is that the Indian community has, except in the Cape, been voteless and voiceless, and I believe the political representation of the Indian community is an essential condition of the effective implementation of our undertakings in regard to the upliftment of the Indians which my friend over there assumed on our behalf.

I think I can now give the reasons why I support this Bill. I am as anxious as any hon. member of this House that we should be able to treat the Indian question as a domestic question, that we should remove it from the sphere of India’s direct interests, but I believe that it is only by giving the local Indians political rights that we can in fact do so. I am no less anxious that we should carry out our uplift obligations in letter and in spirit. The experience of the last 20 years has shown us that the concession of political rights is indispensable if we are to do so, and it is because this Bill concedes political rights that I regard it as one of the most important Bills that has come before this Parliament, and that I am prepared to support it. Hitherto our history on the political side in our dealings with the Indian people in South Africa, and in Natal in particular, has been one of the whittling away of their rights. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) last night, in that specious address which he delivered here, said that they were not promised political rights when they came here. Of course they were not. Because, under the constitution of Natal, they got them naturally, automatically. There was no need to promise them; the constitution was there. That is the kind of specious remark we get from that hon. gentleman. There was a time when they enjoyed those rights in Natal on an equal basis with Europeans, but the process hitherto has been one of ’whittling away. First of all the parliamentary franchise was attacked. Then the municipal franchise was attacked. In this Bill we reverse that process of whittling away. We start giving back the rights that have been taken away.

Did you say “start”?

Yes, more has to come. Municipal rights have to come.

Do you want to give them the common franchise?

I am coming to that later. In this Bill we concede to them the right of representation in Parliament. We give them the right of representation in the Natal Provincial Council by their own people. There are some hon. members who do not like the fact that the Indians will be able to sit as members of the Provincial Council. They can do so today. To prevent them from doing so would have meant introducing a new colour bar into our constitution. It is unthinkable that we should have agreed to that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this Bill because it stops the process of depriving the Indian community of rights, because it starts the process of restoring to them the rights that were taken away from them. That does not mean that Ī am entirely happy about the terms in which these rights have been given. The basis of representation in this Bill is the communal franchise. Hon. members, or some of them I take it, have not forgotten that when the Natives Representation Bill was before Parliament in 1936, I as a matter of principle opposed the communal franchise. I criticised it strongly. I still regard it as open to criticism for the reason I gave then, and which I am not going to enumerate now. I do not like the communal franchise proposal in this Bill, but I made my fight on that issue in 1936. To some extent the decision then taken compromises the position today. I see no chance of fighting that issue successfully today. I therefore accept the provisions of the Bill in this regard, but I accept it as a second best. I would rather have a communal franchise for the Indians than no franchise at all.

As a second best, or as the first instalment?

As a second best. I hope the Indian community will come to see the matter in that light. I hope that they will come to appreciate the recognition of their citizenship which this Bill gives as a very important step forward indeed.

Perhaps it is necessary at this stage, to avoid possible misunderstanding, that I should say a word about the position in regard to the coloured community. The fact that I accept the proposal of communal franchise in this Bill must certainly not be taken to mean that I would accept that principle in relation to the coloured community, for a very simple reason. I fought the proposal of a communal franchise in regard to the natives because it was bound up with taking away from them their rights under the common roll. In this Bill we are not taking away any political rights from the Indians. We are giving them something they have not got. I am against taking away any rights from the coloured community, the rights they have on the common roll. There is another point in the political part of this Bill about which I am not entirely happy. The Broome Commission report implied that the communal franchise should carry with it the right of Indians to be represented in Parliament by their own people. It may be remembered when in 1909 Onze Jan criticised the first report of the National Convention one of the points he took was that in the light of the long parliamentary experience of the Cape Parliament colour restriction in respect of parliamentary representation was unnecessary, and the Afrikaner Bond supported him. I have therefore fairly good backing for my dislike for the colour bar in relation to parliamentary representation. But, Mr. Speaker, despite the protest of Onze Jan and others at that time that particular colour bar was inserted in the Act of Union and is still there. It is not easy to get away at this stage from what might be described as part of the compact of Union. For my part I do not believe that it can remain there for all time. For my part I do not believe that it should remain there for all time. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) depored the proposal to allow Indians to sit in the Provincial Council as the thin end of the wedge. He feared that it might lead to their sitting in this House. I am not afraid of that. I take my stand for the ultimate removal of that colour bar from our constitution. I put that quite clearly. If my hon. friends want to use it to make political capital against me they are free to do so. So far their attempts to undermine my position by misrepresentation of my attitude in these matters have yielded them very poor results.

I am therefore not entirely happy about certain aspects of the franchise proposals in this Bill. But I do not consider it practicable to go further than we are going at present. It is that qualified franchise or nothing and I consider it so important that the process of the deprivation of political rights should be reversed, that there should be a recognition of the citizenship of the Indian inhabitants of South Africa, that I would be loth to do anything to jeopardise a Bill which contains provisions which would have that effect. And the very strength of the opposition that has come to these proposals from the opposite benches strengthens my belief that I am right.

Now I come to the first part of the Bill, the part that deals with property. That has to be considered against the background of the complex European-Asiatic relations existing in Natal today. It is a different situation today, especially in Durban, and it is a situation which is deteriorating steadily. Of course, it is customary to put the blame for that on the Indian. It is the wicked Indian who is always doing the penetration. But there is another side of that which should be stated. A good deal of the blame attaches to the European community of Natal and not least to the Durban City Council. Out of my own experience as Minister of Public Health, as Minister of Education, I could say a good deal in support of that statement. But I shall content myself with quoting remarks of two of my colleagues. The hon. Minister for Social Welfare, then the Minister of the Interior, in 1943 said—

And the present Minister of the Interior said—

But the precise assessment of blame for the situation is of relatively minor importance. What is of first-class importance is that there is a rapidly deteriorating situation today, and that is important from two points of view. It is important, if I may use the word in this sense, positively, in the sense that if that situation continues it may lead to serious consequences. It is of importance also negatively, because while you have that situation there I am afraid that we shall not get very far with our policy of uplifting the Indians. We have seen that quite clearly in regard to Indian housing. The first part of this Bill represents an attempt to deal with that situation. It is a drastic attempt, but we should regard it broadly, as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) did last night. If we do so, and if this Bill does in fact make possible an effective and vigorous policy of upliftment in terms of our undertakings, the attempt which we make in this Bill may yet come to be regarded as having been justified by results.

What are the uplift clauses except the franchise clauses?

The Prime Minister has made his statement on that point.

Are there any other provisions?

Not specifically in this Bill.

Then why do you say so?

Because it is so. I say that unless you improve the present position it will be difficult for us to carry out the undertakings assumed on our behalf by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan).

The thing which I mainly regret about the first part of this Bill, is that it has not been possible to found it on a basis of consent. I have always felt that consent is the appropriate basis for dealing with this question of restricting juxtaposition between Asiatic and European. The tragedy is that we came so very near to getting consent for such a policy.

Let us have another attempt.

Just let me continue. When I say that we came near getting consent I refer, of course, to the Pretoria Agreement. That showed that the policy of residential separation by means of the setting aside of free areas, as is done in this Bill, could be based on consent, in regard to residential separation. But the Pretoria Agreement failed. It failed in the first instance because of a display of mass intolerance in Durban which is one of the least creditable aspects of our South African history. That was followed by hysterical outbursts in India, and it led in due course to the displacement of the moderate elements from their position of control in the councils of the Natal Indian Congress. Because of these things, not only did the Pretoria Agreement fail, but the possibility of further negotiations in the spirit of the Pretoria Agreement became impossible. That possibility disappeared. I repeat that but for these things I believe that something very like this Bill might have been arrived at by negotiation and agreement. In the Pretoria Agreement the Indian representatives were prepared to accept what I think was the main point, the question of residential separation. I think it should have been possible but for the circumstances I have mentioned for them also to have been prepared to concede the further point of separation in regard to ownership, which after all only affects a small property-owning element amongst the Indians, in consideration of franchise concessions on the lines of this Bill, which would have been of value and importance to the mass of the community as a whole. But I repeat that such further negotiations have become impossible. The Government was faced with that situation, that because of these facts there was no hope of getting agreement, and we had to go forward. I would also repeat that on balance I cannot see how there should be much greater objection to this Bill taken as a whole from the point of view of the Indians, than there would have been to a Bill based on the Pretoria Agreement which they were prepared to accept. If they describe this Bill as a “ghetto Bill” then I think that with as much justification legislation based on the Pretoria Agreement could have been described by those who did not like it as a “ghetto ordinance.” In view of that I do not think that this Bill merits the violence of the opposition it has aroused in that quarter. But in any case if this Bill does make possible the effective policy of upliftment, it will justify itself, and I sincerely hope it will.

That brings me to the last point I wish to make. This Bill, as I have said, is of first-class importance, and it will no doubt be passed, but of no less importance in regard to this Bill is the spirit in which it will be passed. From that point of view it puts those of us who are supporting it to a test, each one of us individually. Whenever we in this House deal with matters which affect the unrepresented elements in our population, we are in a position of trusteeship, we stand condemned if we approach these matters only from our point of view as Europeans. If we vote for this Bill simply as a measure of safeguarding European property and other interests, if it is in that sense we are concerned with saving European civilisation, in the sense implied by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who spoke of the maintenance of the domination of European civilisation, if that is in our mind, if we act under the dictates of the tyranny of prejudice and fear, we shall not save our white civilisation in South Africa. We in fact then abandon these principles which make European civilisation worth while. It is only to the extent that we can see in this Bill a means also to the upliftment of the at present still unrepresented Indian community, that we are justified in supporting it, and unless we are determined in all sincerity to follow up the enactment of this legislation in the spirit of the last part of the Prime Minister’s speech, I fear that we shall in the years to come have more reason to regret than to rejoice in the passing of this measure.

The Hon. Minister who has just been seated told us that he is not entirely happy as far as this Bill is concerned. Let me say at once that I cannot understand him. If there is one person in this House who ought to feel happy about this Bill, then it is he, for he has gained a glorious victory. He has got his own way in his party and the Afrikaners on the other side, who adopt the same attitude in connection with this question as we do on this side, have suffered a defeat. There are people on the other side who a little while ago declared to their voters that the Indian would only obtain the franchise over their dead bodies. They have now hoisted the white flag and the Minister of Finance has gained a glorious victory. If they allow his viewpoint to triumph still further, they will ultimately see the realisation of the prospects he has sketched for us today. I wrote his words down like this—

This is only the beginning. He went on—

As was evident throughout his speech, he is inexorably opposed to there being a dividing line between European and non-European in South Africa.

Keep to what I said.

He expressed this idea as being his goal—

He maintains that not only should there be no colour bars in this country, but that all existing colour bars should be abolished; then he will be happy.

As far as Parliamentary representation is concerned.

I will come to that. Before reviewing the speech of the Minister of Finance any further, I want to revert to a few misrepresentations which he made. In the first place he tried to create the impression that the Indians in South Africa are entitled to call on the Government of India to interfere in this affair in South Africa. Furthermore, he himself expressed the opinion that the Indians in South Africa have the right, not only to call on the Indian Government for help, but that they are also entitled to call on other countries to help them here in South Africa. Apart from the fact that the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance is diametrically opposed to that of the Prime Minister, I want to point out that he endeavoured to justify his viewpoint by asserting that the present Leader of the Opposition, in the years 1926-’27, allowed the Government of India to interfere in our internal affairs and that he accepted assistance from the Government of India. It is not true that he acknowledged the right of the Government of India to interfere in the matter. All that happened was that he accepted the assistance of the Government of India to see whether it was not possible to get rid of the Indians in South Africa by repatriating them to India or by sending them to another place. But in the second place the Nationalist Party Government of those days and the present Leader of the Opposition were very firm in their viewpoint that we would not brook any infringement of our right as far as the legislation of this country was concerned, that we had the right to accept any legislation in connection with the Indians which might be deemed necessary by the Government of South Africa, and that the Government of India would not have any say in connection therewith. To come now and say that this side of the House had already abandoned that principle is simply and obviously untrue.

It is “specious.”

Yes, the Minister of Finance said that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) made a statement which was “specious.” He himself was undoubtedly doing it in this case.

The Minister of Finance adopted the viewpoint that the Indians are in Natal and that they came to South Africa at the request of the European race, and that for that reason we have no right to adopt the attitude that they do not comprise a portion of the permanent population of South Africa. It is very strange that the Minister of Finance did not breathe one word about the Indians in the Transvaal. He avoided that carefully. He did not tell this House or the nation who was responsible for the Indians settling in the Transvaal. He is not unacquainted with history. He knows that the old Transvaal Republic wanted to do exactly the some as the Free State, namely to keep the Indians out of the Transvaal under Act No. 3 of 1885, and he also knows that the Imperial Government usurped powers under the Convention of London which it was never intended to have, and with the threat of war forced the Transvaal Republic to grant rights to Indians in the Transvaal, a state of affairs which the Government of the Transvaal tried to put an end to with the Act of 1885.

Now I just want to say to the Minister of Finance that however much one respects his honest convictions — just as one wishes to respect the honest convictions of any person — I think that I am speaking not only on behalf of this side of the House, but also on behalf of members on the other side, and I am convinced that I am expressing the views of the vast majority of white South Africa, English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking — however much we may perhaps respect his viewpoint in this connection because we want to respect the honest convictions of every person — I want to say to him that all this eloquence, all this rhetoric, and all the humanitarian principles which he mentioned, which in the majority of cases are merely platitudes, will not counter-balance the great law of nature, the law of self-preservation; they do not counterbalance that; they do not counter-balance the ideal which is cherished in South Africa that we want to build up and preserve a white nation in South Africa. I am convinced that his viewpoint will eventually be rejected by the white population; for the ideal has taken root in South Africa, and to such an extent that today already we can be assured that there are thousands and thousands of English-speaking people who except this ideal just as we do, and who also look forward longingly to the removal of anything which endangers this ideal of ours. I will come to the battle which was waged in the party ranks on the other side, but at this juncture I must refer to the speech made by the Minister of Finance at the Witwatersrand University. In that speech he rejected the idea of a “Herrenvolk.” and now I want to ask the Minister of Finance directly why he used the expression “Herrenvolk”? In South Africa we have always spoken of the white man as being the master in South Africa. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said that the white man must form the dominating race; and why did the Minister of Finance use this strange term? The white man has been the master up to now, and I want to say to the Minister of Finance that the white man will shed his last drop of blood to remain the master in South Africa. The Minister of Finance can be opposed to this idea that the white man must remain the master. I want to put this pertinent question to him, for I want members in this House to know what the policy of the Minister of Finance is going to be in the future. Is he opposed to the white man remaining the master in South Africa? Is he prepared to reply to this question?

Now he is silent.

Is he prepared to take it upon himself to endorse our maxim that the white man must be the master in South Africa?

On that basis there can be no lasting relationship between the races.

The Minister of Finance says that there can then be no lasting relationship between the races. He adopts the viewpoint that the white man should not be the master in the country. He stands for a policy of absolute equality in South Africa.

That is a distortion.

I am now only dealing with people who can use their intelligence logically. Any person whn can use his intelligence logically must realise that if the white race is not to be master in South Africa, there must then be equality. There is no happy medium. There must either be equality or the one must rule the other. If the white man’s rule in South Africa must come to an end—and it is clear that the Minister of Finance desires it— then I want members on the other side of the House and every white man in South Africa to review the future which awaits South Africa.

We must view this whole question against the background of the position which has always prevailed in South Africa, and what is it? Here we have a little more than two million white people against a little over eight million non-Éuropeans—I am speaking in round figures. The non-Europeans multiply quicker than the white people. This is proved by the vital statistics. The non-Europeans multiply quicker than the white people, and as this is the case everyone must realise the difficult position the white man finds himself in in South Africa if he wants to remain master in the country. The non-European population adopt the same viewpoint as the Minister of Finance. They stand for absolutely equal rights. This legislation will not satisfy them. It will not satisfy the coloureds, it will not satisfy the natives, and it will not satisfy the Indians. The non-European population of South Africa stands inexorably for equal rights. And what about the European population? The European population is divided mainly into two groups. There is the first group who adopt the viewpoint that we want to remain a white nation, and that we want to remain the master in South Africa. Then there is the other group, and in that group the Minister of Finance stands out as one of the leaders. I want to come to the Prime Minister, but at the moment I am more concerned with ’ the Minister of Finance. They are a group who are indifferent to this matter. It makes no difference to them whether South Africa remains white or not; it is they who are continually agitating for equal rights, and, like the Minister of Finance, for the abolition of all colour bars. Up till now the white man has remained the master in South Africa—why? In the first place, because he was civilised and had at his disposal the means of civilisation, while the millions of non-Europeans were uncivilised. In those circumstances it was very easy for the white man to remain the master. In the second place, the white man has been the master up till now because he has kept the power to govern South Africa in his hands. In this way this minority of Europeans has been in a position to hold its own in South Africa. But if he allows that power to govern the country to go out of his hands, if by yielding to the non-Europeans we give them the vote, then in view of their numerical strength, it goes without saying that the non-Europeans will eventually gain the power to govern the country; then the white race will be swamped and destroyed. It cannot be otherwise. There are people on the other side who have come to the same conclusion. Apart from the inexorable logic that if eight million people obtain the same franchise as two million, they must ultimately be the masters, if there are perhaps still members on the other side who are in doubt, I will call on the Prime Minister as my witness. I want to refer to the declaration to which the hon. member for Fauresmith referred yesterday evening, namely, the declaration of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference of 1923. The question of franchise for the ’ Indians was discussed there, and, inter alia, the Prime Minister said this—

This assertion that the Indians in South Africa do not want the vote at all if they do not obtain it on an equal basis with the Europeans was discussed there by the Prime Minister, and he said that if they adopted that viewpoint then they were right. Today they are adopting that viewpoint! Now I come to that portion of his speech in which he adumbrated what I termed a maxim just now—

It is the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance that we must give the vote to all, and if we do so, then the only conclusion to which we can come is that to which the Prime Minister came in 1923, that ultimately we will have the position that the power to govern the country will go over from the Europeans to the non-Europeans. We have maintained this viewpoint of ours that the power to govern the country must remain in the hands of the Europeans, and we say that if we allow that power to pass out of our hands as far as the franchise is concerned, then European civilisation in South Africa is doomed. The whole question and the history thereof must be viewed in the light of these two philosophies of life in South Africa to which I have referred. The one is that the white man must be the master and must retain the power of government in his hands, and the other is the view of life of liberalism, as it is now called, that you must have equality, also as regards the franchise.

How do we, as two parties, stand in respect of this question, I just want to take a peep into history. In the old Cape Colony we had a government who gave the franchise to Europeans and non-Europeans on an equal footing. The Afrikaners, the Voortrekkers, left the Cape Colony inter alia as a result of the fact that there was no dividing line between European and non-European. When they arrived in the northern parts of the country and established the republics in the Free State, Natal and the Transvaal, they incorporated that philosophy of life of the Afrikaner into the constitutions of those republics, and that is why they made provision for the white man, and the white man alone, to have the vote. Thus there we had a clear division between the two philosophies of life. Then came Unification in 1910. As far as the franchise was concerned, the viewpoint of the northern provinces at first prevailed in the south. In the course of years the Nationalist Party underwent progressive development, always nearer to the philosophy of the Afrikaner, namely, that the white man should have the political power in South Africa in his hands. And so we find that in the years 1918 to 1929 the Nationalist Party always declared that the vote of the native was a danger to the white man, and that, as regards the franchise, there must be a dividing line. The present Prime Minister was opposed to that viewpoint and all through the years he was in favour of the development of the native franchise on an equal footing with that of the white man. Ultimately he had to give in, but he did not give in out of conviction. He ultimately gave in because it was the price he had to pay for Fusion. It was not that he changed of conviction, but merely because he had to pay the price that way. General Hertzog forced it from him when Fusion was brought about. As the Nationalist Party we progressed in that direction, and realised eventually that the coloured vote had also to be separated from that of the white man. It is now the firm policy of this party. Gradually we shook off the liberalistic policy which we inherited from the days before the coming of self-government in South Africa.

What now is the history of the party on the other side in this connection? I am viewing the matter purely objectively. I do not want to criticise. If their viewpoint was right, or if it is their honest conviction, then I am prepared to respect their conviction, however much I may differ from it. We heard the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance this morning, and it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. But what was the viewpoint of the Prime Minister? There was a time before 1910 when he was a member of the Transvaal Administrative Government when he accepted the viewpoint that the white man should be the master in South Africa, a viewpoint which is endorsed by this side. But from 1910 onwards the Prime Minister changed his views. I want to remind him of the year 1911 when he came to this House with a Bill to consolidate the marriage laws of the various provinces of the Union. According to the marriage laws of the Transvaal and the Free State, a marriage could not take place between a European and a non-European. The present Prime Minister was then Minister of the Interior, and in 1911 he came to this House with a consolidating Bill, and in that Bill he incorporated a provision which rendered null and void the provisions of the Transvaal, which prohibited marriages between Europeans and non-Europeans by not making provision for facilities to allow those marriages to take place. The result would have been that mixed marriages could have taken place throughout South Africa, just as could have happened in the old Cape Colony and later in the Cape Province. As early as that we saw how the Prime Minister had departed from his original viewpoint and was moving over to the liberalistic viewpoint. I want to make further reference to his viewpoint at the Imperial Conference. There was discussion at the Imperial Conference on the Indian franchise and he strongly objected to the franchise being given to the Indians, but his objection was not based on the question of colour. He had no feeling against colour. Listen to what he said on that occasion—

That was his viewpoint. The objection to the Indian franchise was not a question of colour. The big objection was not colour, but to the Prime Minister it was merely an economic question. The white man was afraid of the competition of the Indians, and that is why the Prime Minister would not give them the franchise at that stage— not because he had any objection to the fact that the non-Europeans should obtain the franchise as such. I will go further. I come to the years 1922-’24. We know that Natal was continually passing ordinances in connection with municipal franchise so that the non-Europeans would not be in a position to vote at municipal elections. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who was the Prime Minister in those days, together with his government vetoed those ordinances every time so that they could not reach Natal’s Statute Book. His viewpoint was that the Indians in Natal should retain the vote together with the white man, and his government vetoed that ordinance every time. Today I want to say to Natal and to those hon. members in this House who represent Natal that they have to thank the Nationalist Party for the fact that Natal is not saddled with the municipal vote for the Indians, and especially the hon. Leader of the Opposition who sits here today, for in 1924 when the Nationalist Party came into power and when again in 1926 the Natalians passed that ordinance, the Nationalist Party Government of those days gave their approval to that ordinance.

You should then have placed them on the common roll.

I am dealing with the fact that the Government of those days vetoed that ordinance time and time again and that the Natalians were only saved by the intervention of this side of the House when they gained power.

And now I come to the present legislation. I say that this present legislation is nothing else but the thin end of the wedge. I want to quote the Prime Minister’s words again—

I say here is the thin end of the wedge. And now I come to the Bill, first of all as regards Natal. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Finance used the same sophistry here today as they have used in the past. They are trying to explain away the fact that they are now allowing the Indian representation in the Natal Provincial Council by asserting that the Indian has always had the right to become a member of the Natal Provincial Council. On what do they base their assertion? The Natal Ordinance, as far as I know, lays down that to become a member you must be qualified to be registered as a voter. On those grounds the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say that the native, the coloured and the Asiatic can become members of the Provincial Council of Natal. I want to say frankly that never in my life have I listened to such a fallacy. At first the native in Natal enjoyed full franchise together with the white man. I think it was taken away in 1883. The Indian’s vote was taken away in 1896. But a provision was introduced to the effect that the Government could give the vote to a deserving non-European. And do you know what the net result was? And now you will see why I say that this argument of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is the greatest sophistry to which I have ever listened in this House, but it is more than a sophistry; it is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard in this House. I went out of my way to find out what the result of that provision was in Natal. I would like hon. members to remember that the viewpoint on the other side is that this legislation is not a concession in this respect, because they say the native and the Indian have the right in Natal to go to the Provincial Council. I found out what the result of this provision was, and do you know how many natives have the vote in Natal today? Does the Minister of Finance know how many natives have the vote in Natal?

One.

One kaffir in Natal has the vote, and he says that kaffir has the right to send somebody to the Provincial Council. I also want to ask hon. members whether they know how many Indians in Natal have the vote today. One. There is only one Indian in Natal who has the vote. But the Minister of Finance and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister say the Indians in Natal have the right to send somebody to the Provincial Council.

It is the principle.

I will just say that one perhaps expects such arguments from other members, but not from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister; it is not worthy of their intellects to try and create that impression in the country. But I will proceed. I say this Bill is the thin end of the wedge. We are asked in this Bill to give the Indian representation in Parliament. Then I ask, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has already done, on what grounds the Government—not us— but on what grounds the Government can refuse to give the coloureds in the northern provinces representation in Parliament if they give representation to the Indians in the Transvaal? On what grounds? The Indian is a stranger from abroad who has been in this country for a relatively short space of time; the coloured is an inherent part of South Africa’s population. We are naturally opposed to representation in Parliament being given to the coloureds in the Transvaal, but I say on what grounds can the Government refuse to give representation to the coloureds in the three northern provinces? On what grounds can the Government refuse to give the vote to the coloureds in the three northern provinces in view of the fact that in the Transvaal there are almost three or four times as many coloureds as there are Asiatics in the Transvaal?

That was Hertzog’s policy.

Nonsense.

I will go further. It is not only the coloured. If the Indians are to have three representatives here in Parliament, how can the Government refuse to give representation in this House to natives of the Transvaal who number a few million? On what grounds can it satisfy them? I say again, on what grounds can the Government refuse representation to the coloureds in the northern provinces while that group of foreign Asiatics in Natal obtain representation in Parliament? But I will go further. It is the policy of the Government, and it is the policy of our side, ultimately to incorporate Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland in the Union, and once you have incorporated those areas in the Union, on the basis of what is now being done under this legislation, that side of the House, if they rule the country, will be compelled as a logical consequence of what they are doing now to give representation to the kaffirs of Bechuanaland. They will be compelled to give representation in Parliament to the natives of Swaziland and they will be compelled to give representation to the kaffirs of Basutoland, and eventually you will be in the position that you will have a bloc in this Parliament of perhaps eighteen or twenty votes, representatives of the non-Europeans, who will hold the balance in their hands. I want to ask hon. members on the other side to give their serious attention to this matter. What will be the position of the white man in South Africa if the Minister of Finance gets his way, if his liberalistic view of life if given effect to, and if there are ultimately eighteen or more non-European representatives in this House who will have the balance in their hands? What will be the position of the white man in South Africa? Any party in this House which may be in power will, in order to maintain its position, have to dance to the tune of that bloc of eighteen or twenty from one day to the next. Virtually they will be the rulers of South Africa. I say that to carry out such a policy is nothing else but an attempt to kill the white man in South Africa. It is nothing but suicide. I can understand that the legislation carries the approval of people who have no feeling for colour, people who are indifferent to whether South Africa remains a white man’s country, people who are indifferent to the question whether the white man will remain master in this country, people like the Minister of Finance with his liberalistic attitude and people like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister who unfortunately hold those views. I say I can understand their adopting such a viewpoint, but I cannot understand how any other man on that side of the House, who accepts our viewpoint that the white man must remain white, can vote for such a Bill. I want to address this warning to my fellow-Afrikaners and English-speaking friends on the other side of the House that they are today taking the first step which will lead to the death of European South Africa. If this legislation is passed it will be the most dangerous legislation which has ever been placed on the Statute Book, because it will now open the door to that development which the Minister of Finance painted for us in his imagination, that development which will eventually lead to the wiping out of all barriers, at least as far as the political situation is concerned.

You are referring to the Parliamentary position?

Yes, the Parliamentary position. Once we have a bloc of eighteen or twenty in this House we shall never be able to prevent it. What the Prime Minister predicted will then occur, and I just want to read it to the House once again—

That is inevitable.

But the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do it.

You do not know what you are talking about.

We are often asked what we suggest as far as this position is concerned. Apart from our amendment which I wholeheartedly support, there is the view that was expressed here by my hon. friend, the member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), and it is this. In view of what has taken place in recent years, i.e., the mass migration of minorities to their own countries, I say that before we sacrifice this nation to the liberalistic policy of the Prime Minister and the liberalistic policy of the Minister of Finance, before we irretrievably sacrifice the European to this liberalistic policy, we ought to do everything in our power even if it costs a few hundred million pounds, to see whether the Indian Government will not take back its people. It is clear that we cannot use force to repatriate the Indians from-South Africa, but it can be accomplished by entering into an agreement with the Indian Government or by entering into an agreement with India and England that the Indians be repatriated to some other part of the British Commonwealth. We must not say it is impossible. We should first try to enter into such an arrangement before saying it is impossible. We should first do everything in our power before irretrievably sacrificing the European population in South Africa to this liberalistic policy which is going to make a non-European country of European South Africa. Our policy is that the native representatives must disappear from the legislative machinery of the European. I just want to say that as far as the coloured community is concerned, we accepted the policy that the coloured persons of the Cape Province may be represented here, but as far as the Indians and the natives are concerned, my own opinion is that we should not give representation to the various races in our legislative body. The European must be the master here. I feel that the non-Europeans should be given an opportunity to bring their needs to the notice of the Government from time to time, and I want to suggest therefore that there should be called into being for each of these non-European groups a council through which they can place their views before the Government from time to time. I do not want the native groups to be thrown together. The various tribes should be kept apart, each retaining his own tribal connection. Each tribe should be given a separate council through which they can place their views before the Government from time to time. We could have such a council for the Indians in Natal; we could have such a council for the natives in the Transkei; we could have such a council for the natives in Zululand; we could have a similar council for the natives in Swaziland; and we ought to have a council of this kind for the natives in Basutoland and a separate council for the natives in Bechuanaland, and similarly we could have a separate council for the natives of the Free State, and we might have one or two councils for the various native tribes of the Transvaal. In that event we will not throw the native tribes together, thus causing them to become an entity. I want to emphasise that point; they must be kept apart on a tribal basis. The present Native Representatives’ Council is a monstrosity. It is a monstrosity because there the natives representing the various tribes are thrown together, and it only gives them a platform, under the incitement of communistic agitators, to insist on what the Minister of Finance wants, and that is eventual equality with the European.

What about the present representatives of the natives?

Our attitude is that they must disappear. The Prime Minister will remember that when legislation was introduced in this House at the time, the hon. Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to the effect that Bill No. 1 be proceeded with, but not Bill No. 2 Bill No. 1 would not have given them representation in this House. The Prime Minister will remember the history of that legislation.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I have many serious objections, and I am sorry the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) is not here at the moment.

He fled.

Let me first say this: One section of the Bill, it is true, does bring about certain improvements, that is to say, that section which deals with residential areas, and which does not deal with political rights, but it does not go far enough at all. Let us first take Natal. I am now dealing with clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5— clause 4 as far as Natal is concerned and clause 5 as far as the Transvaal is concerned. These clauses deal with the restrictions on the occupation of certain land. I have serious objections to this clause. I am not referring at the moment to the fixed areas, but to the provisions of clauses 4 and 5. Let us first deal with Natal. No European may occupy any land or any premises if it was not lawfully occupied at a fixed date by a person who is not an Asiatic. That means that Indians who reside in European residential areas at present will remain there for ever, because they cannot be bought out by Europeans. In other words, by means of this clause the Prime Minister is perpetuating the evil that Europeans will live amongst the Asiatics for ever, because in Natal and in the Transvaal where Indians live in European residential areas amongst the Europeans, this Bill provides that only an Asiatic may buy land which is occupied by an Asiatic. I say that should have been altered. This Bill would have been much better if the Prime Minister had inserted a provision to the effect that where Indians live amongst Europeans, they shall not be allowed to sell to any person other than a European in that area. If that provision had been inserted we could eventually have excluded the Indian from European residential areas, and if it had been laid down that in the neutral or exempted areas a European may sell to an Indian only, we would eventually have had Indians only in that area and in the European residential area we would eventually have had Europeans only. In that case this Bill would have been much better, and its weakness lies in the fact that this provision has not been inserted.

I come now to clause 8 which is a very dangerous clause. Without Parliament having any say the Government can simply issue certificates of exemption under clause 8 and allow any Indian to take up residence in any European area. This is extremely dangerous. One can imagine what would happen if the present Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Finance were to have the final say, in view of their attitude and in view of their pronouncements in this House. They would issue permits indiscriminately to Indians, permitting them to live amongst Europeans. This is a power which should not be given to the Government; this is a power which’ should rest with Parliament, as is the case in the Transvaal. The Transvaal must decide before an area can be set aside for Indians. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid. He tried to save his soul and to console his conscience by a statement that under this Bill the northern parts of Natal are just as safe as they were previously. Is that true?

Safer.

The northern parts of Natal fall under Act No. 3 of 1885 of the Transvaal. In terms of that Act an Indian may not buy land in the northern parts of Natal. In terms of the Act in question he is not allowed to buy land in those parts, and what is this Bill doing? It repeals that provision and makes the northern parts of Natal subject to clause 9 of this Bill which gives the Government the right to declare exempted areas where Indians may live, including the northern parts of Natal.

What about Act 33 of 1927?

It is the Act of 1927 which made the northern parts of Natal subject to the provisions of Act 3 of 1885, which prohibited any Indians from buying land in those parts, and that prohibition which applied to Indians is now being lifted in this Bill. Section 14 of Act No. 33 of 1927 is now being repealed.

Act No. 33 of 1927 lays it down.

The only thing that the Act of 1927 does is to lay down that Indians entering those parts have to obtain a permit, but if the Government, without consulting Parliament, were to decide tomorrow to proclaim one or two areas in Northern Natal, Indians could buy land in those areas; in other words, in the northern parts of Natal as well which have been protected up to the present. Up to the present the northern parts of Natal have been protected by the Act of 1885. That protection has now been sacrificed to the liberalistic policy of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister; and the hon. member for Vryheid may rest assured that the Minister of Finance will become his leader in the not too distant future. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will have to retire in the not too distant future and once the Minister of Finance becomes the leader of his party, then with the assistance of the Minister of the Interior, areas will very soon be proclaimed in the northern parts of Natal as well where Indians will be permitted to buy land, and the hon. member for Vryheid will have to give an account to his voters in Vryheid and in the northern parts of Natal. [Time limit.]

I move—

Agreed to.

I thank the House for the concession but I do not wish to proceed.

I have experienced a feeling of disappointment at the contribution made by the Minister of Finance towards this very important debate. It seems to me as though he is determined to continue harking back to the incident of the Cape Town Agreement entered into in 1927 with the Government of India, which was proverbial for the fact that the Government of India subsequently did nothing to implement any of its obligations thereunder. They were expected to assist the repatriates when they returned to India by the establishment of some land settlement schemes that would have absorbed them, but nothing of the kind was done, and as Mr. Heaton Nicholls said in a speech made in the House on 8th May, 1939—

Mr. Nicholls prefaced this comment by a statement that when our Minister of the Interior announced the terms of the Cape Town Agreement in this House in 1927 he said that some land settlement schemes would be developed in India, when the repatriates got there, and at any rate the assumption was that they would be looked after, and would be absorbed back into the body politic of India.

I challenge the Minister of Finance to tell this House of any tangible contribution made by the Government of India towards the fulfilment of any of the obligations specified.

We are constantly being reminded by one Minister after another of the wickedness of the Municipality of Durban in failing to carry out their side of the agreement. I have on previous occasions indicated the patient and consistent part played by the Municipality of Durban in its endeavours to provide housing facilities for the Indians who were to be assisted by that agreement but whose organised movement for non-co-operation defeated the efforts of the Durban City Council. But the true version of this controversy will be obscured if Ministers themselves engage in a hostile and partisan campaign against the Municipal Council of Durban. I want to get away from that for a moment to say my approach to the matter today is in a spirit of co-operation and a wish to assist the Prime Minister in the obviously difficult task with which he is burdened at the present moment. I well remember a tribute that was paid to his unique skill in matters of this kind by an hon. gentleman to whom he referred the other day. Col. the Hon. F. H. P. Creswell, whilst he was a member of this House, was with me a fellow-member of a Select Committee of considerable complexity over which the Prime Minister presided, and he said—

I believe that. I realise there are very few men who have had the wonderful experience which he has enjoyed in the years of his life, and who is as well able as he to deal impersonally and without heat with all the questions that envelop this very difficult problem of the Indians in South Africa. Let me quote at this stage the first motion introduced into the Union Parliament for the allocation of separate areas, rural and urban, in one or more provinces of the Union for occupation by Asiatics. The motion was in the following terms—

It was a proposal I had the honour of moving in this House in 1921, but I have always made it clear that the proposal itself was the handiwork of the late Mr. Graham Mackeurton, K.C., and it aimed at the allocation in the provinces of the Union affected of suitable and separate areas for the Indian population of South Africa under conditions which would enable them and would give them the necessary freedom to develop according to their own needs and standards. That proposal was brought forward in four successive years, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924. It was followed immediately in 1925 by the introduction of the Class Areas Bill by the then South African Party Government. The South African Party Government went out of power, and the incoming Nationalist Government very largely took over the provisions of the original Bill in 1926. A long period has intervened, during which conference after conference has taken place. There was first of all a Select Committee on the Bill of 1926 on which I served. This was followed by a’ visit to India, suggested by the Indian Government, of a parliamentary delegation from South Africa, and I was one of those who went on that mission. I returned very much impressed by the difference in economic conditions of the lower classes — the depressed classes of India, in comparison with the positions held by Indians of like class in this country. There is no doubt that my impression was confirmed subsequently by the admissions made by the Indian delegates who attended the second Round Table Conference in Cape Town in 1932 that the economic conditions in India were such as to make it impossible to re-absorb the repatriates from South Africa. In plain English, they were being brought back to conditions of a much lower level in India than were available to them in South Africa—lower wages and worse health conditions prevailed in India, and it was impossible for them to accept those conditions. That was the distinct impression conveyed to me too by my observations in the course of a very informative visit to India, in which we met all the leading Indians in the course of a month’s lightning tour of the entire country. We did everything possible to make a comprehensive and thorough study of the conditions affecting the Indians there. We have been reproached because the agreement was entered into as the result of a round table conference in Cape Town in 1927. I want to recall to this House one of the last speeches made in the House by the then member for Zululand, Mr. Heaton Nichols, on this very question. He was in a position to know everything that took place in regard to the non-success of that particular agreement. It was by no means a matter that depended upon the attitude of the Durban City Council. The people who were much more to blame were the Government of India themselves. Their own delegates who five years later, in 1932, came back to South Africa for the second conference frankly confessed in so far as India was concerned the agreement had been a total failure, that nothing satisfactory could eventuate from that agreement—to quote Mr. Nicholls, “It was as dead as a door nail”—and they were on the point themselves of renouncing the agreement and the conference itself almost broke down. In Mr. Nicholls’ speech on 8th May, 1939, he indicated that the agreement itself aimed at two things. The first was that it imposed upon the Indian Government the duty of adopting measures to promote favourable conditions for repatriation to India so as to assist in bringing about a diminution in the Indian population, and the second obligation was one placed upon the Union Government to proceed with a measure of uplift for the Indians that were remaining or would remain afterwards. Now, Mr. Nicholls gives his information regarding the conditions under which the repatriates were allowed to languish in the slums of Calcutta and Madras by the Indian authorities themselves. He then said that at the 1932 round table conference it was agreed that the repatriation scheme had failed utterly, and the renewal of the agreement was in doubt. There was a feeling at the time that the conference might break down, in which case the agent-general would disappear, and South Africa would revert to its policy of class segregation. Fearing that this might happen, members of the Indian delegation suggested that a way out could be found by reverting to the idea of colonisation in countries other than India, provision for which had been made in the 1927 Agreement. Mr. Nicholls relates what took place in regard to that agreement, and it is perfectly clear that there again the Indian Government failed to contribute anything to the success of that further suggestion that a colonisation scheme should be explored. No representative of the Indian Government was appointed to co-operate with the Union representatives who were appointed to investigate that matter. Mr. Nicholls and, I believe, Mr. J. Young were the two members of the commission who put in a considerable amount of work in investigating that matter. But without the assistance or the co-operation of the Government of India it became an impossible task, and the result was a finding by the Commission which could not be considered to bring the matter any further forward. Mr. Nicholls pointed out that the Cape Town Agreement had not been actually denounced, and the spokesman of the Indians have constantly accused the Union Government and the Durban City Council of having failed to carry out the “uplift” clauses of the Agreement, though the failure of the repatriation scheme, on which the efficacy of the Agreement depended was entirely due to the conditions in India. The position today is that we are engaged in considering the legislation that is proposed by the Prime Minister, and I want to deal very briefly with some of the criticisms that are made.

We heard recently that criticism was passed upon this measure by the Bishop of Pretoria at a meeting attended, I believe, by a large number of Indians. There have been other criticisms made in some cases by distinguished members of the Church, and in other cases by lesser lights, but in all these circumstances, the doctrine propounded is that this is an illiberal measure supported only by the illiberal and the ignorant. I want immediately to contrast with that kind of criticism the views of two distinguished members of the House of Lords, who after long service as Governors in this country, and with considerable experience of the Indian question, expressed a view that completely repudiates and gives the lie to the idea that this doctrine of separation emanates from the illiberal and the ignorant. I want to quote the statement of the late Lord Selborne, the Governor of the Transvaal at that time, made on the 29th October, 1906, in a dispatch recommending an Ordinance for the King’s assent. He said—

Then in the House of Lords in 1921 there was the following striking statement from Lord Milner. He said—

Those were the words of distinguished statesmen who had both applied themselves to the study of this difficult and complicated question of the residence of Indians in South Africa. Then we have the minor critics, no longer the dignitaries of the Church, who do not hesitate to describe the views of those of us who have over a long course of years adhered to the policy of racial separation as the only solution of this difficult problem, and they describe us as people of “racial wickedness.” That is the sort of thing that is hurled at one from time to time through the press. Dealing with one of these critics not long ago I pointed out that he overlooked the fact that the pioneers of segregation in any known part of the world are the Indians themselves. I drew attention to the opinion expressed by Mr. C. F. Andrews, a devoted friend of the Indian people, and an outstanding authority on the origin of their customs, who stated in a pamphlet reprinted from the columns of the “Daily News” then known as the “Natal Advertiser” that the caste system established in India between 1700 B.C. and 1000 B.C. had never changed its character during all these thousands of years. The central structure of caste, Mr. Andrews stated, is the prohibition of intermarriage, supported by the prohibition of social intercourse and the prohibition of domicile in the same area. Now, I have always maintained that these are surely salutary methods to be adopted by South Africans in their relations with Indians. I have lived for many years, a life-time, in fairly close observation of this matter. Indians have lived in the magisterial district in which I was born for a long time. I have never had any quarrel with Indians. I least of all could be accused of having been a party to the introduction for selfish ends of Indians to this country. I have never employed an Indian or in any way encouraged the indenture system amongst them. I have held completely aloof from anything of the kind, and yet throughout all these years I have treated them with the respect they deserve, and have never on any occasion had any sort of difficulty with them. At the same time that does not minimise my realisation of the fact that it is impossible for South Africa to succeed in the adjustment of its population problems if we are to live intermingled with the Indians for the rest’ of the time. I am entirely in favour of the principle of separation, but I want to point out some of the very real defects of this Bill, and to show upon what dangerous ground our feet are being set by the provisions of the Bill itself.

In regard to separation there is no doubt that the dangers of the present Bill very largely centre in the clause which lays down that the area known as the exempted area is to be free for sale or purchase to persons of all races. That virtually means that none but the Indians will buy in that area, and that the possibilities of the danger of an Indian monopoly spreading to the whole of the rural areas of the Union is very great indeed. I have no faith whatever in the provision that is made in this Bill for the handling of the matter. We are at the mercy of Ministers of the Crown, at a time when Ministers of the Crown have been the most autocratic persons imaginable in this world.

Hear, hear.

We have scarcely finished with the orgy of over-weeningness on the part of Ministers which perhaps may have been inseparable from the war period when we are now being asked to trust a Minister of the Crown to act with restraint and with complete consultation of all interests involved in regard to our landed property — the dearest possession of any South Africa—while we know perfectly well that the whole of his instinct will pre-dispose him to throw open these areas regardless of consequences. And who are his advisers? The advisers who are to stand at his elbow are a very motley lot indeed.

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

When we adjourned for the luncheon interval I was dealing with the position of the Advisory Land Tenure Board which it is proposed under this Bill should guide the Minister in granting permits, also in the releasing of new areas to Indian purchasers, and in fact on a very large number of far-reaching responsibilities in terms of this Bill. When I referred to this Board as a motley lot I was referring to their composition—two of them may be Indians seeking to penetrate into a new area—and I was referring generally to their unfitness for the tremendous responsibility imposed on them. Let me take the defensible position of the landowner who under existing conditions in the Union has various rights as a landowner. Among other rights he has riparian rights if his land is in a position riparian to a stream, and those rights may not be taken away from him except by Act of Parliament. But what do we propose here? We propose that a board collected from heaven knows where shall be called up to advise the Minister as to whether a whole district of farms should be proclaimed as an additional exempted area. There is nothing to stop the Minister from taking the advice of that body of men and, by a stroke of the pen, proclaiming our farms, farms which in some cases have been inherited through two or three generations — and from that time onward they will be earmarked as an Indian area, The fiction that this is an exempted area is merely a fiction designed to give the impression that all comers may purchase there, and that it may in God’s good time be a European area just as much as it may become an Indian area. That is not true, because I have never met a white man who is willing to buy in an exempted area the future of which will be indubitably that of an Indian area. It is like asking him to ride in an unreserved tram. He says: “That tram is marked unreserved but it is meant for Indians and monopolised by them”. In the same way if you declare an area which has hitherto belonged to a European community to be an exempted area it is obvious you are changing its destiny from that of a European area to that of a non-European area. No amount of argument will convince anybody that it is to the benefit of the white community, and that imminent danger is one which the whole of South Africa is going to face. It is a danger that is a general one, and it is a danger that will cut people to the very heart. No man who cares at all for the destiny of his children or of his country is going to submit to that meekly. If we are going to submit to that we will submit to it with the greatest outcry and pray for the day when the decision will be reversed and our own property will be restored to us in safety for the future. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from endangering the most precious possession of every South African. The Minister shakes his head, as though nothing on this earth would induce him to do it. But the Minister knows very well he is going to appoint a board in which there will be fore-ordained a majority in favour of such a course of action and by the end of the present century we shall have 20,000,000 of Indians within a day’s motoring of South Africa. And with these people provided with enormous capital — already the Aga Khan is financially interested in East African land purchase— there is no doubt that the inroads upon South Africa, the most desirable spot on earth, will be tremendous. Our resources are being completely surrendered to the power of the Indian. Our plans are futile in face of what is arrayed against us. I maintain that if this legislation is forced through the House owing to the circumstances that the Prime Minister has to go away and if nobody is allowed to appear before a Select Committee to show its dangers, the least that can be done is to put a clause into the Bill that there shall be no further extension of an exempted area anywhere in South Africa without a special Act of Parliament being passed for that purpose. Then the methods by which we may easily be ruined will have to be stayed, temporarily at least, by the passing of an Act of Parliament before any further untold damage can be inflicted on us. As I said at the outset, I have no faith whatever in the plans that are connoted in this Bill. The Minister of the Interior is to appoint a body of men whose only qualification is that they are not to be insolvent, or persons indebted as described in the Farmers’ Assistance Act, or mentally disordered, or convicted criminals. They are not to be insolvent. They are not to have misbehaved themselves. They are not to be a number of things. These are surely negative qualifications. But all this leaves room for a number of things in between. They may be indebted to the Indians to their very eyebrows. There is nothing to say they shall not be in the debt and power of the Indians or directors of an Indian firm, and I am ashamed to say it is not an uncommon thing in our country to find that. Recently I discovered from a printed letterhead of one of the wealthiest Indian adventurers in Durban that three partners of one of the best-known legal firms in Durban were named on the letterhead as directors of the Indian firm. Now, in every circumstance I can think of, it is undesirable that professional men of standing should lend their names in this manner. They cannot be operating in the service of Indians or in their pay as directors without in some way subordinating their views to those of the Indians whose interests they serve. I maintain that the only safe thing to do about any advisory persons—and the fewer you have the better; the less chance you have of things going wrong—is to limit them as far as possible in number. If you have one man who cannot be bought—I do not know of one—one man whose integrity and high-mindedness are so well known as to be a commonplace in South Africa, you would be doing much better to appoint him alone than by having a long list of gentlemen of whom you only ask they must not be insolvents, lunatics or criminals, and must not misbehave or do a few other things to which mankind is liable. My view is that there will have to be far more care taken about the possibility of our losing our land than there is at present. I plead with the Prime Minister not to allow the remonstrances which we make against the dangers of this Bill to pass unheeded. I plead with him, even if a Select Committee were not feasible —and I do not believe that to be the case— to see that in any case these things shall be decided either by a committee selected from various members of this House, an informal committee if you like, or by a Select Committee duly selected under the rules of this House, whose deliberations shall be directed to the most urgent and grave things portended in this Bill, inter aha, the danger of the release of any further areas, unless ordained by Act of Parliament. That is the gravest danger to which we are subjected by this Bill. Then there are a number of other matters which must be provided for. [Time limit extended.] I do not wish to be too long. I only want to refer briefly to certain circumstances in relation to this Bill which are of great importance. In January of this year figures published in the Press disclosed that since 1942 the Indians in Durban bought property in European areas valued at £4,230,220. These properties are actually in predominantly European areas in Durban, or in surrounding areas which were added to the old borough of Durban in recent years. A large proportion of the loans raised by the Indians to enable them to acquire these properties has come from Johannesburg building societies, or, to be more correct, from a certain Johannesburg building society. I maintain that actions of that sort on behalf of Johannesburg building societies should be limited by law. There is no justification for their issuing loans to people for a purpose which is now compelling the Government to act in the interests of European ownership in this country. It seems to me that if we are to facilitate further purchases by a system of placing exempted areas at the disposal of organisations of that sort, we are thereby quickening rather than slowing the tempo of purchases on behalf of Indians, and we must expect that there will be a redoubling of efforts to buy European land on behalf of Indians. We have had ground to complain of the lenience which the present Minister of the Interior showed under the Pegging Act in allowing fresh acquisitions. The Prime Minister will remember that four members of Parliament were asked by the Durban Wards Association to send a telegram of remonstrance to the Prime Minister in December, 1945, asking that some effort should be made to curtail the large number of property transfers taking place in spite of the Pegging Act. Our whole outlook to this question was that the Pegging Act was intended to call a halt to the purchase of land, instead of which the frequency of exemptions was becoming so great as to make the Pegging Act itself a subject of derision. There is no doubt in my mind that in regard to all these matters tightening up rather than the introduction of the present loose system suggested in the Act is desirable. We should certainly be more careful about allowing advice to be tendered by a similar sort of board which advised the Minister in the case of the Pegging Act, whether that was provided for by law or was merely a voluntary board. I am opposed to these boards. They are an over-rated pest. I think they can do untold harm, against the honest owner who today is trusting in the Government to see that his future interest in this country is not going to be gambled away by such methods as are proposed in the Act. I hope the Prime Minister whose interest in South Africa is very strong indeed is going to step in and prevent the dangers with which this Bill is fraught. There is no doubt that we the defenceless electors are going to suffer. This Bill is one which exposes the whole of South Africa to danger. I want to mention that on our part we have not only drawn attention to the need for separate ownership of land in this country, but I personally have moved in this House for the removal of the provincial barriers — I do not apply that to the Free State because there is no Indian population there — but in regard to the other provinces, it seems to me that the inter-change of the Indian population might relieve the situation greatly. That was first proposed in 1911 but was not agreed to by the then Minister of the Interior and in 1927 when I proposed the amendment in this House, I was supported by Mr. Patrick Duncan who said that it was one of the logical consequences of Union; union meant that the Provinces were to become one country, and it was one of the logical consequences of the Union, but whether the hon. member would get sufficient support was another matter. From that point of view, I maintain that it was an act of justice that should have been adopted. We have done everything we possibly could. We have been told that we were animated by not a single decent motive, and regarded as illiberal, reactionary and cruel in our outlook on this question. The contrary is the case. Our whole record and our attitude in this matter has shown that we want to be fair and reasonable, and the proposals I have submitted in this House have all been animated by a desire to bring about a settlement that would be mutually satisfactory to both sides.

I want to say at the outset that I appreciate this measure as a sincere attempt by the Prime Minister and the Government to meet a most difficult racial situation in the country. This Bill has made it abundantly clear to us that some of the measures in this Bill are very much ahead of public opinion in the country.

And always will be.

And it requires courage on the part of a statesman to legislate much ahead of public opinion. Hon. members will realise the full significance of that. I think that the best speeches that have been contributed have been those that have put party aims and objectives in the background. Not least amongst those speeches was the speech, the enheartening and hopeful speech of the Minister of Finance this morning. The record of this country, of successive governments in this country, and that is of all the parties in this country, in connection with the Indian question is not a record of which we can be proud. It is true that the present Government in 1940 endeavoured by non-statutory methods to arrive at some agreement. I am referring to the Lawrence Committee, a committee consisting of representatives of the Indians and of members of the Durban City Council. That committee was a sincere and honest attempt to arrive at a settlement by negotiation; but it failed. Then this Parliament resorted to the restrictive legislation of 1943, the Pegging Act. That Act indeed had one outstanding virtue, namely, that it was designed to be a temporary measure. There was then no declared intention on the part of the Government that the Pegging Act was to be followed by this more comprehensive and restrictive measure before the House now. In fact the opposite was the case; or at the time of the passing of the Pegging Act the Government undertook to appoint a judicial commission to go into all aspects, social, political and economic, of the Indian question. For some reason unknown to me the Government delayed for a whole year in appointing that commission; and then, one month after the commission had been appointed, the Government intervened, and entered into the ill-fated and notorious Pretoria Agreement. That agreement doomed the Broome Commission. It destroyed all hope of settlement by negotiation. The Pretoria Agreement resulted in inflaming racial feeling throughout Natal, and not as the Minister of Finance said this morning, merely in Durban. Then the Government handed the matter over to the Natal Provincial Council which appointed a Select Committee. The report of that Committee resulted in an ordinance which is the basis of the measure we are now considering. This measure then is the country’s reaction to the resurgence of racial emotions in Natal, and also to the strained relations now existing between India and South Africa. By destroying the Broome Commission, and by abandoning the method of negotiation, the Government cannot escape a good deal of blame for the present difficult situation. Had the right people been allowed to handle this question in Natal, people of independent status, such as Mr. Justice Broome; had politics in Natal, United Party politics, been guided differently by the Minister of the Interior and the Administrator of Natal, who apparently were more concerned with the welfare of their party than with the proper settlement of the question then agitating Natal, I am confident that a settlement by negotiation would have been achieved. The Broome Commission reported in 1945. In its report it made a final plea to the Government for a negotiated agreement; it recommended a round table conference between representatives of South Africa and of India. It went further; and suggested a franchise very different from that laid down in this Bill. The Government rejected both the recommendation and the suggestion. That is proof, that in the handling of this delicate racial question vacillation and weakness have led to the discord in South Africa and the tension with the Government of India.

I now want to consider the Bill briefly. Here I find myself in very close alignment with the Minister of Finance. The Bill is designed in the first instance to lay down separate areas for Asiatics on the one hand and Europeans on the other. Secondly, it is designed to set up machinery to control investment outside the so-called exempted or free areas. Now, that policy need not mean segregation in the sense that the Europeans of Natal want to consign the Indians to slums or ghettos. It can mean that, and it will mean that, unless the separatism laid down in this Bill is accompanied by separate and equal amenities for both races. In the areas for Indian occupation housing, for example, must not be less favourable than in the areas which the Europeans propose to keep for themselves. Neither must health services, education and social services be less. If that is not done then this measure will work out as the Indians believe. It will mean segregation without uplift; slums, not decent homes; disease, not health promotion; illiteracy instead of a liberal education. Our experience in the City of Durban—and here I want to pay a tribute to the way the Durban City Council has all along endeavoured to be of real material assistance in arriving at a solution to this difficulty—does not give us confidence that this measure, if it is enacted, will result in a policy of upliftment being carried out. This measure makes no specific provision as to how that policy of upliftment is to be implemented. That, I maintain, is a cardinal defect of the Bill. I doubt whether the Durban City Council on its own authority and with its present powers and within the present system of financial relations will be able to overcome racial prejudices, and the machinations of vested interests, to make a real success of this policy of uplift. An overruling authority is necessary to carry that out. Here again I criticise the Bill in that it makes no provision, either direct or implied, for such powers. It will be colossal folly if the country is led to believe that this Bill is going to solve the Indian question. It cannot do so, it will not even prevent the present position from deteriorating, unless we in Natal are prepared, through our Provincial Council, and by virtue of the powers we have taken unto ourselves by certain ordinances, that is by means of our own provincial health board and provincial housing board, to solve this racial conflict by a policy based fundamentally on providing housing, health facilities, education and social services. We recall the Cape Town Agreement in this connection, an agreement made twenty years ago. It is with shame that we ought to admit that the upliftment following on that agreement in its application to the Indian people has been only negligible. Now this measure is going to be a very costly one. Those of us who listened to the outline of the social programme to which the Prime Minister has committed the Government, realise that it will be a very costly measure indeed. I believe that the comprehensive policy of upliftment as envisaged bv the Prime Minister will be much beyond the financial capacity of the Provincial Council of Natal, and of the local authorities in Natal. The re-housing alone will run into many millions. In the City of Durban in order to carry out its long-range constructional programme for housing which has been approved an additional burden of not less than £500,000 a year will be thrown on the Durban taxpayer. Is the Government going to help the City Council to enable the broad policy of the Prime Minister to be carried out? I do not hesitate to appeal to the Government to set down in this Bill, clearly, some specific financial arrangement between the Government and the local authorities whereby provision for a bold upliftment policy can be put on a permanent basis. If that is not done, then I say deliberately that this measure is going to be a sentence to slavery of the Indian people and a mockery of democracy. Most of us who are honest with ourselves on this question will admit that in its essential principles this Bill contradicts the democratic ethics as laid down in the United Nations Charter. Our only justification for introducing such a measure as this, is that in view of the ethnic structure of the Union, it has become expedient to pass this measure in the hope that a resolute policy of upliftment will be followed; secondly, that this measure will give our people a sense of relief from the perennial recriminations between the Indian people and Europeans. It is in effect a drastic solution; and when we remember that this House, and this country, have allowed the social canker of racial antipathy to develop to the present dangerous degree, then we must face up to the necessity of removing that evil. Let us therefore do so in the hope that thereafter the South African body politic will be built up by a deliberate and planned programme of constructive humanitarianism.

I want to make some reference now to the franchise. The Indian case is sometimes based on the fact that they once enjoyed the franchise in Natal, and that by an old Natal law that franchise was taken away from them. It is true that they once did enjoy the franchise; and so did the Natal natives; but that franchise was never expressly conferred on the Indians. Their case for the franchise rests on other and stronger grounds than that. They have raised their standard of living. They have improved their standard of education. They pay taxes, in all’ forms, on the same basis as the Europeans. They are in the main South Africans, worthy South Africans citizens: They have therefore a legitimate claim to relief from the anomaly that they are not represented in the local Government or in the provincial government of the Parliament of this country. Their present position cannot possibly be justified on ethical grounds. But this is a practical question. The practical question we are now considering is this: Whether it is possible to grant to them some form of franchise that is not going to endanger the supremacy of western civilisation in this country.

What is the case that has been nut for European supremacy? When Natal was first established the standard of western civilisation was established there from the beginning. That must be maintained. The Government of South Africa must continue to conform to western ideology and tradition. It is claimed that these can never be subjects of negotiation. That position is unquestionable. I believe that the representatives of the Indian community will concede that position; they have done so. In the light of that what form of franchise does this Bill provide for the Indian people? It means that the Indians are not going to be enfranchised on the basis of adult suffrage because of the fear of Indian preponderance in Natal.

I want to give the House some figures which will, I believe, put in true perspective the actual pressure of population both on the total Union population, and in particular on the European population by the presence of the Indian people. I am quoting from the report of the Board of Trade and Industries of last year. I take the period 1921 to 1941. That report shows that during that period, the Indian population increased from 165,700 to 238,400. From 1911 to 1941 the Asiatic population shows an increase of 56 per cent. The European population over the same period showed an increase of approximately 64 per cent. But those figures are not so significant as some other figures in the report. I take the five years ending 1941; and I take the annual rate of increase of population. The annual rate of increase of the European population over those years was 1.81; of the native, 1.91; and of the mixed and other races, 1.87. The race showing the lowest annual rate is the Asiatic population. Its rate was 1.65. Going back to 1911 for the ten years ending 1921, the Asiatic annual rate of increase was ’ only .86, only half during that period of the European rate; and for the period, 1911 to 1941, the average rate of increase of the Asiatic population was 1.47, as against just on 2 per cent. for the total population of all races of the Union. In connection with those figures, we must remember we are dealing with a section of our people representing only 2½ per cent of our total population. When we realise that this increase of the different races has been relative over the years, I maintain that the fear which has been engendered by the possibility of our being swamped by the Indian people is considerably exaggerated. The first alternative to adult suffrage is the community vote, the communal franchise, similar to that by which we elect our native representatives. The Broome Commission doubted whether that franchise could be applicable to the Indians, partly because, they maintained, they were not so backward as the Bantu; partly because they were not thoroughly satisfied that the communal franchise in Kenya had altogether been successful; and again because they stated the Indians would reject it. They quite rightly doubted the wisdom of forcing on the Indians something they do not want.

The second alternative to the adult suffrage is the vote on the common roll with such stringent qualifications as would always ensure a European electoral majority. That was the recommendation of the Broome Commission. This measure accepts the community franchise. That is going to mean in Natal, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance said this morning in connection with representation, direct representation on the Natal Provincial Council; and, as a logical consequence of that, direct representation on the Durban City Council and local bodies. The people of Natal are not happy about that prospect. In the northern provinces of the Union the Bill will give a communal vote to the Indian people, but not to the coloured people. That cannot be justified on grounds of equity. Again, in the Transvaal the vote is not accompanied by representation on the Provincial Council. If in Natal, why not in the Transvaal? Further, in the northern provinces it establishes a franchise very different from that enjoyed by the coloured people of the Cape. That only adds another anomaly to the South African political structure. The community vote, in my view, will create, if this Bill is passed, a political racial bloc, that is an Indian bloc, both in Parliament and in the province of Natal; and, in view of the separation laid, down in this Bill, it will inevitably also create an economic bloc in Natal. I submit to this House that a measure of this kind cannot possibly improve our racial relations. If we could only agree as a House on the franchise which we should grant, it would be only just that we should place the Indian people on the common roll, similar to our method of placing the coloured people on the common roll.

Is that the policy of your party?

That, I know, would be premature. In Natal the people would not accept it. But the community franchise, in my view, is an unwanted, retrogressive, reactionary proposal; and I shall have great difficulty in supporting it as laid down.

Are you speaking for your party?

We hope, as a party, to be able to get from the Government very considerable amendments to the franchise. We live in a country trying to get unity out of diversity. I greatly regret that by this method, by means of the communal franchise, we are going to demarcate and crystallise our political life on racial lines. I am disturbed at the statement by the Prime Minister in his speech in which he declared that South Africa had decided to deal with our complex society on separate racial lines, as we are doing in the case of the natives. Almost any other system, he said, would lead to endless confusion. If this’ Bill is going to implement that policy of the Prime Minister, it is going to introduce an entirely new, and I believe dangerous, principle into our social life. I sincerely trust that the Prime Minister will see his way clear to elucidate his attitude in regard to this wide application of segregation to all races in the Union. In view of the separatism in this Bill, a separatism which most Europeans will accept; in view also of the franchise which a minority of the Europeans will accept, and practically all the Indians are against, it seems a most reasonable request to the Prime Minister that this measure should be referred to a Select Committee at which Indians and Europeans could present their cases; at which the Bill could be put on truly national lines, and at which its anomalies could be removed. Before I conclude, I do not want to leave the House in doubt where I stand. [Laughter.]

It will take a lot of explaining.

We are pressing for a Select Committee. If the Government does not yield on that, we intend, as a party, to press for changes during the Committee stage. When we come to the vote on the second reading we shall have no alternative in view of the international position, in view of the many merits in this measure, but to support the second reading.

I regret the hon. member did not answer the question put by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) as to whether he spoke for his party. He said that when it came to the Committee stage he would speak for the party. Is he speaking for the party on the general principles of the Bill?

I said I would vote for the second reading of the Bill.

The hon. Leader of the Labour Party took up quite a different line but he does not know what he said. He only made two points. One was that the Indians were putting up a £2,000,000 building in Johannesburg, and the other was that the Indians were seducing Afrikaner girls in Rustenburg.

No, that is Barlow all over.

The hon. member will hear a good deal about it before I am finished. In the first place the building is not a £2,000,000 building; it will cost £50,000 and it is to be used as an hotel for the Indians. I do not think my hon. friend will have any objection to that. As to the other part of his speech I will leave it to the voters of Roodepoort.

I will come back for a moment to the hon. member for Waterberg. The House has heard a speech, perhaps one of the most remarkable ever made in this House, by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance. It was one of the most courageous speeches ever made in this House, and it was time that speech was made in South Africa. But the Rt. Hon. member said nothing which he has not said a hundred times before. During the last ten years our friends opposite have been going round the country calling him a “kafferboetie.”

Why did you say then it was a courageous speech, if he said it so often in the past?

It was because he said it on this particular Bill. It is a courageous speech. I do not think any member on the other side of the House would be courageous enough to talk according to his convictions.

It is a reckless speech.

Hon. members have been going round the country for years and saying the United Party are pro-black, pro-Indian and pro-colour. They can go round again and I will let them have a little more problack, pro-Indian and pro-colour.

Are you now speaking for the United Party?

Definitely not. [Laughter.] I may tell my hon. friend I went to my leader and he allowed me to give my opinion on the Bill. I do not think there is any member on the other side who would be allowed to do that, even if he absolutely implored his Whips. But this is a free and democratic party. They can print what I say as they printed, at Caledon, my name as leader of the party saying I wanted to do away with the colour bar. What was the result? The people of Caledon agreed with me. [Laughter.] The fundamental issue of the Bill is that we must preserve the right orientation of our society and not switch over to the Asiatic quarter and stand here for human rights. That is what the Prime Minister told the country. I entirely agree with my friends on the other side; this is a bad Bill. When my hon. friend the Prime Minister ‘40 years ago clashed with Gandhi and he said the very same thing then, that we stand here for human rights—I was a young reporter at the time, not so young perhaps—what did Gandhi say in reply? He said: Can human rights be satisfied until full civic rights have been conceded to the resident Indian population of this country? And if at that time the Transvaal Government had acceded to Gandhi we would not have had so many Indians in the Transvaal as we have, and we would have settled the Indian problem. The history of this country shows that the more you legislate against the black man coming into the towns the larger will be the numbers that come in. The more you legislate against the Indian the stronger he becomes. We have passed legislation through this House against the black man, and the black man is stronger in the country today than ever before. When President Lincoln laid down his charter of human rights he said that America was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition all men are created equal; government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth. He fought a bloody war in his own country in which 2,000,000 men were killed and hundreds of millions of pounds were spent to carry out that principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is the tradition of America. [Interruptions.] Yes, in spite of what my hon. friend might say about racial riots in Detroit. You have racial riots all over the world. You have racial riots in Glasgow, you have them in South Africa. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) will tell you that in Newclare they have their racial riot once a month. I am not going to speak about that now because the matter is sub judice. A case is coming before the court where eight young South Africans are being tried for taking part in racial riots. I know full well we have a tradition in South Africa, a Voortrekker tradition, a Voortrekker ideal, but on that side there is not a single member who is a descendant of the Voortrekkers. My people came up with the Voortrekkers, these people never came up with the Voortrekkers; they are Cape people. The Voortrekkers went in amongst the barbarians and no white people ever treated the natives better than the Voortrekkers did. They gave them a fair deal and there was not the economic pressure on the Bantu there is today. What we have to stand for today is what the Minister of Finance has proclaimed today, the liberal philosophy of Onze Jan, of Merriman, of Sauer — father of the present member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) — and the Afrikaner Bond, and Rhodes’ challenging statement that there shall be equal rights for all civilised men south of the Zambesi.

He gave a definition of a civilised man.

I do not know whether he did that.

I will read it.

Yes, let us hear it.

“A man whether white or black who has sufficient education to write his name, has some property, or works, and is not a loafer.”

I accept it. Will the hon. member accept it?

I do not. If that is your test then in a few years’ time you will be giving the vote to every black man in South Africa.

That does not frighten me at all, because I know what will happen.

That is what you are aiming at.

I represent an urban constituency and I will be held responsible for what I say in this House. I am prepared to face it. I have made exactly the same speech for ten years in a platteland constituency.

They chucked you out afterwards.

Of course they chucked me out, just as the hon. member will be chucked out one day. Let us take Natal. That province has always been the scene of discord right from the beginning. They were more British than the King. Then they threatened Churchill over Bambata and threatened to cut the painter. Then encouraged Indians to come to their country to cultivate their fat lands and dig their coal because their own labour, both European and African was ignorant, impotent and slothful. Natal has been built up on the broad back of the Indian peasant. My mother came to Natal when she was a girl many years ago. She died almost at the age of 90. She was one of the first women to support the Nationalist Party in this country.

She was better than you were then.

The last time we went together through the fat lands of Natal she said: This part of the country was jungle when I came here, the white man could not look after this country and it was built up by the Indian. And it has been built up by them, there is no doubt about it. Not a good word has been said about the Indians in this House during the debate. Everybody who has got up here has said he is a bad and awful type of man. Our figures prove that the Indian on the whole forms a most law-abiding section of the community. He is certainly the only farmer I know that has carried the soil with his own hands when there has been erosion and saved the slopes around Durban, while the white man in the Free State has allowed his land to be washed to the sea. Our friends always think of the rich Indian merchant, the Mohammedan, but the majority of the Indians are first-class workers. In our Cape hotels they have won such a good name that the proprietors do not want them to leave. They are trying their best to keep them here. They are going to the Minister of the Interior and saying: For goodness’ sake do not allow those Indians to go back. I know of a member of Parliament who is going to the Minister over the same thing.

I do not believe it.

Ask the Minister whether it is right or not. When these Indians were in Natal for some years, due entirely to the laxity of the Europeans in Natal and to the absence of education and decent wages, the authorities and the Town Council in Durban turned a great portion of the city of Durban into a vast poor-house, because the white capitalist of Natal sweated and exploited the poor Indian. On the railways it was the same. When Natal came into the Union the Natal railways were run by cheap Indian labour, and it was Charlie Malan who introduced the white man to the railways there. But all the Indians get is jeers and sneers in this House. It is not an Indian problem but a European problem to be solved by this House. The provincial representatives of Natal have not been able to extend their own feelings beyond the horizon of their parish pump. I feel sorry for the Prime Minister, just as I feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition. He (Dr. Malan) was in an awful position. Natal kept on clamouring and clamouring, and he tried to do his best. The Nationalist Party at that time did their best also to solve the situation, and they brought Mr. Sastri to this country, and they tied South Africa to India by bringing Mr. Sastri to this country. So pleased were the Indians that they placed a wreath of roses round the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition. I personally attended a dinner where I heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition get up and praise Mr. Sastri and they shook hands about the wonderful thing they had done about tieing this country to India. The Leader of the Opposition and the Nationalist Party brought the High Commissioner for India into this country and nobody else. Now they want to turn him out of this country. I think it is only fair to say that political rights may be divided into three classes — the right to lead a full life, the right to own property and the right to the franchise. Those run down the corridor of history, and this Bill denies the Indian the privilege of leading a full life. Natal sinned when she brought slave labour into this country. Slave labour was brought from the slums of Bombay and Calcutta and other big cities and these indentured Indians came to work in the sugar plantations of Natal at 4s. or 5s. per week.

They got more than they got in India.

That is no argument. My forefathers and I am sure the forefathers of most members in this House got far more money in this country than they did overseas. Naturally they got more, otherwise they would not have come here. The 1820 settlers got more money. Van Riebeeck’s settlers got more money when they came here. That is why all these people came here. There is no need to sneer at what Gandhi said. Gandhi said that these fellows came from the slums of India. Look at the history of the white man in this country and see where we came from. We came from the working classes of Europe. My hon. friend talks; he has never read his history. Let him read what the poet Pringle said about the 1820 settlers, and let him then come and talk to a man who knows what he is talking about. I say that Natal sinned when she brought in indentured labour. If indentured labour is not slave labour, I ask my hon. friend what slave labour is.

Are the mines sinning when they bring in Portuguese native labour?

Of course, they are sinning. But the sugar industry is now getting rid of its Indian labour. They are now bringing in indentured labour from Portuguese East Africa. Again Natal is sinning in bringing in indentured labour from Portuguese East Africa and Pondos from the Cape, and one of these days they will have so many Pondos in Natal that they will come to this House and ask us to peg the Pondos. Yes, they sinned and the wages of sin is death. Whatever this House thinks, whatever resolutions this House passes, whatever Bills this House brings forward, whatever wonderful speeches are made by Natal members—and I have heard nine Natal members speaking; and they have all made different speeches and laid down different principles — the future of Natal is black. It is a physical problem.

If you have your way the future of South Africa will always be black.

The physical problem was laid down by the extraordinary reactionary but polished speech of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). He gave figures which showed that the white population in Natal is not producing its species whereas the Indian population is increasing enormously.

They are over-producing; it is part of their religion.

My hon. friend says it is part of their religion; he says they are overproducing. Those are the facts. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) told me the other day that he went to Ladysmith on business and he had to visit the richest man in the north of Natal who introduced him to sixty sons.

No, he did not tell you that.

How many daughters?

This is no laughting matter. The hon. member says that he was told this at a public meeting which he held in Ladysmith.

And he believed it.

He believed it. There is no man in this House, from the Prime Minister down to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz), who will place his hand on his heart and say that that is not a real problem. And here I want the help of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), and I want the help of hon. members opposite. Let us open our gates to western civilisation and bring white men into this country. That is the answer to this problem. Let us open our gates and go and fetch as many Hollanders as we can get to come to this country, and as many Germans as we can get to come. Yes, Germans make good colonists. Let us get as many Englishmen as we can persuade to come here, and let us do it as fast as possible.

What is wrong with the Scotch?

My hon. friend wants to know what is wrong with the Scotch. Nothing. But will my friends on the other side who always talk about white South Africa, about the white man being the boss in this country, will they encourage this Government or the State to bring white men into this country so that we can meet this great black cloud that is going to overwhelm us unless we bring more white men into this country? I am asking the hon. member for Waterberg to answer now on behalf of his party: Will he encourage State-aided immigration into this country?

I have said over and over again that we will be in favour of the right type of immigrants once we have made provision for our own poor people in this country.

That is the man who says: “Die witman moet die baas wees.” (The white man must be the master.) How many poor people have you got to put on their feet?

If this country is developing industrially, as our policy lays down, there will be scope for immigrants, provided they are of the right type.

But we do not want any Arthur Barlows here.

Order, order.

The hon. member cannot answer the question.

I have replied to your question.

This question will go to the country, and the country will decide whether hon. members opposite are playing a party game, or whether they are playing a game of trying to save this country for white civilisation.

That will be your test, too.…

Just before I close I want to talk to the Leader of the Opposition. One of the greatest points he made against this Bill was this: he asked what right the Indian had to be in this country, what right he had to the franchise when he runs to Russia, when he runs to England, when he runs to America and to India and to other countries to get more rights for himself in this country. We older men in this House remember very well that the same Leader of the Opposition went to his friends to try and get on to an English man-of-war—to go where? To go to America to ask America to interfere in this country.

Now you are talking nonsense.

My hon. friend must read Hjalmar Reitz’s book.

On which man-of-war did they go?

I did not say that they went on a man-of-war.

What did you say then?

I said they went down to their friends and the. Admiral offered them a man-of-war. They wanted to go to America to get America to help them to get their Republic.

But that is not true.

They had to go to America in order to get to Britain. [Laughter.]

I don’t know why there is all this laughter, because the only boat they could get was via America.

Many years ago, in June, 1938, I remember an interview that was given by the members of the Dominion Party on this question of Indian representation, and the heading came out of my own paper. [Laughter.] My hon. friends need not laugh. This is from the “Sunday Express,” which all my friends over there asked me to send to them for nothing. I read here—

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) was asked what his views were and he stated—

Then the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) was asked what his views were and he expressed himself in favour of the representation of the Indian in Parliament. Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer). He said—

My hon. friends of the Dominion Party, with the exception of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt), all expressed themselves in favour of legislation of this kind. But the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) who is always cautious, said: “I would like to think it out.” The Dominion Party accepted the principle that the Indians should have representation in this House. I then wrote an article on this and I said—

I am not going into this question again because it has been discussed ad nauseam, but I would just like to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this: He says this is a domestic matter. Hon. members will remember that he was the Attorney-General of the old Transvaal Republic, and I was the political reporter for the Argus group. That was a long time ago. When Cunningham Green used to come and see him on behalf of the British Government he used to remark: “This is a domestic matter; this is a question which we must decide for ourselves.” And then the Prime Minister rushed his fences as he is rushing them today, and he sent an ultimatum to England. He rushed into this matter and through that he changed my nationality. I only hope that he is not going to change it again. As an old man I want to say to the young members in this House that they must come together, because they have to solve a most difficult problem; this is the most difficult problem that South Africa has ever had. Forget about the leaders of the parties. Go into the world and talk to the young black man and the young native and the young Indian and get him to come and sit down and reason with you and see if you cannot save this country for western civilisation. We old men have probably lost it for you. We have done our best but we have probably lost it for you, but your opportunity has now come. The leaders of the parties in this House are all over 70. Time rolls on and men go. I hope that they will not go for many years, but they will go one day and the future of South Africa lies in the hands of you young men, and it does not lie on the lines of this Bill. It lies on the lines of the Atlantic Charter, where the white man need never be afraid that any colour will be on top. The white man has never stood back for any other colour, whether they be Asiatic or Negro, and I say that the young men of South Africa need not be afraid. Take your courage into your hands and go forth into the world and say: “We are prepared to meet anyone on this basis.” We shall be the boss in South Africa, and we shall only be the boss by giving the proper rights to all people in South Africa.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) should remember that this is the House of Assembly and not a club where old men exchange reminiscences. Furthermore I think the time has arrived for the hon. member for Hospital as well as other members on the other side to make up their minds exactly where they stand on this Bill. After cracking up the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance, after cracking up the Indians…

He cracked up himself.

Yes, do not forget that. One need only read last week’s issue of “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly” to see how the hon. member cracks himself up. After cracking up the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance and after cracking up the Indians he suddenly realised the implications of this Bill, and advocated a bold policy of immigration to save the white man in South Africa.

I said so.

It is time that hon. members on the other side make up their minds exactly where they stand. All of which goes to prove the correctness of the statement made some time ago in a certain English monthly that “the United Party consists of irreconcilable elements, and all that holds them together is plain fear of the Opposition”.

I want to devote my speech particularly to the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance. If one or other of the modern-style biographers were to write the life history, particularly the political history, of the Minister of Finance, he would probably entitle it, “The Strange Case of Mr. Hofmeyr”. This morning this House was treated to a political eggdance by the Minister of Finance. Let me put it this way, that it was more like a combination of an egg-dance and a swordswallowing act.

Let us get on with the Bill.

It is much easier for a certain type of person to swallow his principles than it is for another man to swallow a sword.

Ask your leader about that; he is an expert.

If this Bill could speak, it would in respect of the speech made by the Hon. Minister this morning be like a coy young girl who picks the petals off the flowers, and says: “He loves me; he loves me not”. I made a note of the various statements made by the Hon. Minister in regard to this Bill. He started off by saying—

“He loves me not.” He goes on to say—

“He loves me.” Then again —

“He loves me not.” Then he goes on to say—

“He loves me not.” Next he says—

Again “He loves me not.’4 But then again—

“He loves me.” And then he says—

“He loves me not.” And then again—

“He loves me not.” Next he says—

“He loves me.”

And then he ends up by saying that it is a tragedy that we did not get the consent of the Indians. On that note he ends: “He loves me not.” I think that more or less puts the position of the Hon. the Minister of Finance in a nutshell.

But let us be serious. The attitude of the Hon. Minister this morning was not merely the performance of an egg-dance. No, Sir, it is something much more serious. It goes far deeper, and the attitude of the Hon. Minister has very definite implications. The Hon. Minister stated on more than one occasion this morning that he regarded this as an important Bill. He used these words—

We entirely agree with that part of the Minister’s statement, particularly in regard to the implications of the Bill. It is an important Bill. Now the question arises— and I wish to discuss that for a moment— what is the position of the Hon. Minister of Finance in the Cabinet? I want to discuss very briefly the constitutional position that has been raised by the attitude taken up by the Hon. Minister of Finance this morning. That, Sir, cannot simply be brushed away, as the Minister of Finance tried to do by saying that after all he was going to vote for the Bill.

That is our concern; why are you worrying about it?

The hon. the Minister of Finance, and also the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, will agree that there is a fundamental issue in this Bill, a fundamental principle, viz., the principle of segregation. In regard to that fundamental issue, the hon. the Minister of Finance is not in agreement with his leader the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. That is the constitutional issue which is raised by the speech made here this morning by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance stated his position very clearly on the question of separation, more commonly known as segregation, which is an inherent principle of this Bill, particularly the first part of the Bill relating to land tenure. He stated his position very clearly. He will admit that himself. He condemned the colour bar….

The colour bar in Parliamentary representation.

The Minister condemned the colour bar in general terms.

No, in Parliamentary representation.

And what about your “herrenvolk” speech?

I am coming to that. The general impression conveyed by the Minister of Finance this morning was that in general terms he was not in agreement with the principle of the colour bar, and I will also quote from his speech made at the Witwatersrand University ten days ago to show that that is actually his view.

He corrected you this morning.

He condemned not only the colour bar, but he went so far as to say that he was prepared to extend the Indian franchise to municipal councils. He said—

In Parliamentary representation.

It may be. I challenge the Minister to say whether he is not generally known as being one who is opposed to the colour bar in this country.

You stick to what I said in the speech.

I will stick to what the Minister said, and I will also quote the Minister’s own words spoken at the Witwatersrand University ten days ago. He said this morning—

When he referred to “this Bill”, he included the first part of the Bill, viz., the Land Tenure section of the Bill, which deals with territorial segregation. That is what he said, and it is clear enough. There can be no doubt whatever in the mind of any hon. member in this House, either on this side or on the other side of the House, as to what the attitude of the Minister of Finance is in regard to the colour bar provisions, as he calls them, of this Bill.

Let us contrast the attitude of the Minister with that of his Leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. What did the Prime Minister say in his speech?—

The Prime Minister went further and said—

Now let us for the moment take the Minister of Finance at his own word that he was referring only to the colour bar in Parliamentary representation. I say that, also in regard to that matter, his view is diametrically opposed to that of his Leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who says—

I return to the main issue. The fundamental issue of this Bill, apart from side-issues, is the question of colour separation, particularly in the first and also in the second part of the Bill. I say that the Minister of Finance and the Rt Hon. the Prime Minister are at odds with each other on that issue. The “Cape Times” is now coming out in full support of the Indians. There is no doubt about that; the “Cape Times” said that the statement quoted from the Prime Minister’s speech seemed to be an enunciation of a new attitude on the part of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. The “Cape Times” is very perturbed about the attitude of the Prime Minister, and puts this question—

There is undoubtedly a distinct difference on the fundamental issue of the Bill between the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. The question arises as to what the position is from the constitutional point of view. It is hardly necessary for me to deal with the constitutional position. We all know—and the Minister knows it—that in that respect our practice is based upon that of Great Britain, upon that of the House of Commons. It has been clearly laid down by authorities on constitutional practice that on a fundamental issue there cannot be a difference of opinion between a Minister and the Cabinet, or between a Minister and his Prime Minister.

Why not come to the Bill?

I am dealing with a fundamental issue in the Bill. Do not run away from that issue; that is what the hon. member is now trying to do. It was laid down as early as 1878 by Lord Salisbury—

And that is exactly what the Minister of Finance said. He said that he regarded this Bill as a compromise, and for that reason he was voting for it. And then in the rest of his speech he proceeded in so many words to condemn the attitude taken up by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Let me quote further from the most recent book on British constitutional practice, viz. “Cabinet Government,” by Jennings—

Then the writer proceeds—

And that is exactly what is not happening today. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are not telling the same story in regard to this fundamental issue of this Bill. That is the position.

We are not worried at all; why are you?

The Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance says he accepts the Bill as a compromise, and then he proceeds to condemn it; he condemns the fundamental issue of the Bill. He said: “I cannot vote for the Bill because of the amendments put forward by the Opposition.”

No.

Yes, most decidedly. He says: “If there is nothing else which will make me vote for the Bill it is these amendments.”

No, I said that the opposition coming from that side made me more convinced that I am right.

I am prepared to accept that; it’s the same thing. What is very clear is that the Minister is not so much voting for this Bill as against the attitude taken up by the Opposition.

No.

That is what you say. The position is that we have here a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and the Deputy-Prime Minister on a fundamental issue on this Bill. I wish to point out that in the past the Minister of Finance has resigned from the Cabinet on a much less important issue. [Opposition cheers.] He resigned in 1936 because of the appointment of Mr. A. P. J. Fourie as a representative of coloured interests in the Senate. He resigned purely on a question of opinion as to whether Mr. Fourie was the right man to represent non-European interests in the Senate. But after listening to the Minister of Finance this morning one is forced to the conclusion, particularly after witnessing the egg dance which he performed, that he on this occasion has not the courage of his convictions. [Laughter.] It is no good laughing. It is a fact, and you cannot laugh it away. The words of the Minister of Finance stand in Hansard as proof of the fact that either he has not the courage of his convictions in regard to this Bill, or that he is not prepared to relinquish his post on a fundamental issue in this Bill.

Has he not done that before?

I am very glad indeed of that interruption. I will deal with it later. May I once more quote from this latest work on Cabinet responsibility. It says—

And that is what happened this morning when the Minister of Finance swallowed his objections in regard to the segregation principles inherent in the first part of this Bill. We are driven to the conclusion that the Minister of Finance, whilst making a parade of his principles, has in fact swallowed them in so far as the segregation principle is a fundamental principle and a fundamental issue of this Bill. This is what I have termed “The Strange Case of Mr. Hofmeyr,” which brings me to the interruption of the Minister of Native Affairs.

It is necessary to devote a few minutes to the past political record of the Minister of Finance. It is necessary to do so, because it is well known that the Minister of Finance has been designated as the successor to the leadership of the United Party, the successor to the Hon. the Prime Minister. It is therefore necessary that the country, and also his own party should know what his record has been in the past, in regard to these matters.

For many years the Minister of Finance has admittedly been the upholder in this country of liberal traditions, the leader of the liberal forces in the country. He has always been regarded as the champion of what he has termed “equal rights for all races and sections of the population. He has been in the forefront of the fight against what he himself termed in his recent speech, the “racial and colour prejudice in this country”. On each and every occasion the Minister of Finance has expounded his ideas and his ideals. The country is accustomed to the high moral tone adopted by the Minister of Finance. Even in his Budget speeches the Hon. Minister of Finance has been accustomed to adopting that high moral tone.

You do not object to it, do you?

I object under certain circumstances, as I shall show. But history and experience has shown that it is very difficult consistently to act up to high moral standards. Many, like the Minister of Finance have set out to scale that steep and narrow road leading up to the heights of idealism, and many have fallen by the way. Others have branched off on the branch roads of political expediency; and others merely slip and slide: And that, I am afraid, is the strange story of the Minister of Finance. He is slipping and sliding badly.

His attitude today, in swallowing his principles in the matter of segregation, was not entirely unexpected. For some time it has been apparent from lobby gossip that there were differences of opinion in the United Party caucus. It has also been evident that the Minister of Finance has been preparing himself for the painful act of swallowing his own principles. Which brings me to the speech made by him at Witwatersrand University. Sir, that speech gave a ray of hope to the Liberals who have been following his lead in the past…

Those negrophilists.

… because in that speech he complained about the strength of prejudice— “race prejudice and colour prejudice in our midst”; he stated his liberal convictions with considerable force. He could not have stated it more plainly than he did at the Witwatersrand University on 18th March, 1946. And what is very significant is that the speech was made on the day following upon the introduction of this Bill into Parliament. It was made on the following day after the Prime Minister had moved the first reading of this Bill. The question probably occurred to many of the Liberals who look upon the Minister of Finance as their leader: Was the Minister of Finance serving notice upon the Prime Minister that he was going to oppose the Indian Bill in Parliament? He specifically mentioned the Indian question in this speech—

And then he proceeded to say—

“May.” You are reading more words into it than there are.

I beg your pardon. I am reading every word that is here. Blame the reporter if it is not correct, but do not blame me.

He is doing what he did a few weeks ago.

I will again read the words as they stand in this SAPA report; not a “Burger” report, but a report from the “Cape Times”—

Those are the words, and the Minister must either blame the newspaper, or retract his suggestion that I did not read the correct words. Does the Minister retract?

The report is not correct.

It is not my habit, as is the case in pamphlets issued by his party, to omit certain words.

It is clear that the Minister of Finance in his speech connected what he termed “the Herrenvolk attitude” with the Indian Bill, and I am satisfied in my own mind, and I think every student present there that night, was certainly under the impression that the Hon. Minister of Finance indicated that he was opposed to the segregation principle inherent in this Bill. That was the only possible impression he could convey.

Is he in favour of segregation at the university?

One does not know. He says he is only in favour of segregation in regard to the franchise. Is he in favour of segregation of students at the universities? Perhaps the Minister will explain to us? No, he remains silent. That is what the hon. the Minister said on 18th March. Liberal Youth of South Africa was in great fettle. At last there was a lead from the Minister. So also were the Indians, who later, however, expressed their disapproval and disappointment with the Minister’s attitude, and said it was not much good paying lip service to the ideals of racial equality. They accused him of paying lip service, those same people whom he today protects.

Today came the dawn of disillusionment, when the Minister told the House what his attitude is. He is going to support the Bill. He does not agree with some provisions of the Bill, and other provisions shock him, but he will yet support it.

Those Liberals in South Africa who have been accustomed to look to the Minister of Finance for a lead should have known him better, because this is not the first time that he has swallowed his principles. And now I come to the interjection of the Minister of Native Affairs.

Let us go back to 9th September, 1938. How well we remember that afternoon when the Minister, like a modern Luther, faced an unsympathetic House.

“.… with every fibre of my being….”

I will come to that. He said, in effect, “I cannot do otherwise.” He stated that he’ was resigning from the Cabinet. Why? Because he did not believe that Mr. Fourie was the right man to represent nonEuropeans in the Senate? What did he say?

I leave my colleagues on a matter of conscience and of principle. I do so without rancour or bitterness of any kind. … There are involved in this matter issues of a sound Parliamentary tradition, there are involved in this matter issues of constitutional propriety, there are involved in this matter issues of fair play for the non-European people in this country. But there is also a moral issue involved in this matter.

And there he proceeds to quote from a speech made by him at a Junior Chamber of Commerce meeting in Cape Town, and he says—

And then he proceeds to explain—

At that time he was still ascending the steep and narrow path to which I referred—

Brave words! Brave words! The Minister proceeds, and in the closing words of that memorable speech, a word-perfect speech, he says—

And on that note he ended his speech. That speech made an impression on every member in the House. “E’en the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer!” And Liberal Youth of South Africa girded up its loins, eager to go into battle, under the inspired leadership of Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr, their great leader.

Come back to the Bill.

That is all part of the Bill.

You seem to feel hurt.

But alas, that clarion call did not reverberate for long. A few years later we find our modern Luther slipping down the path of political expediency. A certain Sir Alfred Hennessy was appointed as representative of the non-European interests in the Senate, a person who knew absolutely nothing about native affairs, or about the interests of the coloured population. Did our noble modern Luther again resign from the Cabinet? No, not on your life! He held on to his Cabinet post. At that time he was already sliding down the wide and dubious path of political expediency. Already he had forgotten all about his clarion call. He did not even hear the echoes of that call. [Opposition laughter.] He swallowed his principles, apparently without much discomfort. Unfortunately once one starts sliding, one slides fast.

You seem to know all about it.

A tu quoque reply to my argument does not help you much.

Then came the Pegging Act. And once more our modern Luther who had sounded the clarion call was prepared to swallow his principles. He rose in this House and said there was a war on, and muttered something about seeing the war through. Again he was prepared to swallow his principles, and swallow the Pegging Act. And now, once again, the clarion call is forgotten, and the hon. the Minister has once again swallowed the principles. But by this time he is probably enured to the after effects of swallowing his principles.

Did he get indigestion?

He did. That speech on the Rand was a case of moral indigestion following upon the swallowing of the principles he had upheld in the past. Or shall I say it was a case of hiccoughs of remorse, following upon an acute attack of moral indigestion. That is the real significance of the Rand University speech.

So what?

That is exactly what it is. And what was the reason for swallowing his principles this time? After all, the war has been won. Is it perhaps because he now wants to win the peace, which is also in danger of being lost? Is that the reason why he is again prepared to swallow his principles? If that is the reason, it is a very thin one. I am afraid that the motive is a very much less elevated one, and that what we have here is in reality a conflict between the interests of the good old United Party and those of liberal idealism; it is the conflict against which the hon. the Minister warned the Junior Chamber of Commerce at Cape Town, that same conflict between political expediency and liberal principles. I still hear the echo of the clarion call on 9th September, 1938. Other hon. members on this side of the House, who listened to that word-perfect speech, still hear echoes of the clarion call. Only the hon. Minister of Finance no longer hears the clarion call. He has forgotten all about it. And poor Liberal Youth of South Africa has been badly let down; in fact, left in the lurch. I suggest that the less the Minister of Finance in future talks and preaches about principle, the better it will be for his political reputation.

And for his indigestion.

I now want to say a few words about this matter of the interference of the Indian Government in our domestic affairs, and what is more serious, the encouragement of such interference by the Indians of South Africa. In that connection I wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) who presided at a meeting of Indians held in the City Hall on the occasion when they protested against this Bill.

I did not preside.

I will not insist upon your presidency, but the hon. member was present and spoke. I hope the hon. member will not, as was done by the Minister of Finance, accuse me of not quoting correctly. The "Cape Times” reported that the hon. member told the Indians congregated there—

I would like to ask the hon. member: What exactly did she mean? What did she mean when she referred to “backing”? Was she referring to the backing which the Indians subsequently received from the Indian Government? I rather suspect that that was what she referred to.

I did.

She agrees. I say it is a most important matter that a member of this hon. House should actually go so far as to encourage a section of the population of this country to secure backing from other people, or from the government of another country. If ever proof were needed of the undesirability of having separate race representation in Parliament, that proof is forthcoming in the attitude adopted by the native representatives in this House during past years, and particularly in the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Cape Eastern when addressing this meeting of Indians.

As regards the interference of the Indian Government, combined with the action of local Indians in this country, I think that common sense requires that they should now decide what they are going to do about it. Neither the Government of India, nor the Indians in this country can have it both ways. They are either citizens of this country, or as Mr. Khare says, in his speech in the Indian Legislative Assembly, they are nationals of India.

What do you say they are?

I say the Indians in South Africa are an alien, and not an indigenous part of our population, and in that respect their position is not as strong as that of the native or coloured man. But that, as regards our domestic legislation and policy, particularly on the matter of colour question and segregation, the Indians are exactly in the same position as the native and coloured population of the country, and must submit to the policy and decisions of this House.

Whether they are South Africans or not?

I say the matter cannot be left in the air. In regard to the attitude adopted by the Indian Government, I think the time has come when the Indian Government must be told frankly that they cannot poke their noses into the domestic affairs of South Africa; and if they insist on regarding the Indians in South Africa as their nationals, they must make arrangements to repatriate them. In that connection I wish to refer to a remark in the speech of the Hon. the Minister of Finance, in which he suggested that the arrangement made by the previous Minister of the Interior, the present Leader of the Opposition, in regard to repatriation of Indians, constituted an approval of interference on the part of the Indian Government in the affairs of South Africa. Does the Minister deny that this morning he deliberately said that this is not the first time that the Indian Government has interfered in the affairs of South Africa, and that the Leader of the Opposition had been a party to such interference? [Time limit extended.]

I said that was based on a conference between the Indian Government and our Government.

I have nearly finished. I wish to repeat what the Hon. Minister said, and Hansard will bear me out. He said that the Leader of the Opposition had come to an agreement with the Indian Government with regard to the repatriation of Indians, and that that was a recognition of the right of India to interfere in our affairs. The Minister knows that it was the policy of the Nationalist Party Government to get rid of the Indians by repatriation, and he knows that no country will receive people who are not its own citizens unless its consent has previously been obtained. India at that time regarded the Indians in South Africa as Union nationals. One cannot deport or repatriate people without first having received the consent of the country to which they are to be sent. The Minister referred this morning to so-called “specious” arguments used by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), but if ever there was a specious argument, his statement in regard to repatriation was one. In fact, like the Greeks, I have another word for it, but will not mention it, because the Speaker will not allow me to do so. But that is the position. The Indian Government and Indians in South Africa cannot have it both ways. The Indians in South Africa have to decide once and for all whether they are prepared to be subject to the same laws and policy of the Union Government that happens to be in power, as natives or coloured people. They cannot have it both ways. If they are not prepared to accept that, and if the Indian Government regards them as their nationals, then the sooner they go back the better. And then for the first time they will experience what Dr. Khare in his sanctions speeches termed “a position of permanent inferiority”. In India they will for the first time realise what a position of permanent inferiority is.

There is one other matter which I would bring to the attention of the Prime Minister in the hope that he will deal with it in his reply. It is a matter not as yet raised by any speaker. I refer to what I term the Imperial aspect of the matter. In that connection we should like to have some information from the Prime Minister. I am not au fait with the actual relationship between Great Britain and the Government of India. It is a matter about which there is considerable doubt. India has a High Commissioner in London, and is represented in the Imperial Conferences, and yet India is not a Dominion. What we want to know is this: Whether, in regard to this reprisal measure against South Africa, passed by the Indian Parliament, it was necessary for the Viceroy of India to secure the consent of the British Government? We would like to know whether or not the Viceroy is in the position of the Governor-General in this country, who is able to confirm legislation without referring it to London. Was it necessary for him in this case to secure the consent of the British Government? If so, will the Prime Minister tell us what the attitude of the British Government was? We are often told —recently again—that there is continuous consultation between our Government and the British Government We would like to know whether the Prime Minister was consulted about this matter; whether he was informed by the British Government, and what the attitude of the British Government was. I think that is a matter on which we can expect a clear and unequivocal reply from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.

May I in conclusion point this moral in connection with this whole business? This interference of the Indian Government, and the probable support of the British Government—the probable support, I say, subject to what the Prime Minister may say….

Why probable?

Because I do not have the information; and because I do know that India is not a Dominion in the sense South Africa is. If you do not know it, it is time you knew it. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am perfectly entitled to say “the probable support of the British Government”. It is necessary, I say, to point to the moral. What has happened will, I hope, make members on the other side of the House and their supporters all over the country realise the disadvantages, the implications and the consequences of the British connection.

One would have expected from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) a clear exposition of the merits of the Bill. Instead of that we have had from him a diatribe against the Minister of Finance. I am very pleased we have had that from him, because we have now had in the course of a few hours two statements varying as far as the North from the South Pole about the same person. I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said about the Minister of Finance. He said he had been completely defeated and that he had to swallow his principles. Only a couple of hours ago the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said that this Bill was a triumph for the Minister of Finance.

I say it again.

And you say he has swallowed his principles?

In regard to land tenure conditions.

You cannot have it both ways. You said he had swallowed his principles.

In regard to segregation. On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with that matter of the swallowing of principles I was referring to segregation, and I repeated the word. I was referring to the land tenure provisions of the Bill, and the hon. member knows it.

It still bears out what I say. The hon. member for Waterberg said the Minister of Finance had had his way.

In regard to the franchise.

No, it was in connection with segregation and the whole Bill. But I wish to refute a statement made by the hon. member for Waterberg, who imputed that the Minister of Finance wished to convey the idea that he was going to do away with the colour bar in all its aspects and in all its bearings. What the Minister said had a bearing only on the parliamentary representation, and it had nothing to do with the colour bar in our social and economic life. He said: I wish to make it perfectly clear it is entirely in connection with the parliamentary representation on the communal roll. But the hon. member for Waterberg wished to convey that the Minister was in favour of the abolition of the colour bar.

Are you trying to apologise for what the Minister said?

The Prime Minister was correct when he said this Bill was an attempt to provide social peace and good ordering of our society in South Africa. I entirely agree with him, and for that reason I cannot support the amendment moved by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. If it was accepted we would have nothing but chaos, and we would never be in a position to come to grips with the problem, and what is more this is a question that brooks of no further delay. For that reason I support the Prime Minister. I believe that Indian opposition to the Bill will fall away as soon as they realise that their rights are now entrenched and that statutory power has now been given them to retain what they got. I think that ought to satisfy them; and as soon as they realise what we have accomplished for them they will be in accord with this Bill. I personally welcome this Bill.

In February, 1939, I had the permission of the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, and the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Stuttaford, to move the following motion—

That Bill would probably not have gone as far as the present Bill, but the same principle was envisaged, limiting the further purchases of land by Indians in Natal. Subsequently Mr. Stuttaford asked me to drop it as he intended to introduce a more comprehensive Bill during the following Session. As we all know, war then broke out and the matter had to stand down. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister took this opportunity in the first Session after the war to tackle this question.

There are three main views on this Bill. There is the view held by those who oppose it because in their opinion it does not go far enough. Those are the people who would like to break down all the barriers and who would like to open every channel. They would like to break down those barriers behind which the white community in South Africa has entrenched itself for centuries. Then there are those who think it goes too far. My hon. friends opposite hold that because you give a person an opportunity to express himself and to put his case before you, you are throwing away your own case, that it will be lost because you give the other man an opportunity to speak for himself. With that point of view certainly I cannot agree. Again there are those who think this is a reasonable attempt to establish good order and good fellowship between the various sections of the community. We honestly believe this Bill is an attempt of that nature, and for that reason I support it. I do not view this Bill from the extreme peaks, points and pinnacles of prejudice. I want to deliberately refrain from doing so, and I prefer to take the more rational view and to study this Bill from the realms of reason and reality. Imperfect as it is I regard it as a necessary step. No one today will have the temerity to say there is no real ground for anxiety in Natal on the land question. It has been said here—I think by the Minister of Finance — that under the agreement with the indentured Indians in 1860 Natal agreed, if after so many years the Indians were still to be found in Natal, they would have the right to land, arid some hold as a result of that that these people are entitled to buy all the land they wish. I cannot agree with that view. I cannot agree that because I ask a man into my house either as a guest or a servant that I am allowing him to take possession of the whole house. He must be satisfied when I relegate one room in the building to him. If I suspect he is going to take possession of the whole house no one will blame me if I say, No. And when you see European land disappearing as sand runs out of a glass you are bound to sit up and take stock. The Prime Minister has done that. In order to save our land it has been necessary we should make certain sacrifices in other directions, in extending rights and privileges and liberties not enjoyed by the Indians today. We are expected to give that, and we are giving it, and I am prepared to give it. I cannot understand the Indian opposition to this Bill; in regard to demarcating areas where Indians and Europeans can live together surely that cannot be taken as an insult or an injury to the Indians. I cannot understand them objecting to the application of that principle as it is a principle in their own Rational life and in India their temporal as well as their spiritual leaders practise it daily. Separation or segregation operates in their churches. Provision is made there for various castes to sit alone. Why then should such strong exception be taken when something is done in South Africa which is not really segregation, but only creating areas where they can live happily, where they can expand and do as they like. This Bill is not a segregation Bill, I emphatically deny that it is. Reference was made to the ghetto. I emphatically deny that this Bill aims at anything like a ghetto, or to send people to dark and dismal dens of depravity and degeneration known as the ghetto. This Bill is not a segregation Bill, it is a limitation Bill, and an extension Bill at the same time. It limits the areas in which Indians can buy land in Natal, and it extends the franchise to them in that province. I regret that the Indians should have appealed to outside opinion. They have gone so far as to evoke the sympathy and invoke the aid of India. Strikes and boycotts are threatened. Let me warn the South African leaders of Indian opinion that this attitude may recoil on them. They have succeeded in securing the support of the European. Do not let them alienate that support. If “boycott” is to be the watchword it will fare badly with the Indians in South Africa. This Bill will limit the acquisition of land in Natal by Indians, and we are entitled to that.

The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger)—she is not here now—in her speech the other day said: “Open your provincial barriers.” Does she extend that invitation to the Transkei and the Ciskei? No, she urges us to pull down the barriers, but not the barriers of the Transkei and the Ciskei and other native barriers. I want to know at whose expense these barriers are to be removed. You cannot remove the floodgates and then expect the flood to run in certain channels only. The whole country will be inundated, and the hon. member for Cape Eastern ought to know that. She stated further that Indian progress depends on further access to land by them. May I ask her again at whose expense that is to be done? The time is not far off when saturation point of land in South Africa for Indians will be reached. A solution therefore cannot be found along those lines. I hold that what is wanted if the Bill is passed, is not more land for Indians, and I shall show why. In 1929 the Indian population of Natal was 165,000 and in 1941 it was 245,000. In India in 1921 the population was 306,000,000 and in 1941 it was 389,000,000. No European nation has such a record. The prolific propensity and natural high fecundity of the Indian is unequalled. What is needed therefore is not more land but free education on birth control for the Indians. It has been said that by granting the franchise we are digging our own grave. With that I cannot agree. If you do not give these people representation your fear may be justified. We are taking this step in the interests of all sections. We are trying to do justice all round. Let us then temper our justice with mercy and let us not strain the quality of mercy. For those reasons I wholeheartedly support the Bill, imperfect as it is.

The hon. the Minister of Finance had the opportunity and the advantage a little while ago of listening to a long lecture on his conduct and on his principles from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I do not know what value the Minister of Finance will derive from that, but there was one point upon which the hon. member for Beaufort West said he agreed with the Minister of Finance, and that was the importance of the subject under discussion. I should like, in passing, to make this observation in relation thereto; I have never heard in this House a subject of any importance dealt with in so trivial a manner as it was dealt with by the hon. member for Beaufort West. It is not for me to defend the Minister of Finance—I shall have occasion in the remarks I make to disagree with him to some extent myself— but that speech consisted of a string of trivial personalities, nothing more. Yesterday the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) —who, I regret, is not in his seat—issued an admonition to my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), for having spoken in a way that would prejudice the interests of this country abroad. I do not think there was anything that fell from the hon. member for Cape Eastern to prejudice this country. What I think, however, is likely to do damage outside the country is the sort of remarks we heard from the hon. member for Sunnyside himself, and also from the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who is not in his seat either. The hon. member for Benoni made a reference to certain individuals, to a very disgusting incident, which he could only have referred to with the object of throwing the guilt of it on the whole Indian race in this country. The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the Indian community as failing to observe the integrity of agreements. I shall have something to say on the subject of agreements and who keeps them at a later stage in my remarks. I repeat, it is statements such as those from an ex-Minister and from a front-bencher of the United Party which can only be construed as an attack on a whole race, that do real damage to this country and its reputation and its prestige as well. This Bill rests on principles which I and my colleagues have always made clear we reject, to whatever race they may be applied. We regard those principles as inappropriate and unjust in a country which, whether we like it or not, is a multi-racial society. The principle on which this Bill rests, as I see it, is equivalent to the assumption that at a particular historical moment the majority which happens to have political power in its hands is wise and just in imposing on a minority a solution of a problem against the interests of that minority. That is subversive of the whole principle of government by consent, and what I have said applies in my belief, but with all the greater force, where that minority is unrepresented. The fact that this is a voteless minority we are dealing with in this Bill gives to them not a lesser claim, but a greater claim upon the consideration’ of every member. The Prime Minister recommended this Bill to the House on the ground that it was in accordance with what had already been decided, in accordance with the same principles as were laid down in relation to the natives in the Native Bills of 1936. Whatever the hon. member for Sunnyside may say—and I am speaking seriously here—our opposition to a measure of this kind is based on practical experience of how in fact this discriminatory and segregatory principle works. We base that opposition on experience, on years of study and investigation of thousands of individual cases of those affected by laws of this kind. We know from experience that to limit access to land, to the primary means of production, whether agricultural or industrial, is bound to lead to serious handicaps of a discriminatory character on economic opportunity. We know from experience that in practice it is impossible to lay down in advance, by way of a schedule to an Act of Parliament, residential areas which will satisfy the residential necessities of the individual which are governed by his opportunities for employment and not by what Parliament may do on a particular day or in a particular month. We know the hardships imposed in thousands of individual cases by attempting, in the case of natives, to do these very’ things. So far as the principle of residential separation of people of different races is concerned, we recognise, the Indian people recognise, that it is an ordinary attribute of human nature to wish to live amongst your own kind, with people of your own speech and religion and of your own race. We know that that is so, but the only way in which that principle can be practised in this country with justice to all is by virtue of voluntary agreements amongst those locally who are most concerned. I shall return to that topic in a moment, but I want to say a word or two in reply to the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B Payn) yesterday at the speeches made by the hon. members for Cape Eastern and Transkei (Mr. Hemming). He said—and the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) also mentioned it just now—“Why are you not prepared to throw open the boundaries of the Transkei or the Ciskei or Bechuanaland?” The answer is one that has been given many times. Those are areas of land settlement, and free purchase is not open to anyone in those areas. I am surprised at the hon. members’ not knowing that. Even a native can only take up residence there in accordance with regulations, just as in European settlement schemes, and he cannot dispose of the land as he likes. We have never accepted that the African should be prevented from buying land wherever he requires it for his economic purposes. We have in fact advocated it; and we have no objection to his competing in that field with any other race in the country. So far as the hon. member for Tembuland’s support of the principle of communal representation is concerned, I will deal with that when I deal with the franchise proposals. I should, however, like to make this observation in passing, that of all members of this House who have had most experience and knowledge of how the principle of communal representation works in practice, they are the members on these benches. I have already suggested that problems of this kind are matters that should be dealt with by those most affected locally by means of agreements and by means of consent. I want to elaborate on that. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of this Bill, spoke in terms which suggest that we are involved in a conflict in South Africa between Asiatic culture and western culture. That is an assertion which I feel bound to challenge. The Indian community, as a community, have already accepted, in terms of the Cape Town Agreement, Western civilisation as the goal of their own people. I shall deal in a moment with the interim position, but that is the principle accepted. They have not said: We are out to force our own institutions and our own culture or to propagate our own religion in South Africa. The goal of Western civilisation, which I suggest was visualised in the Cape Town Agreement, depends amongst other things, though not solely, on economic opportunities, on a rising standard of living, and the limitation of property rights is the most serious limitation on economic opportunities that could possibly be imposed. From the practical point of view you must admit that this goal of Western civilisation, visualised for Indians not taking advantage of the immigration facilities provided by the Cape Town Agreement, is not a thing which can be achieved overnight. In the meantime, therefore, there will remain Indian communities who have not yet achieved these standards and the need will therefore exist for the adjustment of such problems as arise as the result of inter-cultural contacts by agreement and consent. But, Mr. Speaker, the Government has itself accepted that principle, the principle of agreement and consent in the proposed solution of the Indian problem. They accepted it at the time of the Pegging Act. Some of us suggested at the time of the Pegging Act that we would oppose it, and would oppose it on the ground that it was likely to be permanent. The then Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Justice, said this when speaking on the Pegging Act—

That is the principle adopted by the spokesman of the Government at that time. What progress has been made in that direction? Well, there have been local agreements at Glencoe and Port Shepstone and elsewhere. There have been what the Prime Minister referred to as partial agreement in the case of Pietermaritzburg. The Pietermaritzburg Corporation made an offer to the Indian community of an area for Indian occupation, and that offer was accepted by the Indians before the Broome Commission itself. At a later session of the Commission that offer was withdrawn by the Council. I want to make that clear. The Indian community through their representatives accepted the offer and the Corporation repudiated it, and the Commission passed the very strongest strictures on this repudiation. As far as Durban is concerned, as the Minister of Finance told us this morning, successive Ministers who have been responsible for housing have passed the gravest strictures on the Durban City Council for its failure to make adequate housing provision for the poorer classes of Indians. I am not going to enter into that. We have argued the figures and the facts before in this House.

So far as Indian purchases are concerned, an attempt was made to reach a concrete solution through the appointment of the Lawrence Committee. Why did the Lawrence Committee break down? The reason is given in uncontradicted evidence by one of the secretaries of the Natal Indian Congress before a Select Committee of the Natal Provincial Council the year before last. This is what he said. He is Mr. Pather, secretary at that time of the Natal Indian Congress, and who had been a permanent member of the Lawrence Committee—

In other words, he wanted the Council to make areas available for purchase by Indians of the middle class, for the man who could afford to pay for his own house—

There is a lot of evidence here. These sites pointed out by the Indians were right away from the European areas. The Mayor of Durban agreed that some of these areas could be allocated to Indians, but the City Council did not agree. So that if the solution of the problem by agreement and consent has met with difficulties in Durban, that has been due to the failure of the Durban City Council, firstly to make adequate housing provision for the poorer Indian, and secondly to sell unalienated Council land in suitable places to the middle class Indian where he could build. That evidence is on record.

Now a further attempt was made to reach a more comprehensive basis of agreement— the Prime Minister has referred to it and so has the Minister of Finance—and that was the Pretoria Agreement. I have a copy of the memorandum before me which formed the basis of the Pretoria Agreement, and I want to make it clear that this agreement was not only come to between the Prime Minister and the Indian Congress. It was entered into with the acquiescence of Mr. Heaton Nicholls and the present Administrator of Natal, Mr. Mitchell. I want to make that perfectly clear. These are the vital parts of the agreement. It was a memorandum put to the Prime Minister and accepted. Later these terms were embodied in a draft ordinance which the Provincial Council referred to a Select Committee—

1. (a) ownership and occupation in rural areas for trade, farming and residential purposes;
2. (b) ownership and acquisition of property for trade, commercial and investment purposes as distinct from
3. (c) occupation of property for residential purposes in urban areas where the question arises of Indians living in close proximity to Europeans.

There is, we understand, complete agreement that no question has arisen or exists in regard to (a) and (b).

This I want to emphasise was acquiesced in by the Administration of Natal. They go on to say, further, as regards the residential juxtaposition of Indians and Europeans that they recognised that there was

The memorandum then went on to state that a board should be set up on which Indians were to be represented, and that the authority of the board should be restricted to Durban and such other towns as those to which it might be applied after enquiry by the board. Now what I want to make clear about this agreement, because of a certain passage in the speech of the Minister of Finance which rather gave a wrong interpretation to it this morning, is this: There was no agreement for separate areas. The Indian contention was that this question of residential juxtaposition applied only in individual cases, and they were therefore prepared to submit individual cases to a board so that evidence from the neighbours could be heard. And I do suggest to the Minister of Finance that he is not correct in saying that this agreement, which safeguarded property rights to the Indians and which did not include the principle of separate areas, but merely controlled individual cases of change of occupation, does not appear to suggest that the Indian community have in any way accepted the principles of a Bill which prohibits their further acquisition, except with permission, or in certain areas, of all land, whether business, agricultural or residential, and which is based on a principle of segregation. And, Mr. Speaker, I do suggest this Bill is based on the principle of segregation. By segregation I mean that people are forced to live in certain areas in their own country and their property rights are limited to certain areas. The Minister of Finance, in dealing in 1939 with the first Transvaal Pegging Act, made it clear that in his view the introduction of segregation by compulsion was inconsistent with the Cape Town Agreement, his reason being that the Areas Reservation Bill of the hon. member for Piketberg was dropped as a result of the Cape Town Agreement. These are his actual words. I do not quote in order to score a point. I agree with much of what he said today. I quote because I think they express better than I could my own contention in this matter. Referring to the Minister of the Interior introducing the first Transvaal Pegging Act, the Minister of Finance said—

Hear, hear.

I am merely repeating what the Minister has said. May I say that it would be impossible for the Government, in my opinion, to come forward with legislation which did involve the acceptance of that principle unless it had first specifically terminated the agreement with the Government of India, for which the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) was responsible.

Now, that is the contention which I maintain. I do not know of any other conclusion that could be come to. The Areas Reservation Bill of the hon. member for Piketberg was dropped because it was regarded as inconsistent with the terms of the Cape Town Agreement which required that Indians who wanted to remain here, who did not take part in the voluntary emigration scheme, which the agreement provided for, should be assisted to attain Western standards, and that could not be done without giving to them the ordinary property rights that other classes of the community had. In fact it was specifically laid down, as the Minister of Finance quoted this morning, that they should not lag behind any other section of the community. The Cape Town Agreement may have achieved less in the field of assisted emigration than the hon. member for Piketberg or anybody else expected, but nevertheless it is an agreement which so far as I know has never been terminated, and by which this country is bound. Thus this Bill involves, in addition to the principles I have already referred to, the principle of observance of treaty obligations. The Prime Minister said that this is a domestic affair of South Africa. Well, Mr. Speaker, of course it is, but one’s domestic affairs can also be effected by one’s treaty obligations. The whole question of minorities all over the world is involved in treaty obligations of one kind or another. And Mr. Speaker, I say this, that if Indian leaders have appealed to outside nations to intervene on this occasion, they have done no more, in fact less, than other sections of the community have done in the history of this country. After the Anglo-Boer War, there was a movement by people in the Cape to suspend our Cape Constitution. They appealed to Britain to suspend the grant of responsible government that we in the Cape had enjoyed since 1871. And then later a deputation, including the hon. member for Piketberg, went over to England after the first World War to try and get Mr. Lloyd George, eleven years after South Africa had entered into Union, to interfere in the internal affairs of this country. A description of this bizarre incident is given by the present editor of “The Cape Argus” in a book he has written on the life of General Hertzog. He says—

And they had to go by way of America to get to Britain—

Mr. Lloyd George turned down the deputation’s request. He said—

Those were people who had full franchise in a country which could make its own decisions in a free Parliament. But the disfranchised Indians are a different case and, moreover, their appeal is based on treaty obligations.

Now I come to the political proposals of the Bill. We have two traditions in this country. We have the tradition of the northern provinces, which, owing to historical circumstances, established a racial bar. But there is a different tradition, which is too often lost sight of, and that is the tradition of the Cape. From the time it first received the grant of responsible government, that political representation depended on the degree of civilisation that a man, irrespective of race, had reached. It was a principle to which all Cape people, whether Afrikaner or British, subscribed. That was a principle that was not questioned, but it is a principle which has been departed from in recent years. But nevertheless I believe it to be the right principle. When we on these benches said that we are opposed to communal representation, an hon. member said: “I hope you tell your electors that at the next election.” I want to say that I have always made it clear to the native people that I stand for the common roll, that I stand for the old Cape system. We did what we could to oppose the taking away of the old Cape native franchise. I still believe that this country will have cause to regret that it did not draw on the experience of the Cape Colony in relation to this Bill. I have made my attitude clear on this Bill. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). In my view the Bill infringes the principle of equality of economic opportunity; it infringes political principles which at one time worked so well in the part of South Africa which has been the home of my forebears for over a century. I go further. I agree with the Minister of Finance that it infringes treaty obligations by which this country is bound. I believe also that this British Commonwealth of Nations, of which we are still a member, is facing difficult conditions,, and that this country is making no contribution by means of this kind of Bill to the discharge of the obligations which are inherent in our association with that British Commonwealth of Nations.

I am not rising to talk about the Bill itself, but I am obliged to make a statement in reply to the unfortunate allegation that was made here yesterday by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I am not going to repeat the words he used. He used certain words which it is not necessary to repeat in connection with the female workers in the tobacco factory at Rustenburg and in the co-operative society. I just want to say that I reject that statement with contempt, and I want to give the House the assurance that conditions of this kind do not exist at Rustenburg.

Is there an Indian problem at Potgietersrust?

In 1939 an excellent hostel was erected for the female workers of the factory. They were housed there under the supervision of the Social Welfare Department. The wage scales were laid down four years ago under a wage agreement. This wage agreement was entered into between the employers and the trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and it was confirmed by the hon. member for Benoni himself when he was Minister of Labour. Those wages compare more than favourably with the wages paid in other factories in the country. I just want to say, therefore, that this statement is devoid of all truth, not only as far as the conduct of the female workers in the factory is concerned, but also with regard to the wages paid by the factories.

You know that the hon. member did not put it as you are suggesting.

Whether it was intended in that way or not, it is my duty as the representative of Rustenburg to deny it most strongly. That is all I wanted to do.

Although I do not derive pleasure from the misfortune of my opponents, I cannot refrain from referring to the scourge, the tremendous political scourge to which the Minister of Finance is subject. One could detect the disappointment in the faces of hon. members on the other side. Look at the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie). Judging by the reaction on the other side, it is clear that they were very disappointed at the formidable thrashing and chastisement which the Minister of Finance received at the hands of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Before saying a few words in regard to the Bill, generally speaking, I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) who is fortunately in his seat. On Monday when the hon. member made his speech he specifically drew the attention of the House to the fact that members of Parliament in dealing with such a delicate and intricate Bill are expected to approach it in an objective fashion. I just want to say to the hon. member that that is what we on this side have always done. We have always approached such intricate problems impartially and without prejudice. But I want to ask the hon. member, since he says we must view these matters objectively, whether it is not a fact that an intricate Bill such as this can, as a matter of fact, be dealt with more objectively by a Select Committee than in this House. He will have to admit that the amendment introduced by my leader does in fact make it possible to approach this involved problem in an objective way. The hon. member talks about objectivity, but in doing what he is doing he is making the greatest farce of objectivity. It would seem that the hon. member for Vryheid realises that a problem of this kind can be approached in an objective manner if one merely approaches it from the point of view of the Nationalist Party. That is correct. Objectivity in connection with such important legislation is identical to the attitude of this party in connection with these problems. The hon. member started to say that we must be objective, but later in his speech he used the following expression: He says he is going to vote for this Bill; he approaches it objectively, but when the time comes to vote he votes subjectively. He went on to say that we must not approach this problem from a party political point of view. I want to tell the hon. member that he should address those words not to this side of the House, but to the Prime Minister who brought this legislation before the House in this manner. If the motion of the Opposition to deal with this intricate Bill in a Select Committee is accepted, we can then approach it objectively and not from a narrow party political point of view. It will be seen that the hon. member is following in the footsteps of the Minister of Finance. He does not practice what he preaches. He talks about objectivity and a non-party political attitude, but as soon as he is called upon to vote and to act in public, he votes subjectively for this Bill.

How are you going to vote?

I am going to vote the right way. We on this side of the House have always dealt with these great problems objectively and we have always tried to keep them out of the political arena, and for that reason we are going to vote the right way and we are going to vote against this Bill. But I want to address another few words to the hon. member for Vryheid. In dealing with the hon. member for Vryheid I cannot help thinking of the days when he and I were both members of the Student Parliament at Stellenbosch. In those days the hon. member for Vryheid thought like a Nationalist and spoke like a Nationalist and he voted like a Nationalist, but when I again met the hon. member for Vryheid in this House in 1944 I found that he was still talking like a Nationalist when I spoke to him privately in the lobby, but I found that he was no longer voting like a Nationalist when he got inside the House. But in the course of this debate he has undergone a wonderful change. For the sake of objectivity he thought like a Nationalist in this debate and spoke like a Nationalist, but, believe it or not, he is going to vote S.A.P. I am convinced that the time will arrive, if the hon. member continues to make this progress, when he will not only think like a Nationalist and talk like a Nationalist, but when he will also vote Nationalist, but in that case he should act objectively and approach the matter impartially. In other words, he should adopt the attitude of this side of the House, and in that event he will not only think like a Nationalist in the future, but he will also vote like a Nationalist.

Now I want to deal more specifically with the Bill as such.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member is pleased that I am going to deal with the Bill now, but I think he may be disappointed by the time I have finished with the Bill. Perhaps he will then feel as the Hon. Minister of Finance must have felt after other members on this side of the House had dealt with the merits of the Bill. I want to say to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister with all due deference that he laid particular emphasis in his speech on the fact that this legislation is certainly not intended as an insult to the Indian population. When we study this Bill it is clear to us that the Prime Minister certainly did not intend this Bill as an insult to England, nor as an insult to India. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is too experienced a politician and too confirmed an Imperialist to do that. Who can deny that here we have a Bill where the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister acted very cleverly and in a very psychological way? That is why this Bill is a compromise Bill. There were certain factors particularly which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had to take into account when framing the Bill. In the first place he had to take into account the ultra-liberalists in this House like the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance and members like the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and a large number of others who are ultra-liberalists, and I think he also had to take into account three Cabinet Ministers. I say that he had at least to take into account that ultra-liberalistic element, but on the other hand he also had to take into account members like the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo), who experienced the pangs of conscience, just like the hon. member for Vryheid who finds himself in a dilemma as a result of the struggle between the East and the West. But the Prime Minister also had to take into account the members of the Dominion Party, those people who some time ago sent an S.O.S. to the Free State and who stated that they would rather have a European Republic in South Africa than Indian domination. I say that in framing this Bill, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister took those factors into account, but what is more, in approaching the Indian problem in South Africa the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister fully took into account not only the Indian population, but he took into account the following dangers, namely that the prestige of Britain in India must remain untouched, and in the second place he took into account the fact that he must at least avoid a clash between India and South Africa. I say that those five factors, as it were, influenced the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in framing this Bill, and he brought the Bill before the House in a very clever and psychological way.

That only goes to show what a good leader he is.

And now the first part of this Bill is being held out to us, especially to the conservative element in this House, and in the country, but let me give the Prime Minister the assurance that the first part of this Bill, which deals with restrictions on the purchase and occupation of fixed property and land tenure, is not something new. We have already discussed that in this House. I will not say these are all old things but there is nothing new in them. This is just the Pegging Act with perhaps certain improvements in that direction. But the Prime Minister was thoroughly aware of what the reactions of the Indians would be to the first part of this Bill. We have had experience of that. It is a matter that has been frequently discussed in this House, and similar legislation has in the past been piloted through the House. The Prime Minister was thoroughly conscious of what the reaction of the Indians would be to the first part of the Bill, and consequently the Prime Minister came with the second part of the Bill and it was presented in a fine psychological way. With what object? It was to have a calming effect on the mutinous reaction of the Indians which would be evoked by the first part of the Bill, and therefore the Prime Minister came with the second part of the Bill. It is drafted finely, Craftily and psychologically, so that the liberal attitude that the Prime Minister has taken up in granting the franchise to the Indians as far as the provincial council is concerned, and the granting of representation to the Indians in the Assembly and in the Senate will, as such, have a calming effect on the minds of the Indians. Do you see? Is it not clear? As far as these things are concerned, as far as the second part of the Bill is concerned, the intention was to calm the minds of the Indians. It was a fine psychological approach to the position, and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister took thoroughly into account that the prestige of Britain and the prestige of India must remain unimpaired, and in the second place that there should be no conflict between South Africa and India. But let me now put this direct question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister: Will he admit that he was mistaken in his anticipation of the Indian reaction to the second part of the Bill? The conflict between India and South Africa has not by any means been avoided, and the prestige of England has not remained unaffected by this legislation. The Prime Minister must now admit that the die is cast. It is not now a case of the prestige of England being unaffected, and it is not a question of there being no clash between India and South Africa, but, what is more, the prestige of South Africa is at stake, and if I am not mistaken the prestige of the Prime Minister is also at stake in regard to the attitude he has now taken up towards the Indians and South Africa. I wish especially to emphasise this fact. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister cannot deny that large concessions are granted to the Indians in this Bill. The Prime Minister spoke about the contribution that the Indians had to make. When you speak about a contribution that the Europeans must make, and a contribution that the Indians must make, you cannot get away from this fact that you are giving concessions to the Indians such as have never before been surrendered to the Indians in this country. But although we are making concessions which in my view are a milestone on the road to complete political equality between Indian and European in this country, these concessions are being combated by the Indian population, and what does this indicate? It is irrefutable proof that the Indians will not be satisfied with anything less in South Africa than complete political equality. This is also the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I would only say this, that though it appears the Indians are opposed to this Bill, and though this side of the House and everyone else is opposed to this Bill, it must not be assumed that we associate ourselves with the Indians. We do not identify ourselves with their standpoint, because their standpoint is that of the liberals. The difference between the standpoint of the Indians and the liberals is only a question of degree and method. When you, according to your opinion, set to work tactically and gradually to grant complete political equality to the Indian, you are sowing the seed for a demand on the part of the Indian that he must have political equality, and as soon as he has political equality it will only be used by him as a jumping-off place to demand complete and absolute equality in South Africa. The Indians appeal specially to the fact that they are a permanent section of the population of South Africa. They pose as Union citizens. Some of our hon. friends on the other side of the House are annoyed when we say that the Indians are in no sense Union citizens, or that they form part of the permanent population of South Africa. The Indians are always posing as Union citizens, but what happens at their congresses? They have spoken about the minority that is entrenched in South Africa for good. When these Indians raise opposition to this Bill at their congresses, or wherever it may be, they are trying by their action to torpedo this legislation, but when it suits them they want to be a permanent part of the population and then they wish to pose as Union citizens. But when they have to make the contribution that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister referred to, what line do they take then? Then they behave like people possessed; then they display an antinational spirit, then they act as aliens and that, moreover, in a very improper way. Here I should like to utter a word of warning and say that the way in which the Indians are reacting to the Bill will aggravate still further the racial tension between the Indian and white South Africa, racial tension which in the future will hold no good for the Indians as such. I think I should read out to the Prime Minister what the reaction of the Indians is on this Bill which the Prime Minister says is not intended as an affront to the Indians. I have before me a pamphlet that was published by the Indian Congress and that has been sent to all Indians in the Transvaal. It is a brief summary of what I regard as the reaction of the Indians towards this Bill. This is what is stated in connection with the congress they had in Johannesburg. Here they say—

It continues—

Can the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister see what the reaction is of the Indians to this Bill? What did they say later? I shall read another sentence—

Is this not clear proof to you of the reaction of the Indians to this Bill? Certain members from the Transvaal want to use this as a salve for their consciences. They say the fact that the Indians are opposed to the second half of the Bill is merely proof that the Government is right. Let me tell them this, that the Indians are indeed opposed to the second part of the Bill, but at the same time it is a big concession that has been granted to them. It is something towards which they have striven for a long time. If this is the reaction of the Indians to the second part of the Bill then I think I am entitled to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister what the attitude of the Government will be in the future, as well as at present towards this Indian penetration. What will be the attitude of the Government in the future in regard to this Indian interference and towards this Indian dominance? To comply with the claims of the Indians will mean paving the way for Indian domination. The foolish policy of granting the franchise to the Indians can only work in the direction of Indian domination. To us the choice is clear, and although this Bill before the House has been presented in such a way that the first part has just been coupled to the second to throw dust in the eyes of hon. members on the other side so that those members cannot make an honest choice, the choice before us on this side of the House is very clear. It is a choice between Indian penetration on the one hand and European supremacy on the other. The choice is very clear to us, and I say that as far as this choice goes we do not hesitate for a moment where we stand. We on this side of the House choose the side of white South Africa. India recently threatened to break off trade relations with the Union. As you see, they are also trying to place a choice before us.

They have done that already.

They have already broken off trade relations with us. They also want to force us to a choice. They want us to choose between trade relations with India, between rice and bags from India and the concessions they demand. We do not choose that, we choose a white South Africa, and I wish to say this to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of the Interior, who is every bit as much an ultra-liberal as the Minister of Finance, and the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), who is also an ultra-liberal, and to Dr. Dadoo, that communist Indian in South Africa, who is propagating that ruinous policy of equality in South Africa, that the Afrikaner people’s pride of race is scandalised by that ruinous policy of equality. The Government of India are engaged in attacking the position of Europeans in South Africa. We cannot get away from that fact. I say the Union Government ought to hit back. We ought not to sit still, and I would like to ask the Prime Minister what the Government intends to do. It is clear to me that the Government ought also to take drastic action now. If the Indians say they want to break all trade relations with us I want to say the best we can do now is this: As they are now resisting the second part of the Bill in such a peculiar way the time has arrived when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister should now scrap that part of the Bill. This will be in a great measure a reprisal. But there is a second reprisal that the Union Government can take, and I want now to put the question to the Prime Minister quite frankly: Does he not think the time has arrived when we should give the High Commissioner for India his passport and let him leave this country? I think the time has arrived when the High Commissioner for India in this country should be given his papers, because in his position in the country at present he is being used to embarrass the internal affairs of the country and, as it were, to incite the Indians. The Indian is engaged in taking measures against us. We shall strike back, and I will tell the Indians that the fight will not be confined to this House but it will be carried on outside. It will be continued on the platteland. On the platteland we shall show them, if they are aiming at getting into their hands the political and economic power, that we can take other measures. I see the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) is looking at me very meaningly. He knows that if we want to strike back on the platteland we can in many ways bleed the Indian to death, if this is the way in which they wish to act against the European population.

Now I come to the first part of the Bill. Even in the first part of the Bill there are defects. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a contribution the Indian is making, and he said this was the contribution that the Indian was making to South Africa. Just imagine. The contribution of the Indians in South Africa is the first part of the Bill. Is it really a contribution on the part of the Asiatics? It is indeed a poor and miserable contribution. Is the territory of Natal Indian territory then? Was it not the tremendous sacrifices and the superhuman privations on the part of the Voortrekkers that made the country habitable for us? This is not a contribution the Indians are making—to give to India a country that our forefathers civilised, and to apportion it out in the way that will occur by these mixed areas. Then there is the concession of separate and even combined areas. In my opinion this is no contribution the Asiatic is making to South Africa but it is a contribution South Africa is making to the Asiatic.

No.

I see the Minister of the Interior shakes his head, but I maintain it is a fact.

He does not understand what you are saying.

One of the hon. members who represent Natal in this House said only the other day that they think along the same lines as the Afrikaners and that they will work with the Afrikaners to preserve these rights of the Europeans. If you allot land to these alien people you cannot of course say that they are making a contribution to South Africa. It is we who are making the contribution.

Today they have the right to buy anywhere in Natal.

What have you the Pegging Act for them?

The Minister of the Interior does not think now that the Europeans are not making a contribution. We have already made a contribution to the Indians. When they could not find a haven in India we gave them a haven here and put them in a position to make a livelihood. Today they are much better off in South Africa than they were in India. One does not need to look far for proofs to support this. Just look at the way in which they multiply. The fact that our Minister of the Interior is today using the party for the Indians shows clearly that we have made a contribution. But we have made our contribution in so far that they live more happily here than they do in India. But then they must not expect that they will have the same say as the Europeans in the government of our country; they must not expect that we will grant them the same rights as the Minister of the Interior would grant them, namely representation in the municipalities or in the provincial council or in the Senate or here in the Assembly. They must not expect that we will allow that higgledy-piggledy kind of ownership and living quarters to continue in the country. I maintain that that must be stopped for good. The Transvaal members, especially such members as the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) wish to use the first part of the Bill as a salve for their conscience. I have made some study of psychology, and I can see that the hon. member for Middelburg is most unfortunate. If one makes a study of physiognomical expression, one must immediately come to the conclusion that he will at any rate use the first part of the Bill as a salve to his conscience. Do you know what the United Party members from the Transvaal now tell us? They say that they have now carried out the policy of separation and segregation with all its consequences. I say that is a misrepresentation; it is a conscience-salve in a certain sense that is used here. It is not the sort of segregation we stand for. Seeing there are still free areas in the Bill and the same process of denationalisation, seeing there is still this process affecting the blood purity of your people, will the hon. member tell me that this is the right sort of segregation; will he tell me that this is the sort of segregation that we on this side of the House stand for? I say that as it is, for example, outlined in the first part of this Bill, it is not segregation, it is a travesty of territorial segregation. The policy of segregation in the first part of the Bill is also founded on a farce, because on the one hand you have separate areas, and on the other hand you have free areas. I want to put it very clearly to the House this afternoon that as far as this problem involved in the first part of the Bill is concerned, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister cannot today give us the assurance that in future a policy of equality will not be carried into effect. He cannot give me that assurance. Then I would like to invite the Prime Minister’s attention to what he said at the Imperial Conference in 1917, because it has an intimate connection with the thought I wish to link to it. At the Imperial Conference in 1917 the Prime Minister made the following observations—

The Prime Minister was conscious in those days of the fact that we had a heterogeneous population, and that is why we have to deal with this problem today. But I read further—

I should like the hon. members opposite to listen to this. When they accuse us of a fear complex they ought also to accuse the Prime Minister of a fear complex. The Prime Minister has also held up to us the great dangers that threaten white civilisation in South Africa, and let me at once say that if the Minister of Finance, especially, hears what the Prime Minister says, that a nation has the right to self-determination and self-preservation, then I am not offended with the Minister of Finance when he may plead for the rights of other nations, but I make this retort to him: Has Christian European civilisation also not the right to self-preservation and self-determination? Have we as an Afrikaner nation also not the right to self-preservation and self-determination? Let me tell the Minister of Finance this. We do not make any excuses; if he has the courage to interpret the liberal opinion, then we are not ashamed to interpret our opinion, which is that selfpreservation and self-determination is the biggest motive behind our policy of separation, and, what is more, it is the essence, the force behind our policy. I want to tell the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance that just by this policy of race separation and segregation we wish to keep pure the blood of our white nation. We wish to maintain the political position of Europeans in South Africa, not only in the interests of Afrikaners, but also in the interests pf the other white races in South Africa. But, what is more, we wish to continue as a white race, we wish to assure the continuance of our white civilisation. We owe it to posterity to maintain this attitude of preserving the racial identity of the white man. Is there anything unjustified in that; is there anything un-Christian in wishing to protect the white civilisation for posterity? Most certainly not. I wish specially to emphasise this fact. I wish to direct a warning word today to the Minister of Finance. He ay be engaged in a serious conversation there, but I want to point out to him that there are also dangers that will threaten him and will threaten that Government. Public opinion is opposed to the ruinous policy of equality he is propagating. The Government knows this, and it is because the Government pays heed to public opinion that the Government has come to the House with a Bill that is a compromise. Not only the Prime Minister realises that, but even the ardent liberalists know it. I am convinced that the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance would never compromise himself by voting for this Bill if he did not know what public opinion in South Africa is. He takes account of public opinion, and consequently he is prepared to vote for the Bill. He knows his party is doomed to certain downfall when he comes with the policy he has announced in the House today and which he proclaims from time to time in public. Therefore you are forced to attach your approval to this Bill because you hope to derive a tactical advantage from it, because it will be the start…

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry that I addressed the Minister direct, but the Minister is so inseparably linked with this policy of equality that one is involuntarily drawn in his direction. But even an ultra-liberal paper like the “Cape Argus” stated the following on this question, and no one can say that the paper is not ultra-liberal—

This is what the “Cape Argus” says. But on the other hand what does it warn against?—

Is that taken from the leading article?

How do you know it is from a leading article? I am quoting something I read some time ago and clipped out of the newspaper. I shall leave that there. I have driven my argument home. I want my warning voice to be heard by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance as well as by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House. Public opinion is not only opposed to the policy of complete equality, but public opinion is even opposed to this Bill, especially against the second part of the Bill, because public opinion knows that the second part of the Bill is only a jumping-off place to obtain complete political equality, and that in turn will only be the jumping-off place for establishing absolute equality between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa. I can well understand the reaction from that side of the House against our policy of race separation. Race separation does not suit the imperialist and capitalist. The policy of the capitalist and of the imperialist is just that ruinous policy of equality because they wish to subject the non-Europeans in South Africa to a process of equality so that they can exploit the western civilisation, in order that they may be exploited by the imperialist and the capitalist. I say this is their policy. It is to me very clear that the big motive behind this policy of equality is not any humane consideration. It may be a case of considerations of humanity on the part of a few Europeans, but the fact remains that in the case of hon. members who are not only liberal but who are also capitalistically and imperialistically-minded the big motive is not humanistic but purely the promotion of their own interest. The imperialist and the capitalist and the liberal are opposed to this policy of race separation. The policy of race separation must be used as a stepping stone to a higher object. What object? An object that can lead to the exploitation of those non-European groups and the enrichment of the capitalist and the imperialist in South Africa. I want to conclude, and I will just say this, that a permanent solution to this Indian problem can only be arrived at in the future on one condition, and it is that we approach it in an objective and impartial manner, as the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) has already stated.

Hear, hear.

I am glad you say “hear, hear.” But then you must not only approach this problem objectively and keep it out of the party political arena, but you must approach it in an Afrikaans spirit and from a national standpoint. If we wish to solve this problem we must approach it from the angle of the traditional and historic race policy of the Voortrekker, which was not founded on unfairness and exploitation but which had as a sequel the reasoned, well-considered and scientific policy of separation, and it is only on that foundation that we can obtain a durable and permanent solution of this vexed and involved problem. I wish to make an appeal, and the appeal I make is to that side of the House, especially to members like the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) as one of the members who always comes and tells us that he feels very unhappy over this matter. We do not wish to make a political question of this. We wish to do what one of our great Afrikaners has said, one who enjoyed the high esteem of this House, and was previously Speaker. Dr. Jansen, in the “Inspan,” which deals with the chief foundations of the attitude of the Afrikaans-speaking people towards non-Europeans, said, inter alia—

This is not a political matter but rather one of self-preservation of the white race, English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking.

Now I want to ask my English-speaking friend who sits over there and who made an appeal to us as from Natal saying they would prefer a white republic to Asiatic domination. Do you think that it is only the Afrikaans-speaking part of the population who embrace a policy of separation? That was an appeal from the English-speaking to the Afrikaans-speaking people to take action. We will help you, but you must not make an appeal to us to come and save you and save South Africa and then tie up the question of separation in one respect to a drastic policy of franchise and also try to obtain the second reading of this Bill. I would make an appeal to the English-speaking, and the Afrikaans-speaking people to grip each other by the hand and try to find a solution of this vexed problem.

As a result of the debate during the past three days it should, I think, have become evident to the Prime Minister that further enquiry is necessary into the proposals contained in this Bill. For that reason we moved the amendment asking that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The position today is perfectly plain to the Prime Minister. He stated there were two principles contained in the Bill, the one being complementary to the other, and that both must be accepted. When he put that before this House he was guilty of conditional selling. In the early part of this war certain shopkeepers, if you wanted to buy an article for 10s. said: You cannot have that unless you buy this other article as well. You say to that: I do not want that article, but this one is all right. To that the shopkeeper retorts: You must take them both. The thing became a racket, and the Government had by regulation to make the practice illegal. But here we have the Rt. Hon. gentleman doing this inside the House. If he did it in the course of trading he would be fined £50. I feel aggrieved because I want the first portion of the Bill, with certain modifications, but the second portion is a totally different story. We have heard speakers from every side of the House —with the exception of the native representatives—say that they have some fault to find with the franchise proposals, and for totally different reasons. The Prime Minister is forcing something on the country that will have repercussions in the future, and I am going to appeal to him, that he has the support of the country in the first portion but the second portion being unwelcome he should give the country the opportunity to buy the article at once.

Then he must sell the Minister of Finance.

The position is a serious one and I approach it in a serious manner. Let us deal with the first portion of the Bill, which deals with zoning. For the Borough of Durban there are eight different portions, what are termed exempted areas, eight red spots. If ever one saw fruitful ground for trouble in the future it is those red spots, eight of them in one town alone. We have even a corridor in Durban, it is clearly laid down. A Select’ Committee would surely have found a much better plan and would have tried, if possible, to keep them down to one or at least two red spots. It can be done. It is a question of using a certain amount of common sense.

And the big stick.

Perhaps the hon. gentleman and his party may believe in the big stick. The big stick is there in this Bill, because as the hon. member heard me say in the beginning, we want the first section of the Bill but the second section is being forced on us.

Have you thought of what the Indian wants?

I am not concerned at the moment with what the Indian wants. For the moment I am dealing with the point of view of the Europeans, and in doing so we cannot approach it in the moral sense. We have to approach it in the political sense, and also bearing in mind the necessity for selfpreservation. We therefore cannot defend it, and I do not think the Prime Minister himself made any attempt to defend it, on moral grounds. It is something forced on the European population, and we have to handle it in the sense that we have to secure our Western civilisation and our Western standards. In order to do that we must have the Bill. If this Bill was sent to a Select Committee we could set up a much better arrangement than the plan to leave it in the future to a committee of five, two of whom may be Asiatics. I am not content to leave the future of the set-up of these exempted areas to any committee of five. I think there must be a fundamental rule laid down in order to secure that before that committee functions there will be a foundation on which they cannot go wrong. At the present time it looks as if our last stage may be worse than the first. I see dangers in the set-up from the very beginning, and what will be the position in a few years’ time? I appeal to the Minister not to hurry the Bill just to secure something which at the moment is bristling with difficulties. The Indians themselves have repeatedly told us they are not opposed to segregation by consent, but they are opposed to segregation by compulsion because that puts them in a position of inferiority. Proof of the effectiveness of segregation by agreement is shown by experience in the U.S.A., though over there it does not work entirely satisfactorily. They have had bloodshed and difficulties in Chicago and Detroit. In the Southern States the control is better. There is an element of compulsion, not directly but by methods which have secured peace, really a system of agreement between the two sections. I give an illustration to the hon. member for what it is worth. In dealing with transport in some of the southern States, the conductor has full power to allocate seats on his tram. When a white man boards the tram, the conductor allocates him a front seat, and when a negro comes on he is given a seat in the rear, or vice versa. The thing is very simple, but it works, and secures peace, and there is not the unpleasantness that you find in Cape Town. There is nothing in the sense of racial discrimination; it is simply left to the good sense of the conductor. The Indians have said repeatedly, and they have come to an agreement, with I suppose the usual provisos or reservations— the Asiatic usually has mental reservations, and there is some little loophole whereby he can get out of a bargain—we are told now, though there was an agreement it was not an agreement in the right sense because the proof is the Indians did not carry it out. Penetration took place, and took place to such an extent that they were certainly not accepting segregation by agreement. Therefore, the Pegging Act had to be applied as an emergency proposal three years ago. It was for a specified time; but so far we have not any knowledge of any preliminary steps having been taken with regard to preparing for the finalising of that Pegging Act. It may have been brought up in the Prime Minister’s own working with his Cabinet, but as far as this House and the general public are concerned, we had no knowledge until the beginning of this year that the Prime Minister proposed to bring in this Bill. This should have been provided for, in my opinion, at the beginning of this session, and then we would have had the opportunity to assimilate it, and by the time we met at the beginning of the session we would have been in a position to do justice to the Bill and evolve something that would stand the test of time and give, as far as possible, justice to both sections. We have seen the difficulties growing and growing, and I submit we are today faced with the most serious position this country has been faced with for many years in connection with the Indian question. We could have settled it if we had two separate Bills. Realising it is not for ourselves so much that we are legislating in this matter, but for future generations, the foundations of this Bill should be such that the measure would be sound and generally acceptable. Whether future generations will be pleased with the present Parliament for its action, or whether they will curse us, is a matter we cannot foresee, but at least with time and thought and the right approach, we could make the best possible Bill in the circumstances.

I follow on to the question of the franchise, and that is the part of the Bill I do not want. I do not see why it is tacked on to the Bill. It is the greatest and most important thing for any human being to have the franchise. Right through history we have fought for the vote, as in the early days in England and Scotland, where they had a heavily-loaded franchise, and it took them many generations to develop from that stage to the position of adult suffrage. So we realise, therefore, when we approach a question like this and we set up a system of a communal franchise for one section of the people simply because we have set up another communal roll for another section of the people, as against what we know is a common roll. We must question it when we are told that the communal roll is first to secure representation for these people, and secondly to secure that the European section shall retain the political power in this country. I think we all agree that it is essential to maintain western standards of civilisation, and for that it is essential that the political government of the country should be in the hands of the European section. But we are now told that it is because the system is going to meet the requirements of that section that we accept the principle they should have this representation and that it will not endanger the position of European government. This is not the way to go about it. I am not advocating it at the moment, but I say it is something the Select Committee could have enquired into: To what extent could what the Prime Minister wants be attained under a proportional system of voting? The proportional system is known to this House, and it is given to secure that minorities shall be represented. In so far as the Indians are concerned, if the voting was on a proportional representation basis, the loading could take place and be of such a character that only a limited number of Indians would be elected.

Do you advocate that?

If the hon. member would listen, he would know I am not advocating it, but I am saying it is a matter for enquiry. I want that enquired into.

Do you approve of it?

How can I say that? I want the various methods of giving the franchise enquired into. The present system as advocated in this Bill I am opposed to. I do not think it is going to be any good to the Indian. But he will use it. Of course he will use it. He will use it in the establishment of an Indian bloc which will be used all the time not, in my opinion, to assist the general government of this country and Western standards but to promote only the interests of that particular class of the community. We can at least say today, though the House is comprised of four different parties, that we do approach many of our problems from the national aspect, but I venture to suggest when we have this representation it will be a very different story indeed. The Prime Minister can take it that will not be a satisfactory solution. He will have more trouble as the result of this franchise than ever he has had before. That is why I strongly appeal to him to accept our amendment and set up a Select Committee. The enquiry need not take long. The points are fairly clearly defined.

I object to certain hon. members who support the United Party Government suggesting all the time that by appointing a Select Committee we would only be delaying a settlement of the problem. That reminds me of the Inquisition days, when the Grand Inquisitor had always one set of questions to ask the heretic when he came before the court. He asked: Why have you come to hinder us?. But history showed that the men and women brought up before the Grand Inquisitor were right, and the Inquisitors were wrong. I am not suggesting that the Rt. Hon. gentleman is in the position of an Inquisitor, but as an example of the worthlessness of the argument that by urging the appointment of a Select Committee we are hindering or obstructing the solution of the problem. We resent it, because we are in favour of the principle contained in the first part of the Bill and we are anxious to follow up with suggestions in regard to a settlement on the franchise proposals. We believe we have a very good case in asking for the Select Committee. The whole country has shown it is nervous of the franchise proposals and the repercussions will be considerable if the Bill is forced through. In respect of the first portion of the Bill certain amendments could be made and it could be made acceptable to the Indians. But in regard to the second portion no one wants the present proposals, least of all the Indian section themselves. So I appeal to the Prime Minister to give our amendment serious consideration. The Pegging Act, as has been stated, can be extended to cover the whole field in dispute at the moment. Let it be carried on for another twelve months, or another six months, and let us evolve a measure of real value that posterity will treasure and not pass an Act for which they may curse us.

When we consider this legislation in connection with Asiatic land tenure my mind involuntarily goes back to the thought that is mentioned, I believe, by Langenhoven, that we must hold the truth level. If we hold it crooked it is not only half a truth but a lie, so we should hold this matter level and look it squarely in the face. To commence with I should like to regard this matter as a painting which is hung up, so that we may see its background. Your thoughts then revert to the Voortrekkers. There has been mention on both sides of the Voortrekkers, and I make bold to say that if anyone in this House can talk about the Voortrekkers it is I. I shall endeavour to deal with the speeches that have been delivered here and I shall not indulge in recriminations with the other side because I have listened to all the speeches made by the hon. members opposite in which they have endeavoured to find fault with this legislation, and I can make nothing out of them. It is a case of people who have to look after themselves first before they look at anyone else. My thoughts travel back to the days of the Voortrekkers. They forsook the southern portion of the continent. The cause was the very same— the colour problem. They trekked to Natal and we know their history. We know it very well. We recall Slagtersnek; we recall Weenen, and all those places where horrible murders occurred, and where the limit of endurance was reached to gain a solution of the problem; and further to the north— Moorddrif. One can see all these features in the background to the picture. All this was done on account of colour. Well, the Indian problem filtered through. It commenced in Natal. Natal is a precious colony well. We recall Slagtersnek; we recall all these things I have mentioned, but the soil of Natal is also coloured with the blood of liberty and justice, and that makes it precious to us. I go even so far as to say that my father enriched the soil of Natal with his blood for right and justice. Therefore I desire that we should hold truth level in order that right and justice may prevail.

By giving Natal to the Indians.

The Indian problem trickled through from Natal to the Transvaal. I do not want to talk about the position in Natal because I do not know about it, though I do know that the Indians came there and were employed on the sugar plantations. Our friends who derived an advantage from that were certainly partially responsible for the difficulties in Natal. But the Indians filtered through to the Transvaal. Were we old Transvaalers unjust towards the Indians? Emphatically no. When the Indians penetrated how did they arrive in the Transvaal? They walked long distances with a whole shop on their heads. They began to take up business there. They began by begging and pleading for their load to be lightened a little, and for a little food to be given them. Were the old Voortrekkers unreasonable? No. They lightened the load. They did not know they were playing with fire, but they acted as good Samaritans towards these people. They gave them a place to sleep, and protection, and some food, and they made their load lighter. But the Indians were not satisfied with that. They penetrated further and began to take more and more. They wanted not only the business but they wanted equality. The old republic went so far as not only to deny equality but they also laid down that an Asiatic might not walk on the sidepath with a European.

What is the position now?

I shall be grateful if the hon. member will keep quiet, because I shall not give him any reply. I have seen with my own eyes and I have heard myself how they have penetrated further. The Voortrekkers treated the Indians with Christian charity, but they did not take that into consideration, and later legislation had to be adopted, but they endeavoured in every conceivable way to evade the law to secure permanence and to penetrate. When gold developments began they penetrated further. I am now painting the background. When the Voortrekkers had to purge the land of barbarism we saw no Indians there. That little group of Voortrekkers had on their own to clean up the country and bring civilisation to the north from the south. Later the Indians came like parasites and exploited the kindheartedness and Christian charity of the Voortrekkers in order to gain possession of those things the Voortrekkers had spilt their blood for. Things had got to that pitch that fifty years ago we were already confronted with this problem. It was to my mind exactly the same problem as that we are faced with today. What are we going to do now? There are members, on the other side who spoke about machine guns and such things. Fifty years ago we were also faced with this problem. What did the Transvaal and the Free State do? We went to war. To me it is still the same thing. At that time it was also the franchise. How did we emerge at the end? With a lost cause. But God be thanked we retained our rights, we opened our eyes; and now I come to my people and my nation who make such an appeal to my sentiment when they ask how I now feel. But who is the cause of the Indians having now penetrated further, so that a year or so ago we had to send a deputation to the Government to ask that they should stop them? Today I still say to the Prime Minister: Stop them, stop them. Things are moving too quickly. There is a big danger, the Indians are penetrating. Now it is not only the wealth of South Africa that they are after, but they also wish to meddle with our problems here, and they are making the position of the coloured people difficult for us. The Indians use every possible method. The Afrikaner people have sunk, and even our Afrikaner girls are used to promote their interests. And the difficulty is that when there is the smallest crisis our Afrikaner people are so weak because we quarrel about trifles. We buy from the Indians; if the husband does not, his wife and the girls buy from the Indians. There lies our difficulty. Now I ask hon. members on the other side why they do not speak about that.

But we agree with you there.

Why do hon. members not see that danger? When the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was Minister, I led a deputation to him and the late Mr. Piet Grobler, and we then discussed the matter. When we had finished he asked us where we purchased our things. We could not say otherwise than that we bought from coolies. I saw with my own eyes our own people driving 75 miles in a donkey cart, passing four or five shops on the way in order to buy from an Indian. Why? Because they might perhaps get their coffee a penny a lb. cheaper there.

But when we say “Buy from your own people” you say we are racialists.

I have seen all these things, and my thoughts go back and the whole picture unfolds before me.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 29th March.